U.S. PRISONS—I System fails to deter or reform

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32524, 6 February 1971, Page 13

U.S. PRISONS—I System fails to deter or reform

(Newsweek Feature Service)

Crime roots in many soils and is nurtured by many forces—poverty, drugs, mental aberration, perhaps even faulty chromosomes. But far and away the most fertile ground for the cultivation of criminals is the prison system itself.

Every year 2.5 million American men, women and children are locked up in local gaols or in state or Federal prisons, convictei" or awaiting trial for offences ranging from shoplifting to murder, from political demonstrations to treason. In the course of their confinement, they will undergo a stunning variety of experiences. And in many cases, their ordeals will depend less upon their crimes than upon their places of incarceration. They may wait, drunk or sober, in the vomit-infested drunk-tanks in Denver. They may put in 12-hour days picking cotton behind a gunline in Mississippi. They may be beaten with paddles in Tennessee, be thrown nude into totally dark isolation cells in Maryland, be raped by members of their own sex in New Orleans or Philadelphia. They may cut the tendons of their own legs as a means of protest in Kansas. Out of

desperation, they may hang themselves in New York. All this might make its own grisly kind of sense if the nation’s prison system actually accomplished what it set out to do—to make the punishment so painful that the crime will not be repeated. 70 per cent return But somewhere between the crime and the completion of the punishment, the system goes awry. As a result, within five years after their release, fully 70 per cent of the men who have spent time in prison will be locked up again, many of them for a more serious crime. In fact, according to the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the average firsttime offender will become involved in at least three additional arrests.

“In many ways, our system nurtures criminals with the same care the Air Force Academy turns out second lieutenants,” says Mr Jo Wallach, task force director of the President’s Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower. “The only difference is that most of society believes we are deterring people from crime, and some of the public even believes we are rehabilitating them.” Seldom, indeed, has so little been accomplished for so many at so huge a cost. The United States prison system costs taxpayers more than $1 billion every year. It employs some 200,000 guards, correctional officers and custodial personnel. Yet all the system has ever accomplished is to put the problem and the prisoners temporarily out of sight—and recently even this dubious accomplishment has not been satisfactorily performed. The nation’s prisons and gaols ire now becoming a good deal more visible than they used to be. New blood In the first place, they are picking up a different sort of clientele. Previously, prison populations were composed almost exclusively of the poor and uneducated. Only rarely—as in cases of "financial criminals” such as embezzlers, or occasional “crime of passion” murderers —did a member of the educated middle class end up behind bars. But the drug scene and the protest movement have brought a sprinkling of new blood to the old system. Lately, the sons and daughters of the white middle class have been exposed to experiences that were once reserved for the poor. Moreover, feeling little or no guilt for the offence for which they were arrested, these new “criminals”—and their families—have been willing to speak up afterwards. Young women have complained bitterly of the humiliating physical sear<;tes per-

formed on their bodies by prison personnel. There have been allegations of corruption by prison officials, of inequities in the courts, of almost casual brutality by guards—slapping, pushing and the like. One of the most frequent charges is that older, bigger prisoners make homosexual rapes on new young prisoners and that the guards permit it to occur.

In the past, most such charges had to wait until the prisoner had served his sentence and was released. But lately, rebellious inmates have been able to air their grievances even while behind bars. In recent months there have been riots in gaols in New York, Philadelphia and Washington, in penitentiaries in California, Kansas, Ohio and Virginia. Hostag were taken by prisoners in The Tombs, Manhattan’s grim lock-up for men. Prisoners in San Quentin went on strike, ripping out washbasins and toilets until they were finally subdued by tear gas. Grievances The complaints were similar in almost all instances, and even prison authorities agree that many of them were justified. Overcrowding was the main grievance, with two, three, even four men in cells originally built for single habitation. Poor food, dissatisfaction with prison employment or lack of it, allegations of racism—all played their parts. There has also been a "politicalisation” of the prison population, especially by black inmates who frequently far outnumber whites. Black Panthers moved into the leadership of rioters in New York and California uprisings. Revolutionary rhetoric was frequently heard and there were obvious signs of communication with supporters on the outside. Clearly, then, prisoners are no longer willing to endure silently as they were in the past. But by and large, the public remains apathetic, and most political leaders have other fish to fry. There are, after all, no votes in a prison. Still, the call for reform is growing lounder—and coming from some unexpected sources. In a speech to the American Bar Association, no less a “hardliner” on crime than Chief Justice Warren Burger denounced the “warehouse type of approach” with which the United States prison system treats its inmates. “In part, the terrible price we are paying in crime is because we have tended — once the drama of the trial is over—to regard all criminals as human rubbish,” Judge Burger said. "The imbalance in our system of criminal justice must be corrected so that we give at least as much attention to the defendant after he is found guilty as before.” ITo be continued]