* Paper 3
Author 2: Richard Chaparo
...The foundation in question is prison and its effectiveness in terms of rehabilitating or resocializing prisoners. Burger dubs prisons as “human warehouses” pointing out that they are “dehumanizing and violent places of confinement in which prisoners merely waste away” and continues to say that prisoners may even come out of those prisons worse than they were when they went into them (21B). Nevertheless, he proposes an approach that he believes will help the prisoners become productive members of society (in juxtaposition to how they are currently being rehabilitated). His solution to help the prisoners is to turn these “human warehouses” into somewhat of a factory. This transformation of prisons will provide the prisoners “meaningful work” which will help “eliminate the anti-social behavior that landed” the criminals in prison in the first place (21). Newman seems to believe that by offering this option the ideal of punishment is severely lessened as it “immediately transforms the punishment…to a variation of community service, or some form of forced labor” (37A). He further dives into the negative aspects of turning prisons into a “factory” by alluding to the age old saying of “history repeats itself” when referring to the “dismal failure” of forced labor in the beginning of the century (37A). Through this comparison, it seems that Newman seeks the importance of society as a whole through punishment, while Burger deems the rehabilitation of the prisoner as an important step in helping the community. Although Newman believes in this manner, Burger ideals continue by proposing that all prisoners be “induced” into participating in this program because it would offer positive possibilities for them and that participating is a crucial liability for society (24). Yet, there of course are prisoners that will not want to comply with prison policy. This Chinlund saw as a possibility.
The possibility that Chinlund saw was reason as to why certain prisoners would not comply. He declared that the program should be offered to all and hopefully those that do not want to be a part of it will be “persuaded” through the programs merit (28A). Unlike Burger, Chinlund noticed that there has to be trust between the prisoner and the program (28B). Forced rehabilitation would not be the proper approach to an attempt in properly rehabilitating a prisoner as Chinlund notes because if there is no “voluntary dimension, the program will quickly collapse, if it can get started at all” (28B). It would seem true in many minds that a optimistic mindset such as Burger’s is necessary to influence all the prisoners to take a plunge into a new program. Chinlund urges that it is the “same methods…with rewards for cooperation and penalties for no cooperation” that life holds that will be the factor which influences those prisoners to participate and that does seem all and well, but Chinlund sees it to be a bit unrealistic (24). He approaches the prisoners’ rehabilitation by stating that it is “early in the program” that “inmates must choose whether to remain and participate or leave” (28B). Some time afterwards he adds that there must be a select level of security to correspond to where the prisoner is in terms of their rehabilitation - the farther they seem to be, the lower level of security that is needed (28B). This seems reasonable because it will be a sure sign that there is some rehabilitation going on as the prisoners need less and less attention/discipline. Therefore, as Burger discussed, there is a better way in which to rehabilitate with Chinlund adding a more realistic approach in applying the new method.
Chinlund agrees with Burger, even though many believe that punishment (or prison) and resocialization can not exist together (26B). He has acknowledged that belief, but strongly is against it. Prison and punishment are seen as synonymous with Chinlund because with prison comes “the loss of freedom” (25). Strongly advocating punishment with its ability to help rehabilitate, Newman discusses the importance of the different types of punishments. The prison and lack of freedom brings mental anguish, the most complicated and difficult type of pain to correctly measure (31). As Chinlund has explained early on in his article, one of the four purposes of prisons (in the New York State law) is to punish. Therefore, Newman attacks the problem of moral obligation through the need that society has to punish those who have wronged them. As introduced with Chinlund, with the “wish for revenge” and the community experiencing “some limited satisfaction” (26B), Newman further elaborates with his Superman example - the “retribution” or “just desserts” belief (35A). The moral obligation comes in regard to the psychology behind seeing wrong done and no wrong being done to the person committing the crime (35A). But, Chinlund sees punishment in a different light than Newman does, describing its usefulness as a rehabilitative tool that has “limited value” in terms or rehabilitation (26B). What seems to be its initial use, to satisfy the “human failing” of seeking revenge, Chinlund declares that “vengeance is not a helpful impulse as a motivation for the reduction of crime (26B-27A). Nevertheless, society has to punish the criminal in some way because without that possibility of a penalty, crime could run rampant spreading to all people, whether they be the criminals or the victims.