Highly recommend. This is a wonderful big picture/little picture exploration of modern "corrections" of prison and parole, and how the tides have turned from being rehabilitative confinement to retribution, punishment, and sometimes even vengeance (particularly when it comes to victims). So often the parole board will not focus on the changes the individual has made and their fitness to enter back into society as functional citizens, but rather on relitigating the crime, and prolonging suffering on account of what victims want, even if the victims themselves are being dragged through years of litigation and suffering by reliving the crime again and again through things like parole hearings.
Recently sentencing took place for the person who killed two of my friends in a drunk driving accident. It left their children orphans. It was horrific. News sources reported on the sentencing and the comments filled quickly with people advocating more time in prison, to account for the time my friends lost with their children and their children with them. But the thing is, the amount of time a person spends in prison will never, ever bring them back. It will not right the wrong. It is a theft that can never be repaid. Does making a person suffer for an arbitrary amount of time fix the right, if the time is not focused on rehabilitation with an end goal of reintroducing a better person to society? Studies show prolonging suffering -- while it may feel just and like an eye for an eye to some victims -- does not increase victim satisfaction or relieve their personal suffering. In fact, in this book it took one family member saying enough, our suffering is not being relieved (and in fact is being made worse) by dragging out this other person's suffering for the rest of our lives. We want it do, we are told through countless stories and social norms that it should. But it doesn't. What, then, is the goal?
To be clear, this is not an argument against punishment. People should be held accountable. But what is accountability if the time served ceases to be productive? If, when they come up for parole and have done everything right, they are told that the crime was too bad, to terrible, and essentially no amount of good behavior, education, and rehabilitation will ever make up for the crime? What is the point of dangling parole at all, if we are really hellbent on throwing away the keys?
That is the big picture.
The smaller picture follows two men in their bids for parole in their old age; these are men who have been locked up for 50+ years, doing time to crimes committed as teenagers. The book lays out clearly the statistics of risk and recidivism for the elderly is practically nill, whereas both the logistical cost of incarceration is astronomical. These are men who bettered themselves, who did everything possible to make amends, to be better, and still, they faced years and years and years of rejected parole bids, often in ways that were arbitrary and more aligned with the political climate of any one time than anything to do with them or their case. One case involved the killing of a police officer, so police would fill the parole board hearings on principle, as if to say, no matter what you do to better yourself, we will punish you until you die.
Simply put, we have stripped corrections of corrective behavior. We give people "tickets" for the smallest infraction (using a phone on a work break nearly made one man lose his opportunity for parole) as though this will make them better people. We strip people of their humanity, and punish them again and again and again for the same crime, even though you cannot be tried in court for the same offense more than once. It is a loophole, and an inhumane, brutal one.
And to go back to victims rights -- this book does not go easy on victims, and I'm glad for it. It is important not to allow people the power to seek revenge and retribution for their own causes, however just they may seem. Being a danger to society is one thing, seeking to mete out suffering in revenge for a crime that cannot be undone is cruel and unusual, and should not be the norm.
Incarcerated people are people; people who have done terrible things, but still people. If we acknowledge that, then we must acknowledge that there is a possibility for change, and corrections ought to put people on that path, not as an afterthought to retribution but as the primary goal. And that means providing a clear and meaningful path to eventually being free. It should not be based on political vibes of the times, on who is on the parole board, on whether a parole board member already granted parole to three people prior and is now feeling like they should tip the scales for the next person to even things out. It should be based on clear and honest benchmarks and behavior expectations, on penitence, on evaluating a person's humanity not through the lens of the worst thing they ever did (which they have already clearly been punished for) but on the merits and risks of introducing them back into society. Not everyone will be deemed eligible. There will always be people who do not merit reentry. But those should not hurt those who have done what is expected of them, who have changed, and who deserve a second chance.
This book highlights the complicated crimes (alleged and proven) and seeks to bend the tides towards justice. Real justice, justice that sees the possibility of change, both for prisoners and for society.
Other countries have successfully done this. It is not absurd or impossible.
It is so very possible.