TOUGH ON CRIME

Tough on crime. Who could possibly argue with that? Everyone hates
crime. A fair amount of criminals hate crime, hate what crime has
done to their lives and hate that they can't seem to get away from a
life of crime.

The tough-on-crime political platform of the '80s has become an
unbeatable ticket into office for scores of candidates.
Tough-on-crime must be effective, since nobody has questioned the
approach. More criminals are in prison for longer periods of time.
Judges no longer have the power of discretion. Inmates are no longer
eligible for parole, nor can they enjoy unlimited access to the
courts. As a result, inmates are warehoused in violent institutions
patiently learning their lessons and feeling the deterrent effect of
the tough-on-crime monster.

It all sounds great until one begins to consider what happens to the
inmate who is locked up longer in a highly stressful environment,
talked to and fed like an animal and released back into the world
having learned nothing positive about how to integrate back into
society. Considering that the majority of inmates come from broken
families - drug-pushing dads, drug-addicted mothers, alcoholics,
thieves, prostitutes, child molesters - it is unthinkable to assume
that these inmates have any possible idea about how to do the right
thing; nobody has ever taught them about success.

So what society gets back is the same person with the same mentality,
but with more anger and distrust. A small percentage of inmates
figure it out, leading one to believe that a much larger percentage
could figure out how to change their lives for the good of society.

Do your politicians care about really changing criminals or are they
just interested in using displaced citizens to support the huge
industry that "corrections" has created?

Corrections? What exactly is being corrected?

David Becker, Lowell