Let 'em rot in jail!

I talked with a young law student yesterday at a free dinner for international students and others interested, and it just reinforced a bunch of ideas I've been developing about justice and jails in this country (I'm taking an amazing course on this topic!).

We started talking about Canada a bit, and when she noticed I had a book with me - called Gates of Injustice - that I'm reading for that justice class, we got onto the topic of incarceration. She asked about differences, and I told her how much more punitive people are here. She asked why, and I mentioned, part of it was differences in laws. I gave her the example of the daycare sex abuse hysteria that swept the USA in the 80s and 90s which Canada largely evaded - apparently in part because we required physical evidence, while here, they convicted simply based on the coached testimonies of 3-year-olds.

Then she asked about more of the root causes, and I tried to explain that throughout US American history, the country has often considered itself a "city on a hill", a perfect model (or at least the best) that other nations were expected to replicate, when they realised how good it was. Of course, in this context, there's a lot more at stake when people go out of line - it's not just a personal thing, they're polluting the perfect image of the whole nation!

Next we went on to minimum (or determined) sentences and "three-strikes-your-out laws". I explained how in reaction to public outrage, politicians have often established or raised minimum sentences for certain crimes (especially drug-related). Why should the minimum for drug dealing be less than the minimum for armed robbery (not a real example)? Both are just as harmful and dangerous! And so slowly everything moves up and usually with unforseen but severe consequences for petty criminals who really don't deserve such harsh sentences but get included through poor foresight and exceedingly broad definitions. However, once the minimum is in place, it becomes virtually impossible to lower (i.e. it would be political suicide to try to be more slack on crime), regardless of the consequences.

In response to this, my interlocutor said that determined sentences were necessary to combat widespread discrimination in sentencing. I didn't know what to say, except that racism exists in Canada as well, and we seem to manage somehow.

Finally - and this is the part that really did it for me -, we got into the issue of rehabilitation. I explained how there is a much greater focus of this in the Canadian system. Apparently, we do some of the leading research in this area. In contrast, the USA is known to be one of the harshest prison systems (or prison industrial complex, as people often call it now). Obviously, this difference in perspective would have significant effects on rates and lengths of incarceration. And in response to this, the futre lawyer told me that she would be interested in comparing the recidivism rates (percent of inmates that end up back in jail) because the truth is, once you end up in jail, it basically shows that you didn't get the parenting and upbringing you needed - and as an teen or young adult, it's just too late to be able to make up for that and fix these people: prisons and jails are the only place they belong.

And the scariest part is that this is by no means an exceptional attitude! So whatever you do, don't be accused of any crimes in this country (because it often doesn't matter whether you actually did it or not; an accusation can be the end of your life as a free human with any worth).