LifeRing Home www.unhooked.com

About  * Bookstore * BookTalk * Bulletin Board * Chat Room * Contact * Convenor Blog * Convenors * Cutting Edge * Donate * Email * Expo * FAQs * Food&Bev * Forum * Gallery  * Humor * Keepers * Lawyer's LifeRing * LifeRing Partners * LifeRing Press * Links * Media * Meetings * Meeting Starter * Membership Survey * Music * New Book * New Recovery Blog *Nicotine * Philosophy * Poetry * For Professionals * Quotations * Recreation * Science * Social Network * Testimonials  * Thank You * Toolbox * Treatment Finder * Website * Welcome

Kudos for LifeRing -- Read the Testimonials Page and Add Your Own

Unhooked Science Readings

The unhooked.com science section contains selected educational readings from the scientific and popular literature about alcoholism, addiction, and recovery.   The views expressed in the articles are those of their authors and not necessarily those of  the science pagemaster or the webmaster,  or of the person who suggested the article to the list. This material is made available solely for the nonprofit educational use of unhooked.com readers as an aid in their personal recovery, and no other use is authorized or intended.  Click here for the current Science Section reading list.

THE CREATION OF A CRIMINAL CLASS

(An Excerpt from Teaching You Fear, by the author)

By Bradley Herman

I'd like to begin by throwing out the old cliché caveat emptor. (Let the buyer beware.) It seems appropriate, considering the 275% increase, nationwide, in state's spending on 'criminal justice'-related expenditures between 1982 and 1996. (The last year for which U.S. Dept. of Justice stats are currently available.) And this, of course, was funded almost exclusively with bond money. Needless to say, we do everything bigger and better here in Texas. (Including screw-ups.) We appropriated a 1 billion dollar bond to fund the largest prison expansion in the history of the world less than a decade ago. A necessary expenditure, some would say, with prison overcrowding at record levels. Some, like the politicians who rode to election on 'get tough on crime' platforms, and the big-money players in the prison-industrial complex that bankrolled their campaigns to put them there. If their was such a problem, this would have been an admirable undertaking, indeed. The fact is, however, the 'problem' was a manufactured one, not a reality. The fact is, the state of Texas can lock up roughly a quarter million of it's residents on any given day. We have the capacity, basically, to incarcerate the entire city of Corpus Christi, Tx. And perish the thought that we would fail to utilize it. We're running at legal capacity now. Thank goodness, (As our beleaguered state heaves a collective sigh of relief.) we've finally got the room to lock up all those violent, crazed felons that have held us hostage in our own homes for so long. If that were the reality, I'd be in full agreement. The fact is, however, it is not the case. So who is serving time in our prisons then? Let's check it out.

The first thing we need to do is establish some facts. To begin with, all statistics cited in this piece come directly from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, or the A.C.L.U. web-sites, and can be freely accessed and verified by any and all concerned. Unlike those that would have you believe differently to further a personal agenda, the true facts speak for themselves, and I have no need to skew them to make a point. The opinions are my own, drawn from personal experience with 'the system', and extensive reading on the subject. Having established that much, let's see if we can break this problem down into something understandable.

The incarceration rate in the U.S. has more than tripled since 1980. In 1980, we locked up approximately 139 of every 100,000 residents in this country for one crime or another. With a rough population estimate of 275,000,000 Americans, that comes to about 380,000+ people. As of 1996, that number had swollen to 427 of every 100,000 Americans. Or, about 1,125,000 people. Essentially, approximately one of every 275 U.S. citizens are serving time now. I think it would be safe to say, in all candor, that you couldn't 'swing a dead cat' nowadays without hitting a friend or relative of someone doing time. Consequently, it's definitely a problem that affects all of us, whether personally, or in our pocketbooks.

So, who are all these criminals? Politicians would have you believe they're all violent incorrigibles. Ne'er-do-wells, unfit to exist amongst the 'society of men'. In actuality, violent crime, contrary to what we've all been led to believe, hasn't risen dramatically over the years. As of 1998, violent crime levels were lower than they were in 1973, while the number of arrests for such offenses has gone up. Other than a small peak in the early nineties, the numbers have remained relatively unchanged. And property crimes (burglary, theft, auto theft) have been on a steady decline during the entirety of this period, as well. In 1973, almost half of all U.S. households had some experience with property crime, of one sort or another. By 1998, that number had dropped to only one in five. So, if violent crime has held relatively steady over the past 25 years, and property crimes have dramatically decreased, where are all these inmates coming from?

You guessed it. Welcome to 1984. Welcome to the war on drugs. And never you worry. Unlike the death penalty, which started as a tool used almost solely on African-Americans, but has moved on now to include all the underprivileged, you too can be a casualty. Although our correctional system has never failed to give the poor and the minority members of our society more attention than they never deserved, they've been thoughtful enough to allow citizens of all socioeconomic standings a chance to be represented at last. Drugs don't discriminate, and where drugs are concerned, neither does our penal system. Well, let me qualify that. When it comes to sentencing, the system still makes exception where our minority members are concerned. Not even the landmark Fuhrman vs. Georgia ruling, that overturned every standing death sentence in the country because of racial disparities in sentencing, changed that reality. Nonetheless, though some might not stay quite as long; white, black, short, or tall - we have room for everybody now. And you can rest assured, nary a bed will be wasted.

The numbers tell the story. On the state level, 19,000 individuals were locked up for drug-related crimes in 1980. By 1998, the number was 234,100. A 1200% increase. The Feds show similar numbers. From 7,119 in 1980, to 25,500 in 1998. Again, an astronomical increase. "Well," you say, " folks know the law. If you play, you pay." Fair enough. That's the very issue I propose to explore here. Are the laws concerning drugs fair and equitable? Are they administered in a manner commensurate with other laws? Regarding drug-related offenses, does the crime equal the punishment? Or, are these laws administered out of all proportion to the severity of the crime at issue? And, most troubling of all, has a crime even been committed, in most cases? Or, have we failed our citizenry once again, just as surely as we failed our mentally ill?

Let's start by establishing a working definition of what constitutes a drug-related crime. Drug crimes consist of the delivery, possession, or sale of illicit drugs. Is there any difference in the way the case of a drug user (As one charged with simple possession tends to be.), as opposed to a drug dealer's, case is handled in the courts? In theory, there's some. In practice, unfortunately, no there's not. Drug user's and drug mules (Those paid to transport drugs for a small fee; usually addicts or children.) not only receive sentences equal to, or greater than, a drug pusher receives - drug pusher's typically have the funds to avoid prosecution at all. Drug user's, on the other hand, seldom do. Consequently, the prisons are overflowing with user's and mules, while the pusher simply moves on to start anew elsewhere. The result is obvious. There is very little real headway made in combating the drug problem, while hundreds of thousands of hapless individuals who are more unfortunate, rather than criminal, pay an extremely high price. Why unfortunate? They did, after all, break the law. True enough. They're unfortunate, because it's beginning to look like their drug abuse is not a matter of choice, as hitherto believed. Medical research is finally starting to shed some light on a subject long argued, and long ignored.

The first thing we need to do is to dispel the 'us and them' myth. Did you ever try smoking a joint at a party in high school? Seventy-four percent of high school seniors have by the time they graduate. Have you ever had more than 4 or 5 beers in a 3 hour period at a party, or social function, and then driven home? What about letting a friend or relative with a known history of drug use in your car without searching them for drugs first? Well, if you've ever done any of the above, then the only difference between you and about 40,000 inmates currently in Texas's prison system is that you didn't get pulled over and/or caught. If you think this an exaggeration, I can assure you that it's not. I spent what should have been my senior year in high school in a Texas state prison for possession of a dirty cocaine baggy and $30.00 worth of heroin. I received a 3 year prison sentence for each. It was my first offense. Was I a criminal who deserved what he got? Well, for what it's worth, my opinion is that I was more misguided than criminal, and there was probably a better way the situation could have been handled. To commit most crimes, one must have criminal intent. (Or display a great deal of negligence.) I don't recall ever formulating any such intent. All I recall, was waking up every day feeling as though something was horribly wrong, and not being very sure of what to do about it. The drugs allowed me to put those feelings to rest, for however short a time. That's really all there was to it. I loved my family, I didn't kick dogs, and I didn't beat up old ladies to steal their social security checks. All in all, I think I was, and still am, a pretty decent guy. And upon arriving at the prison in Huntsville, much to my relief, I found that guys like me were the rule, rather than the exception. Something was rotten in Denmark, as they say. At the time, I just couldn't quite put my finger on exactly what it was.

That's certainly not to say that every inmate locked up for a drug offense did something that innocuous. But that is how it starts for most. Experimentation turns to frequent use, and before you know it, you've got a runaway drug problem on your hands. "Well, you should never have chosen to try drugs in the first place. Once you're addicted, you might not have a lot of choice, but it was a choice the first time you tried it." Again, true enough. But the fact is, people today tend to be exposed to drugs at an age so young that their ability to make reasonable, intelligent choices is far from fully formed. In most cases, you're on the roller coaster long before you reach the age of consent. That's simply a fact. And whether you're born with a chemical imbalance that pre-disposes you to drug abuse, or you produce that imbalance within yourself through chronic use, the end result is the same. Choice is removed from the equation. Ever wonder why anyone would choose to become a heroin addict? Well, there's the rub. After all these years, the medical community is finally looking for that answer, and they think they've found it. Allow me to quote from the findings of a distinguished panel of researchers put together by the National Institutes on Health (NIH). "Opiate addiction is a medical disorder and basically a brain-related disease," said Dr. Lewis Judd, chair of the Dept. of Psychiatry at U. of Cal./San Diego, to a news conference. "We are convinced that it is a medical disease. It is not a weakness of the will or a moral issue. All addicts should be in treatment. Society should be educated more, with state and federal gov't. taking the lead..." Oh, they're taking the lead alright. However, instead of education, they're selling misinformation. For 75+ years now (Since the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act in the early 20's), they've been promoting the idea that punishment is the most effective way to deal with a drug addict. Well, if it's nothing else, it's certainly an interesting concept. Who knows, although this approach hasn't shown any positive results since it's inception, they just might be on to something here. If it ever works, the possibilities for the treatment of other terminal diseases is endless! Cancer, diabetes, you name it. We'll just keep sending them back to prison, over and over, until they're cured. And if they have another flare-up? No problem. Parole violation! Back you go! I mean, it makes about as much sense as what we're doing with drug addicts now, doesn't it? Well then, if they know it's a disease, why do they keep enacting the laws that make a sick person a criminal? Don't scratch furrows in your scalp trying to figure that one out. It's a simple matter of 'political suicide.'

The whole thing puts me in mind of the prosecutor in a high-profile death-penalty case. Ten years after he's single-handedly sent a man to his death in the 'name of justice', some type of exculpatory evidence arises proving that the man in question was innocent, unequivocally and irrefutably. Although the victim's family recognizes it, the convicted man's family recognizes it, and even the press grudgingly recognizes it (They tend to be a little slow to own up, since they typically encourage the lynch mobs themselves, thereby making them somewhat culpable, too.), that prosecutor will go to his grave proclaiming that poor man's guilt. Have you ever seen one say, "We made a horrible mistake, and we're sorry." You'll never see it happen. They can't. It would be the end of their careers. And it's no different where this issue is concerned. How do you apologize to a person to whom you have played some role, however major or minor, in destroying their life through incarceration? Even as public opinion turns, as the truth about the nature of addiction is painstakingly brought to light, those politicians who've been pushing these barbaric initiatives through all these years will continue screaming in their Cotton Mather-esque way for "justice to be done!" I mean, what else can they do? When Ronald Reagan called for the witch hunt, the people gave it to him. And now it's going to be up to the people to do the right thing. My intention is simply to show how horribly wrong-headed we've become as a society with regard to our handling of the drug problem in this country. And, hopefully, to cause some people to think long and hard about it before they allow a politician cow-towing to fiscal interests to sell them a bill of goods as destructive and ineffective as our current drug legislation is. Locking up a drug addict or user, far from helping them or society, only does irreparable damage to both. This is a subject I can speak on from first-hand experience. And, I don't think most have thought through the long-term ramifications of sending addicts or users to prison, as opposed to treatment. Have you ever considered the life of the addict after prison?

Consider the life of the drug offender upon release. Have you ever heard the prison term, 'having an X on your back'? Just look at how many ways a prison sentence negatively affects the life of the ex-offender. You're not supposed to discriminate in hiring based on a felony conviction, but the fact is, everybody does. When they ask about felony convictions on your job application, you can either lie, and get the job, or tell the truth, and not. It's usually pointless anyway, because eventually your parole officer is going to interfere in some form or fashion, and then your employer will either make up a bogus reason to dismiss you, or fire you for falsifying information on an application. Once they've done this, you've not only lost a job, you can't use them as a reference for your next job, either, or you'll lose that one too. Consequently, the ex-offender ends up with this outrageously spotty-looking job history, and nobody wants to hire him, because he comes across as either undependable, or flaky. Now, at 30, I've had over 30 different jobs for varying lengths of time. Who's going to hire someone with a job resume like that? I wouldn't. And the fact is, I'm a great worker. I invariably move to the top of the pile wherever I go, only to ultimately have my well-earned success snatched from me by my past. And people wonder why the recidivism rate is so high, and why ex-convicts end up back on the streets up to their old tricks. These aren't excuses, these are the realities in an ex-offenders life. Your life becomes damn near unlivable.

How about housing? Ever tried to buy or rent property after returning from prison? Again, there's not supposed to be any discrimination, but if you tell the truth, you're going to end up on the streets. That's a fact. How do you explain to a prospective landlord or bank where you've been living for the past several years? And how about credit? If you think you have credit problems because of a repossession, or a few missed payments, imagine what an ex-offender has to go through. You come out of prison with nothing. The state gives you $100 and a bus ticket to your hometown, and you have no job, no home, no credit, and less ability to get any of the above then almost anyone else in our society. Why do we scratch our heads when they don't all succeed after release and end up back in the joint? Could you do it? Maybe if we voted to spend a little more money on treatment and after-care programs for addicts, rather than new prison cells, we'd see some positive results. It damn sure can't be any less effective than our present course. Just remember what these men and women are up against next time, before you pass judgment on them. "Well, what about the educational and job-training programs available to inmates?" What programs? There's a 3 year waiting list to get into a single vocational or college-level class in prison. The state pays for one 3-hour college-level course per semester. Beyond that, you have to pay for it yourself at the same rates as anyone else. So, at that rate, you could conceivably get a free B.S. in only 24 years! Unless, of course, you have a spare $22,000 in you prison bank account. Most inmates I know are lucky to be able to purchase soap and deodorant. (Yes, you have to buy your toiletry items.) The myth of "all that money they spend on them damn convicts" is just that - a myth.

Finally, and most importantly, we need to consider the effect that imprisoning a drug user has on the individual in the long run. Not only do we create an individual who sucks the very life-blood from our society by making them damn near unemployable, and invariably a 'ward of the state', we also potentially damage that individual, sometimes beyond the point of reclamation. What effect would it have on you to be confined in a cell with say, a rapist, when your greatest transgression in life was that you sometimes bought a bag of weed with your own money on payday? Or you were addicted to heroin, and wanted help for your problem a damn sight worse than the state wanted to help you, but found no resources to help beyond the offer of a prison cell to kick your habit in? If you found yourself constantly brutalized by both the guards and inmates on a daily basis? If you had to suffer all the indignities (strip-searches, made to stand in the hallway naked as classes of college kids walk by on tour, etc.) and humiliations of day to day prison life? The racism? The violence? How would you conduct yourself upon your release? People always ask me, "What's prison really like? Is it like they show it on television?" Yeah, it is. Except the guy getting stabbed, or getting his head cracked like a melon, isn't some 'easy to dislike' proverbial bad guy on t.v. It's the little Hispanic kid you play dominoes with, and laugh and joke with to pass the time, who ends up gurgling blood on the floor as you step over him and keep walking because you "didn't see nuthin', boss." It's a crappy way to live. And, it's a really crappy place to put a kid, or someone with a drug problem. There was a time when we didn't know any better in this country. Now we do, and it's time to make some changes.

It doesn't take any great stretch of the imagination to see how this could negatively affect an otherwise decent human being to the point that he or she might not ever be quite 'right' again. It certainly changed me. And I don't think it was for the better. I finally got a handle on my drug problem, but in spite of, not thanks to, my stays in our prison system. I did it with a secular treatment program (LifeRing), that isn't even currently offered in the state system. How could it be? It recognizes that drug addiction is a disease and adopts a medical, logical, common-sense approach to treating the disease. What place would a program like that have in our archaic, backward correctional system? We tried to introduce it in the Substance Abuse sector of the TDCJ, but met with a great deal of resistance and very limited success. Until the public becomes educated to the true nature and scope of this problem (And it doesn't appear that the state or federal gov't is going to lead the way.), the problem will only persist and worsen. And, at the rate we're going, we're fast creating a completely disenfranchised, disillusioned 'criminal class' in this country, as a direct result of all the backward legislation being passed on 'our behalf'. Thanks, but no thanks. I had a college professor once who made a very simple, but very astute observation, concerning the 'crime problem' in this country. Amidst all the college students' howls and exclamations about "locking 'em up and throwing away the key", he pointed out one simple fact. He said, "The fact is, 9 out of 10 offenders are coming out someday. And they may be your neighbor. Do you want someone who's been treated that way living next to you?" Dead silence. Good point. The next time you're about to vote to spend more money on prisons, instead of treatment for drug offenders, keep that in mind. CAVEAT EMPTOR.

(Copyright © 2000 Bradley Herman)

An Unhooked Original