Author 5: Daniel Traudes
...Chinlund expands on this rehabilitative spirit, but expands the scope of the philosophy. He recognizes society's need for retribution, arguing that prisons should still focus on punishing offenders for their crimes. Breaking from the others, Davis argues that the prison system is inherently racist, since it was founded as a continuation of slavery. She advocates that the system must be abolished. No matter their opinion on the purpose of the prison system or their proposals for an improved system, each artist shows faith in one American ideal: the faith that progress is possible.
In Warren Burger’s paper, “Prisons Should Rehabilitate,” the case is made that the U.S. prison system is unnecessarily expensive and ignorant of offenders' potential, and thus the implementation of rehabilitative strategies is a necessity. Burger argues that the purpose of the prison system is to give offenders an alternative to a life of crime, an occurrence beneficial both to the prisoner and to society. He scolds society for losing interest “once the judicial process has run its course” (Burger 20). This implies that, in Burger's opinion, society is only interested in revenge. Chinlund concurs with this assertion and stresses that “we must travel that road further so that public hunger
For revenge can be still more restrained” (Chinlund 282). But Chinlund doesn't advocate that traditional methods of punishment be abolished, just that they be rational, so as to discourage vigilante action by frustrated victims (Chinlund 282). Chinlund might criticize Burger for defending a purely rehabilitative philosophy, promoting a situation in which society's need for revenge would be unquenched. But Burger's brand of rehabilitation still contains elements of classical punishment, since he recommends physical work. This is more satisfying to society than the image of a criminal serving their time in counseling sessions. Despite their differences, each of them makes the claim that prisons exist primarily to serve justice to criminals, an idea that Davis doesn't as readily accept.
Davis counters both author's arguments by stating that the purpose of the prison system is racial, not justice-based, a fact evident from the disproportionate numbers of minorities currently in the system. She grounds this bold claim by describing the events after the passage of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves but also authorized slavery as a punishment for criminals. To a large extent, former slaves largely became
criminals with the passage of Black Codes in the South. While Burger and Chinlund wouldn't argue against these historical events, they would reply that social circumstances have since changed, refocusing ideologies of the prison system away from racial factors. Davis points still to the number of incarcerated minorities, saying that the 13th Amendment continues to ensure that “black people's social status continued to be that of slaves, even though the institution of slavery had been disestablished” (Davis 363).
Burger's plan falls under the greatest scrutiny under Davis' statements, since it closely resembles the forced labor detailed in the 13th Amendment. But both Burger and Chinlund would have a hard time trying to find common grounds with Davis, since they make a big assumption that prison inmates are arrested because they have committed crimes, whereas Davis counters that inmates are arrested primarily because they are black or Hispanic, while the crimes they've committed serve only as justification for the act. Certainly Burger and Chinlund know that blacks and Hispanics together compose a disproportionate 72% of the prison population (Federal Bureau of Prisons). But Burger would reply that minorities are more likely than whites to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods, which contributes to a lack of self-esteem, education, or work ethic, factors he says lead to criminal acts (Burger 20). Chinlund's argument on this front would rely on much the same reasoning, with the emphasis that all criminals are normal citizens who happen to commit crimes, and so must suffer the consequences. The disagreement suffered between the authors on this basic premise explains the vast gap when discussing methods for changing the system.
The biggest flaw that Burger saw in the present prison system is the lack of interest in the offender after the judicial process has concluded. To account for this, Burger suggests a factory-like prison setting, which he presents as “not simply a matter of compassion for other human beings, it is a hard common sense matter for our own protection and our own pocketbooks” (Burger 19). These ideals are reasonable justification for Burger's proposals, but he faults in his assumption that all prisoners are uneducated or suffer from a poor work ethic. Chinlund, while offering a type of rehabilitation, differs in the fact that he promotes his program as voluntary, thus accounting for this potential fault. This is necessary, he claims, because a prisoner must want to be reformed in order for rehabilitation to succeed, since a human being is more resistant to change than an inanimate object (Chinlund 285). A mandatory program would also unnecessarily involve prisoners who don't fit Burger's characterization of offenders, namely those who already have an education or work ethic. Burger pauses to make an exception for “psychopath[s] with a lack of concern for the rights of others” (Burger 21), but still fails to mention the educated or working offender exceptions. Ultimately, Burger's argument isn't hindered too much by his mandatory Rehabilitation stance, since the minority of misplaced prisoners would still be forced contribute to the factory system and fund the prison system...