The Collapse of the Prison System

Yesterday the right-wing philosophy that has ruled the US prison system for the last decades received a long deserved blow. A panel of federal judges issued a mandate to reduce the total number of inmates in the state of California in more than 25% in a period of two years. Notwithstanding future appeals, the decision is the culmination of a long process of deterioration of the prison system in California, once the envy of other US states and nations. Currently the designed capacity of the system is roughly doubled and inmates are accommodated in hallways in makeshift beds.

The consequences of this overpopulation are both cruel and unusual. Inmates spend most of the time locked up as the only way to avoid fights and riots. Contagious diseases spread rapidly among inmates and estimates speak of one death per week due to lack of medical assistance. Human Rights advocates have been warning about severe constitutional violations for years but their cries have faded amid the tough-on-criminals mentality dominating the country. Finally, after years of struggle, the federal justice has come through and ordered an end to these abominations based on the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the 8th Amendment.

This is the first official acknowledgement of the insurmountable failure of the philosophy that has dominated the country since the 80s. It might mark a turning point in the history of the prison system. But dissident voices have been around for a while and the debate has been shaping quietly in the background. The collapse of the system has been documented in almost every front. The rates of incarceration have skyrocketed in the last three decades and starting a few years ago one in every 100 adults in the US is in jail. Moreover, it is wholly unclear whether these costs have produced benefits, for the US leads the developed world in homicide rates.

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in Holland, the prison system has also been the subject of intense debate. However, the problem there is one the US wishes it had. The Dutch government has been trying to close 8 prisons for lack of inmates while the Right has tried to persuade the public of the need to put more people in jail. The cost of the initiative will be 1,200 layoffs. Even so, the Right has been unable to stop it. This strikes me as a bit bizarre. On this side of the Atlantic it is always the politicians who are trying to temper down the thirst for blood in the public, not the other way around.

Holland’s problem is envied by others. But things did not always go well for the Dutch prison system. Only a decade ago Holland had followed the American trail and was beset by an overpopulation problem. But they reacted in time and avoided embarrassment. Since then they have increased paroles, implemented electronic surveillance, worked on rehabilitation and increased community service. Plus, undeniably Holland’s eccentric soft-drug policies have had some impact—though not enough to fully account for the phenomenon. In striking contrast with the US, in Holland one of every 1,000 people is in jail.

On a philosophical vein, it is particularly interesting to speculate about the roots of the American mentality with regard to incarceration. Tough-on-criminals policies have been championed by Right-wing groups, usually affiliated with religious views, and echoed by the masses (e.g. 80% of Americans support the death penalty). The explanation of this mentality in terms of the notion of free will is thus natural.

It is plain that religious doctrines usually rely on a substantial notion of free will. But aside from the metaphysical debate, the notion performs double duty in shaping the tough-on-criminals mentality. On the one hand, because individuals are perceived as essentially free, religious doctrines place the whole responsibility for their action on them. There is no need to look at environmental conditions to explain crime: it is simply the criminal’s choice. On the other hand, this has been abetted by the deterrent effect that is expected to ensue from this mentality. Whether or not offenders are fully responsible for their actions, if we hold them fully responsible by having no consideration with them, people in a position to commit crime will have to weigh their chances against this assumption which should deter them from taking criminal action.

But the truth is (as everybody knows except most Americans) that criminals don’t have free will. And this is not a metaphysical statement: criminals are determined by their upbringing, opportunities and even chance. Without a doubt social conditions are causally responsible for the production of crime (as for the production of science, literature, etc). To the extent society causally participates in the production of these evils, it shares the moral responsibility with the wrongdoer for her wrongdoings.

One can ignore reality as much as one wants—even with the hope that ignoring it will magically end crime. But reality is stubborn and ignores those who ignore it. By imprisoning all offenders the US has incapacitated them. But at the same time it has deprived them of the main source of rehabilitation: society. Criminals are not free to choose crime but neither are they free to choose rehabilitation. For too long has the US seen prisons not as functional parts of society but as ostracization facilities. The strategy of ignoring the conditions that produce crime has yielded the expected results: overcrowded prisons and no significant decline in crime. It is time for a change.