Matthew J. Parker: Prison Reform Envisioned by a Convicted Felon

The idea behind modern imprisonment is simple—exiling offenders from society because they pose a threat. Exile, therefore, is the operative word—exile from the coziness of home and family. Beyond this, there’s no need to pile on punishment, yet that is exactly what we do. Convention dictates that jails and prisons need to be harsh, violent places because their occupants are fully deserving. That indeed anything less defies the purpose.

Coddling is the word that most often crops up. I’ve had a lot of things done to me in both jail and prison, but coddling was never one of them. Yet in the late 1980s and 1990s, I not only heard this word used continually to describe prisons but witnessed the blowback in action as first federal and then (Arizona) state prisons took away furloughs, pool tables, weight piles, hot pots, law libraries, and even parole.

Modern corrections doesn’t even differentiate between offenses, but rather pools all prisoners together. Extremely violent offenders start out in max but over time work their way down to medium and even minimum, where all security levels are condemned to interact. Although we may laud this as therapeutic, violent offenders exert a measure of control over their less violent counterparts. I was sentenced to prison five times, one federal and four state, all for nonviolent drug and drug-related offenses. But whatever my designated security level it never ceased to amaze me how a few twisted men were able to program hate into so many others. Most susceptible were the young. How they lined up to earn their badges. Violence thrived under the mere pretense of supremacy nurtured by scapegoating, while ill-gotten profits, mostly in extortion, gambling, and narcotics, were mustered by an elite few, solidifying the microcosm. 

It’s obvious this system needs abolishment. But what, exactly, does that mean? According to the article “What Do Abolitionists Really Want?”, there’s no clear answer: “Abolition is an ideal – like, say, repeal and replace. The real debate is what should replace the current institutions.”

There’s no debate, however, in the structural flaws inherent in the justice system, flaws that revolve around illicit drug use and disproportionately targeting the poor. The police are not kicking down doors in Westchester County or Beverly Hills because even a modicum of wealth provides cover for any number of so-called vice crimes. Step one, then, entails repealing narcotic prohibition. Most won’t touch this subject, but I’m an ex-con. Pillorying me is already obligatory. 

Step two is to make prison less punitive and more nurturing. Computers are mostly banned there, as are cell phones and the internet. This is sheer idiocy. Try applying for a job without these items. Moreover, computers can pinpoint aptitude. Why are minimum security yards not coding bootcamps, for instance? Give an ex-con 80K a year and watch how fast he or she “adjusts.”  

Step three would be to take away the revenue factor. There will never be an incentive to decarcerate if warehousing humans maintains its profitability. Indeed, interest in the bottom line almost guarantees that reform will continue to be stymied at the highest levels of both business and government. When such large chunks of wealth are involved, very few do the right thing. One need only examine the parallels in our crippled healthcare system to affirm this. 

Step three also involves the functionality of crime; judges, lawyers, clerks, and police; probation, and parole officers, administrators and prison guards all rely on high incarceration rates for their livelihoods. Overcrowding is, after all, job security. Under meaningful justice reform, however, many can transition into the community as teachers, organizers, coaches, and mentors. And, with the high cost of mass incarceration curtailed, that money will go back into neighborhoods. Two case studies are the cities of Camden, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida. The first involves Community Oriented Policing, while the second focuses on decarcerating those with mental health issues. 

According to the paper “Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress: A guide for law enforcement and community screenings,” by Sonia Tsuruoka, “Camden County Police Department has increasingly embodied … a newfound departmental culture of engagement, rather than enforcement, grounded in building relationships between law enforcement and the marginalized communities the department is sworn to serve.” A good analogy is to imagine the police out there repairing broken windows. 

Also groundbreaking is the Miami-Dade Criminal Mental Health Project. According to The New England Journal of Medicine, “Miami-Dade County, Florida, leverages diverse expertise and resources to divert people with mental illnesses from the criminal justice system to community-based mental health services, aiming to improve community outcomes.” It worked. Incredibly so. According to Circuit Court of Florida Judge Steven Leifman, who pioneered the program, “The outcome… has been remarkable, with recidivism… dropping from roughly 72% to 20%. 

Indeed, mental impairment is rampant among the incarcerated. A Special Report by the US Department of Justice states: “About 1 in 7 state and federal prisoners (14%) and 1 in 4 jail inmates (26%) reported experiences that met the threshold for serious psychological distress (SPD)…. Similarly, 37% of prisoners and 44% of jail inmates had been told in the past by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder.” I can attest to this; have witnessed it firsthand, especially in jails. It’s a tragedy of Homeric proportions. 

And lastly, discrimination leveled against ex-cons needs to be outlawed. It’s been 24 years since my last conviction, 22 since my release from prison, and I still can’t vote in half of these United States. Additionally, as if to add insult to injury, I would likely be barred from running for office in those same states, unlike at least one other we could name. 

I also cannot teach K12 (I tried in two of the most liberal states, New York and Hawaii) or obtain TSA Precheck or Global Entry status. I’m barred from serving on a jury in most states and can’t rent an apartment in any decent neighborhood in the country. Indeed, the fact that there are laws sustaining all this bias is the strongest argument ever for prison abolition, in that the consensus of those who sent me to prison dictates that I cannot be trusted at the ballot, in airports or political office, around children, on juries, or in good neighborhoods – that all those years I spent under the tutelage of corrections was a complete waste of time and taxes. Correction has not occurred. Will never occur. To society, I’m still a junkie sneak-thief whose redemption must constantly be tested, which begs a pointed question: Why bother to try to be a good citizen?

Copyright 2024 Matthew J. Parker

Matthew J. Parker teaches writing at the University of California, Berkeley.