Instead of prisons: a handbook for abolitionists
Yüklə 1,92 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- The Minnesota Restitution Center
- Depopulating the Prisons
- Prisoners in America
- Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
- Report on the Community Conference
- Determined Sentencing Proposal
- New York Times
- U.S. News and World Report
- Corrections Magazine
- Research and Evaluation of the Mutual Agreement Program
| Restitution to victims
Restitution to victims is a promising concept, but prison setting hampers its most compelling aspects. For restitution to be creative and reconciliatory, the following conditions are important:
It is difficult if not impossible to attain these conditions within the criminal (in)justice systems. Thus, current restitution programs for those already imprisoned fall far short of the ideal. But since a growing number of prisoners regard restitution as an opportunity for "a way out of the joint," it should be seriously examined as a decarcerating mechanism. Many reformers see parole/restitution programs as a first step. They look forward to fuller utilization of the concept when citizens and systems gradually become educated to the use of restitutive alternatives. As it presently operates, restitution involves triple jeopardy: the wrong is paid for by serving time, by fulfilling "treatment" requirements and by paying money. No doubt, some intended lessons are learned, some new insights occur to both victim and victimizer-hut these beneficial side effects are coincidental. Data indicating how many prisoners would be willing to make restitution is limited. A study of 88 prisoners in Florida in 1962 was limited to those who had committed major violent crimes. [25] Of those convicted of aggravated assault, 54.5 percent indicated willingness to make restitution; theft with violence, 55.4 percent; and criminal homicide, 94.7 percent. Many of those convicted of criminal homicide were on death row, so they might have felt drawn to restitution due to the proximity of death. On the other hand, many of those convicted of assault and theft indicated that they felt they were already paying for their wrongdoing by imprisonment. Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, Massachusetts and Iowa are experimenting with restitution programs inside their criminal (in)justice systems. The idea is beginning to grow as a "correctional" concept and the restitution programs do not seem to lack candidates. The Minnesota Restitution Center More than 100 prisoners participated in the first restitution contract program at the Minnesota Restitution Center. [26] During its first three years, they repaid $16,000 to 300 victims of their crimes. Originally started in 1972 with a LEAA grant, it is presently funded by the state of Minnesota and housed on several floors of a downtown YMCA in Minneapolis. The Minnesota Corrections Authority, the state's parole agency, screens those who will be paroled to the center. Because screening is strict, the center often operates below its capacity of 22 places. "Professional" criminals, violent criminals and those who used weapons are excluded from the program. Let's reduce the damage to the offender by not putting him in prison or getting him out now and use the money to compensate his victim, if there is one. Such a plan would reduce the thirst of the victim, and the mass of potential victims that makes up the citizenry, for retribution. It therefore leaves both the offender and the victim in a healthier state while reducing crime. -Robert Martinson, Depopulating the Prison, p. 18 All screening, interviewing, meetings with victims and writing of restitution contracts takes place during the first four months of a prisoner's incarceration. A staff member of the center accompanies the prisoner to the parole board hearing, presents the proposed contract and a request for his release to the center. The contract is technically a list of special parole conditions. It is signed by the prisoner, his victim(s), two members of the parole board and a center staff member. If the contract is violated, parole is revoked and he is sent back to prison. As restitution contracts were originally conceived, the only criterion for participation was justice: the victim would receive restitution for the loss suffered. No other rehabilitative demands were to be made on prisoners. However, the center now includes a variety of "treatment" programs, from a multilevel behavior modification plan to transactional therapy groups. The parole board often insists that Alcoholics Anonymous or drug counseling be part of the contract. Prisoners proceed thru four phases at the center, acquiring more personal freedom with each step. After the first week they can stay in their own homes overnight or on weekends and the final phase can take place as early as three months after making contract. Prisoners can then be released from the center to the street and continue to make restitution while on parole. Groups of residents initially awarded privileges, but now they are made by staff members. Since staff considers prisoners at the center to be "nuisances" to society, rather than violent threats, prisoners are given a great deal of personal freedom. Director Robert Mowatt asks, "What great horrendous thing has a guy who's passed $100 in bad checks done that says he is totally unsafe to be walking around the streets?" Tho the original concept was to have the prisoner face his victim and get the personal satisfaction of directly addressing the wrong he committed thru cash payment, many contracts are now negotiated by parole counselors. Prisoners are encouraged to make the first payment in person, but even this is not required. Succeeding payments are generally made by mail. When meetings do occur between victims and prisoners, often they are surprisingly cordial and dramatic. Many victims are strong supporters of the restitution concept. The amount of restitution paid has ranged from $15 to over $2,000, with the average restitution contract about $250. Monthly payments average $25. During the first years, 26 percent of the men left the program. About half had new felony indictments, tho no one was accused of a violent crime. The other half violated terms of their parole. Often this was because they were unable to keep a job and thus failed to make their restitution payments. Critics of the program point to problems of equal justice and due process. The program is open only to those selected by the parole board, not to all who have committed the same kinds of crimes. Additionally, the program does not establish the principle of restitution, but merely deals with prisoners on a one-by-one basis. Advocates of the program point out that any program instituted now has to fit into existing structures and limitations. They see it as a crusade: Until this first experimental test proves itself, they'll continue to structure the program to get as many prisoners out as possible. People with five to ten year sentences can be home in four months under parole supervision. Abolitionists advocate shifting responsibility for parole restitution contracts from "correction" departments to the community. Third parties can bring victims and wrongdoers together with the goal of reconciliation. Further, a system of vouchers could provide for purchase of needed services and resources from community groups, thereby preserving the restitution focus of the program and preventing its shift into a "treatment" oriented vehicle. Parole contracts The use of parole contracts has spread thru the "correctional" systems with startling speed. In one year, Mutual Agreement Programming (MAP) [27] grew from use in three states to ten, with many more contemplating its use:
The basic ingredient of MAP is a written, legally binding contract between the prisoner, the prison and the parole authority. Contracts vary but all set a fixed parole date contingent upon certain behavior. Other usual features in MAP contracts include:
Maryland has combined contract parole with a voucher system for all women prisoners. They may get up to $3,000 in vouchers to buy services, largely outside the prison, that are needed to complete their contracts. In Massachusetts contracts are tied to restitution for the victim of a prisoner's crime; the victim helps negotiate the parole restitution contract, which includes a provision for payments that begin when the prisoner is on work-release. North Carolina's contracts are signed by furniture manufacturers who promise to hire prisoners who complete a course in furniture making. MAP has attracted a wide spectrum of critics. Administrators are criticized for using MAP to impose arbitrary and senseless requirement upon prisoners. Parole officials sometimes oppose the program for fear their discretionary powers will erode. Some state attorneys advise against the program because of the possibility of lawsuits over contracts. In a candid evaluation of the MAP program [29] in three states, published in 1975, James Robison concluded:
If the trappings of "rehabilitation" and "correctional" gimmickry can be divorced from the program, MAP can be viewed as an interim procedure for reducing indeterminacy in sentencing. The contract forces the parole board to set a release date and in some cases this can mean earlier release. As Robison suggests, a collective extension of the concept of contracts could institute prisoner unions inside prisons, bringing about authentic bargaining power. Fred Cohen, [30] in his perceptive foreword to the MAP evaluation report, speaks for abolitionists when he says: The conceptual seeds for some reform may be here. The very notion of a prisoner, not long ago described as a slave of the state, sitting down to negotiate a type of performance contract can be viewed as having considerable ameliorative potential. Making such a program truly voluntary would enhance the appeal. If certainty on time served is not to be achieved at the time of judicial sentencing ... then post-sentencing certainty may be the best we can get. NOTES 1. Don C. Gibbons, "Prisoners without Reason: Priorities for Release," in Steve Bagwell, ed., Depopulating the Prisons, pp. 32-38. 2. The First National Conference on Alternatives to Incarceration, September 19-21, 1975, Sheraton-Boston Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Material on decarcerating Massachusetts' juvenile prisons based on data gathered by David Martin and reportage in Corrections Magazine, November/ December, 1975, pp. 3-40. 4. Alvin Bronstein, "Rules for Playing God," Civil Liberties Review, Summer 1974. 5. Daniel Glaser in Lloyd Ohlin, ed., Prisoners in America, pp. 86-92. 6. "The Sentencing Struggle," The Outlaw, June/July 1975. 7. Material on Maine based on information printed in Corrections Magazine, July/August 1975, pp. 16-17 and Labyrinth, September 1975 and telephone interview with Attorney General's office August 10, 1976. For a copy of the new law, see Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, effective March 1, 1976 (St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing, 1975). 8. Labyrinth, September 1975. 9. Ibid. 10. Report on the Community Conference. American Friends Service Committee, Pasadena, California, June 1975. 11. Corrections Magazine, July/ August 1975. 12. New York Times, December 14, 1975. 13. Coordinating Council of Prisoner Organizations, Determined Sentencing Proposal, published in January 1975. Available from the council, 1251 2nd Ave., San Francisco, California, 94122, for 25 cents. 14. Published as Prisons without Walls: Report on New York Parole (New York, Prager, 1975). 15. Prepared by Donald Auspitz, available from Citizens Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice, Inc., 84 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011. 16. "Parole: Reform or Abolition," Report on New England Prisoners Association Conference, NEPA News, April/May 1975. 17. Gerhard O.W. Mueller, "Imprisonment and its Alternatives," in A Program for Prison Reform, p. 43: "The Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws recommends an amendment of 28 U.S.C. 1291 by clearly giving courts of appeals the power to review sentences and to modify them or to set them aside for further proceedings. This recommendation is in accordance with the recommendations of the ABA and IJA Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice Project." 18. New York Times, January 25, 1976. 19. New York Times, January 5, 1976. 20. Ibid. 21. Summary, "Seminar on the Crisis in Corrections," Southern Governors' Conference, Task Force Committee on Correctional Problems, Nashville, Tennesee, January 21-23, 1976, p. 40. 22. See U.S. News and World Report, March 1, 1976. 23. Pugh v. Locke. 24. Corrections Magazine, March 1976, p. 21. 25. Stephen Schafer, "Compensation of Victims of Criminal Offenses," Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 7, p. 631. 26. Information in this section from Corrections Magazine, January/February 1975 and March 1976. Also panel discussions at First National Conference on Alternatives to Incarceration, September 1975, Boston, Massachusetts. 27. Corrections Magazine, September/October 1975. 28. Ibid. Information in this section from materials included in Corrections article, and "An experimental research and demonstration project, funded by the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor," Parole Corrections Project, American Correctional Association, College Park, Maryland. 29. James O. Robison, MAP Markers: Research and Evaluation of the Mutual Agreement Program, American Correctional Association, College Park, Maryland, 1975. 30. Fred Cohen is currently Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, S.U.N.Y. at Albany, School of Criminal Justice. Instead of Prisons Table of Contents > Chapter 6 6. EXCARCERATE It is time to debate fundamentals: namely whether, within the frame of reference of historical experience, sound economics, basic principles of human psychology, and the dictates of the administration of justice, it is more sensible and practicable to improve our correctional institutions to the point where they can actually achieve the rehabilitation they are set up to achieve; or rather, to finally toll the bell on incarceration as a rehabilitation vehicle, to bite the penological bullet, and embark upon a program of "excarceration" .... If the approach adopted at this juncture of history (after Attica, the Tombs, Rahway, San Quentin, Soledad, and even rumblings at quieter models such as Somers) continues in the direction of "improving conditions" and "funding more and better programs"-we shall have learned nothing from history and placed ourselves on a clear course to repeat it, at even greater human cost. On the other hand, if we are prepared to critically appraise the corrections system, accepting nothing as axiomatic and questioning everything regardless of sacrosanctity, the starting point must be the technique of incarceration itself. The argument here is that it is time to stop worshipping the Golden Calf of caging and/or isolating the social offender, and, worse still, fattening it with precious and scarce tax dollars. Instead, the major premise must be excarceration, with a massive increase in the use of probation coupled with community based and community-oriented alternatives, and linked closely in turn to restitution to victims. Such a program, while not ignoring the demands of society for crime deterrence and even punishment, would place far heavier emphasis on fines, on social stigma, confinement to a residence except during working hours, and similar non-incarceration alternatives. Without attempting to offer a detailed blueprint on the "new corrections," with all materials and specifications laid out, the author would suggest four main routes for reaching the goal of excarceration: (1) decriminalization, (2) democratization of pretrial release, (3) adoption of standards and procedures for sentencing, and (4) emphasis upon restitution for victims. -Emanuel Margolis, "No More Prison Reform!" pp. 456, 471-72. Imprisonment should be a last resort. The presumption should be against its use. Before any offender is incarcerated, the prosecution should bear the burden of proving in an evidentiary hearing that no acceptable alternative exists. An equal burden should be required for the denial or revocation of "good time," probation, and parole, which really are only other ways of imposing imprisonment.... We should further reduce our excessive reliance on prisons by making extensive use of alternatives to imprisonment, such as fines, restitution, and other probationary methods, which could at least as effectively meet society's need for legal sanctions. However, such alternatives must be made available to all people who have committed similar offenses, so as not to become a means for the more affluent to buy their way out of prison. And where some kind of confinement seems necessary, halfway houses, community centers, group homes, intermittent sentences, and other methods of keeping offenders within the community should be preferred to prison. -A Program for Prison Reform, pp. 10-11 Yüklə 1,92 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|