Marked

What I really found remarkable about Marked by Devah Pager was the historical specifics she gave. I studied Foucault's Panopticon in my Language 120 class, and my interest in the prison system has been piqued ever since then. There has always been a question of whether prison systems should reform prisoners (if they could be reformed) or if the penal system should simply execute (or use some sort of corporeal punishment) against them to get rid of the criminals in society. Throughout history, both ways have been tried and failed in their execution, so there really is no answer as to what to do in regards to "rule-breakers." Since westerners have moved passed the drawing and quartering phase of the 18th century, we have moved toward a more optimistic way of viewing the penal system.

The popular novel and film, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, gives a critical analyses of the method of rehabilitating criminals. Alex, the main character and criminal of the story, falls into the hands of people who are trying to introduce rehabilitation into the prison system through the Ludovico Technique, a form of aversion therapy. Yet, at times, it seemed that the rehabilitation was just as tortuous as the torture common in the 18th century, only it was psychologically tortuous instead of physically. The idea that criminals can be reformed so that they want to live within the norms of society is a relatively new idea. The British (original) version of the story ends with an optimistic view of Alex's therapy where he reforms his ways to become a regular member of society. This is in line with new thinking that it is possible and commendable to give criminals the chance to redeem themselves through therapy and good behavior and be released back into society.

The American version of A Clockwork Orange; however, lacked the final chapter of the book in which Alex changed his ways, ending on a much more pessimistic note where the audience believes that nothing was able to change Alex's evil, criminal mind. Burgess left out the final chapter in the American edition because his editor suggested that it would be better received by Americans if it maintained the moral, if you will, that "criminals are inherently evil and cannot be changed." 

As Pager moves away from the history she provides in the introduction and into the findings of her research, this perception on criminals became more evident to me. While the American Penal System offers many programs (North Carolina's programs) for prisoners to educate themselves (GRE programs, college classes, library access, ect), there forever remains a mark on a felon's record warning future employer's of his/her past crime. I believe that we are putting an strong effort, not to mention a lot of money, into rehabilitating prisoners. What I don't understand is why, if we believe prisoners can be reformed, we allow them to remain "marked" for the rest of their lives. Pager discusses the numerous disadvantages of being a felon released from prison. And as if the discrimination against felons were not already enough to keep a group of people from advancing in society, she noted the significantly higher percentage of black people in prison AND the decrease in likelihood that an employer would hire a black felon over a white one with the same background. It really is astounding how discrimination and racism can play such a huge role in the lives of those who end up in prison. 

It is important that the issue of racism in America (justice system and all) be faced, but I am not going to address it here. The big question I would like to focus on is: do reformed felons deserve the same amount of dignity as citizens who obey the law their entire life?

-I'm going to explore the answer, no, first. Felons do not deserve the same privileges as upstanding citizens because they failed at every day life so much that taxpayers had to provide for them so they would be off of the streets and in a position so they could not harm any law-abiding citizens. With this line of thinking, why should people who commit felonies have access to the hard-earned money of those citizens who do not get caught breaking the law? Why don't we just save the extra money and kill them if they are not fit to interact in society? That seems like the most logical conclusion to this argumentation. We are in a recession and yet still spending millions of taxpayer dollars on people who are innately and unchangeably geared toward criminal acts.

-Now let's say that the answer is yes, reformed felons deserve the same dignity as other citizens. If this is the case, then the logic should point us in a direction to spend the money to rehabilitate criminals, giving them the chance to be mainstreamed into society as productive members. It doesn't make sense; however, to create a status for reformed criminals, such as felon, that follows them everywhere they go and allows for legal discrimination against them. What is our system really saying about fundamental beliefs in reforming criminals? Does its insistence on this life-impeding status of felon show its doubt that criminals can be reformed? Or, perhaps a bit more controversial, does it imply a lack of confidence in the system of rehabilitation? Or maybe the justice system itself?

Seeing that the most common felony in America, with over 1 million offenders in 2009, is a crime that mainly affects oneself (drug abuse violations), I would say that our system has a rather skewed view of what is a major crime (felony) and what is a less serious crime (misdemeanor). I am not in any way saying that drug abuse should not be considered a crime, but rather that it should possibly be looked at as a less severe crime than violent crimes that truly endanger other citizens' lives. Could the money that is currently put into felony rehabilitation for drug abusers be used to assist programs such as halfway houses instead? I believe that many people would go to rehabilitation on their own when they lose their job or hit rock bottom if they had more support outside of prison, where they were not "marked" for the rest of their lives.

To end this more serious blog on a funny note, please enjoy the following clip expressing the comedian Katt Williams' opinion on the ever popular and controversial drug, marijuana. (warning: explicit content)