dirtsa1919

Crime Control and Community Models of Corrections

Our corrections system has been conducted through several reformative and punitive models. From colonial, penitentiary, reformatory, progressive, medical, community, and crime control (due process model), we have grown and adjusted as society changes. No one model is truly unique, each model is rooted in its predecessors aspects, we use a jumble of them in the varying aspects of the system. While crime control is currently the official front-runner, community models are heavily represented too, despite heavy financial ties to their use.

Crime control models focus on ‘assembly line justice’, structured sentencing and more productive processing through the courts and punishment systems. Crimes/offenses are sorted into categories (nets), each one comes with a base sentence that has room for ‘personalization’, and most sentencing is uniform and formula based. What the offense is, how the sentence is served, previous convictions, all factor into what sentence adjustments are made and how long the sentence is for the offender. The room for personalization and adjustments is where community models still have a strong hold in society.

Community models focus on keeping the offender connected to the community, not severing their ties unless necessary. This means serving probation sentences with rehabilitation, reform, and community service requirements. There are assessments, therapies, punitive punishments, all meant to connect the offender with those they harmed in their offense, the community damage encored, and hopes to ‘drive home’ reform. Their retained popularity may have less to do with shown results and

more to do with the over crowded, under staffed courts and detention facilities, along with the boom in the privet sector of reform.

While many studies show that crime rates are lowering, the facilities in existence are over capacity across the board, some worse off than others. The lowering rates justify the political choices to not build more facilities, while the realities of the current population forces the system to get creative. Offenders are sentenced in assembly line fashion (crime control) to sentences that are often partially if not fully community based. If the offender is not completely released from a holding facility (work release or day reporting) they can work towards it (while earning good time – time off their sentence). The system is currently set up to process offenders from arrest to sentence completion as efficiently (cost effective) as possible. That community corrections model provides a manner to do this in (probation, parole, half-way housing, etc…) also aids with the over crowding issues, outweighing the lack of significant noted effect on crime rates and recidivism.

This combination is politically popular in it’s cost-effectiveness. Offenders in a low enough tear to go into privet facilities are responsible for their own funding ($10,000 – 15,000 for a 2-year probation sentence on average). Those who come in at a state level can have some costs covered by the state, but are mandated to choosing facilities from a given list (unless the courts approve an outside facility, in which case the financing reverts to the defendant’s responsibility), these facilities are for the therapies, classes, community services, drug testing, and other requirements of their sentences. The mandated facilities are often in contracts with the courts to keep the costs lower. On the surface this appears to be a benefit to the offender, but on the state level it’s more beneficial to them, when it comes to paying for services to ensure their clients complete (or have a fair shot at completing) their court requirements. All of this, while expensive, is still cheaper than spending public tax money on more facilities to detain offenders (which is more in line with crime control models).

Community models strong connections to rehabilitation and treatments are popular with society, as they show compassion and allow for restitution in several forms. However, the changes in crime rates are not linked to community models over other models. While each model has its strengths, no one focus is ‘the answer’. Crime control models are primarily about efficiency, and while the initial punishment is presented as incarceration, community options are not disavowed. It is more efficient to use community corrections than incarcerate most offenses, so community corrections are utilized.

I feel like the current models are a result of frustration with past models not being ‘the answer’, and changing environments as well as public awareness. Society is overwhelmed at the moment and less concerned with the details of corrections for it. So long as the bad guys are being caught, processed, and they are not watching their tax money be spent on boring day reporting and work release facilities while the news reports crime rates are overall lower, they are happy. Never-mind that the current set up is more aligned with keeping a steady flow of clients through the privet sector, via sanctions and infractions that rank from justified to petty (completely counter to reform and creates recidivism).

Community corrections is the best model we’ve used thus far, regarding addressing the root cause to crime and correcting it, it just needs adjustments and proper funding to get a proper run. Crime

control goals are counterproductive to community goals, to properly asses and treat offenders would slow the system down and stall the ‘assembly line’ process. However, it would produce more effective (lasting) reform, and lower the criminal population over time.

References

“The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Communities and Reduce Incarceration.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 26.2 (2013): 128-44. Web.

Welch, Michael. Corrections: A Critical Approach. 3 ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. Print.

White, Michael D. “The New York City Police Department, Its Crime Control Strategies and Organizational Changes, 1970-2009.” Justice Quarterly 31.1 (2014): 74-95. Web. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2012.723032>.

— Jocelyn Johnson

The Death Penalty

The death penalty was first used in the US in 1608, to execute a Spanish spy, by 1612 it was established into colonial laws. It was applied to crimes like hitting one’s parents, killing chickens, trading with Native Americans, and denying ‘the one true god’, originally the individual colonies had their own laws addressing what constituted capital punishment. Today, the federal list for capital punishment crimes includes: Murder, Espionage, Treason, Trafficking large quantities of drugs, and attempting/authorizing/or advising the killing of any officer, juror, or witness in a case(es) involving a criminal enterprise still in operation. Currently, 19 states have abolished the death penalty in the US, most of the 31 states who do use it, also includes some variation of ‘second offense’s of raping children under the age of 11-14 years (depending on the state)’; also, some include kidnapping.

The death penalty was suspended in 1972 by the supreme court, after it ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment, in its current form where the jury had full control over it. They adjusted how one could be sentenced to death, now involving the judge at sentencing, and reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Since then, 1,486 people have been executed (as of December 2, 2018). New evidence, studies and research have freed 161 people from death row, and have shown 2% of those executed were innocent (possibly as many as 4%), since it was reinstated. That means at least 29 innocent people were killed, and experts think that number could be as high as 58 (if not higher), based on current data. In the 42 years since the death penalty was reinstated, it is possible to have wrongly executed at least one innocent person each year since.

There are 195 countries in the world, two-thirds of them have either abolished the death penalty or have not used it in several years. Only 55 countries in the world have the death penalty, and actively sentence and execute prisoners with it. We (the US) quite often rank in the top five countries to execute people sentenced to death, putting us in the company of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan. Much of the world regards the death penalty as archaic, as well as cruel and unusual.

Between 1890 and 2010, it is estimated that 3.15% of executions were administered incorrectly, causing the deaths to become unethical in an already ethically questionable situation. Lethal Injection had a 7.12% error rate (75 recorded errored executions), lethal gas had a 5.4% error rate (32 errored executions), hanging had a 3.12% error rate (84 errored executions), electrocution had a 1.92% error rate (83 errored executions), leaving the firing squads that accounted for 34 executions total, as the only method that had no reported errors in its use. All in all, 276 executions out of 8,776 were administered incorrectly. ‘Botched’ executions result in a prolonged and painful execution, deeming it unethical and to be a cruel and unusual punishment, by not only our own standards but that of the UN’s as well.

More studies are coming out showing the negative correlation between the ‘deterrence’ of the death penalty and murder rates. The south is responsible for over a thousand (over two-thirds) of the total executions since reinstatement, and also has the highest murder rates in the country. The Midwest is responsible for less than 200 of the executions and has the lowest murder rates in the country. Texas tops the state charts, with 548 of the total executions, while touting the same murder rate on its own as the entire Midwest’s average together. There is no published, reviewed research showing that the death penalty deters murder in any way.

It costs over two million dollars to sentence a person to death and execute them. Most of this cost is tied up in the courts, in order to sentence someone to death and subsequently execute them, the courts are required to exhaust all appeals in attempts to ensure guilt. This is 3-4 times (depending on the state). It costs around $200,000 for top security, life incarceration in prison, for the same persons’. Also, you can release someone from a life sentence if proven innocent, unlike our ability to raise the dead in an execution situation.

The boil down is, the death penalty is flawed and over priced, compared to the options we have. When used, we always have to wonder, is this person truly guilty? Will the execution method work correctly? Was it worth all the extra money and our world relations to get the ultimate retribution? If we don’t beat people to teach hitting is wrong, why do we kill to show murder is wrong? And what does it teach when it becomes state or federally regulated murder (when the executed was actually innocent)? While I agree there are people the world is better off without, we can not remove human error and bias from the process; we are therefore knowingly executing innocent people under the guise of justice.

Amnesty International, http://www.amnestyusa.org/files/death_penalty_2016_report_embargoed.pdf.

DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center, deathpenaltyinfo.org/.

Jocelyn Johnson

Mandatory Sentencing

What is mandatory sentencing? “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes. ” (FAMM – » What Are Mandatory Minimums?, 2016.) If certain aspects of a crime qualify for the mandatory sentences in place, the defendant must be processed under them, regardless of other factors. While much of the public focus is on ‘prison’ sentencing, mandatory sentencing also applies to other sentences, such as jail, parole and probation.

Is mandatory sentencing the major crime deterrent the justice system was looking for? Did it help streamline the courts case flow like it was meant to? I plan to compare and contrast the intentions with the realities for mandatory sentencing, to show that it does not work and is counterproductive in the Criminal Justice System reform goals. Mandatory sentencing is flooding the system with low end offenders, who’s lives are negatively impacted for prolonged periods of time. Courts are forced to order years of prison/jail or parole/probation (which includes thousands of dollars worth of treatments and sanctions that may or may not apply to the crime(s) or offenders and/or their situations.)

Mandatory sentencing was initially imposed by congress during the 80s. “In

1984, Congress enacted the most sweeping and dramatic reform of federal sentencing — the

Sentencing Reform Act.” (Special Report to the Congress | United States Sentencing Commission. 1991). It was meant to permanently reduce crime rates, but it’s focus became ‘the war on drugs’. It was

aimed at the king pins and meant to deter those lower down in the network. Along with ‘three strikes’ laws: “Under these laws, you will face a specific minimum sentence if you are convicted of a third felony.” (What Are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws. 2016), it was meant to be a helpful tool in the war on drugs. There are mandatory sentencing laws involving drugs, firearms, varying sex offenses (mainly trafficking), gang violence and a few miscellaneous crimes, but its main focus is drugs and firearms cases (Special Report. 1991).

When the sentences were constructed, no matter the position on the ladder or level of involvement, the sentence was the same for the given parameters. This was intended to stop the leaders from getting lighter sentences due to loopholes and technicalities. As long as a connection was established, the mandatory sentence applied. However, this is not how it worked out, the much larger number of workers v leaders simply resulted in the system being flooded with low end offenders serving long term sentences. The leaders (when caught) still tend to get lighter sentences than the workers, overall. (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016).

The statistics collected by the Bureau of Justice reflect about a third of mandatory sentenced, low end, drug offenders are serving sentences for crimes committed (in part) to support their own substance abuse habits. The same statistics also reflect that about a third of those in the correctional system with drug charges, also have mental illness issues as well. In a reformative system, one would think that treatment for the substance abuse and mental illness issues would be addressed, as well as a correction aspect that would be more pro-social to support a successful reform. However, under mandatory sentencing, the courts can’t take personal factors into proper account when adjusting the sentences. Fun side fact: Remaining steady since 1980, about 40% of the drug trafficking/selling (felony level) arrests, were for marijuana. (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016).

The courts are often forced to send these offenders away for years, to prisons and jails or place them in a probation system that can exasperate said issues, and create ‘revolving door clients’. The

probation and parole systems have treatment requirements meant to ensure that clients receive

evaluations and help. However, the execution is often group meetings that may or may not stay on topic, and can not be properly personalized to produce effects expected to last (without continued treatment – which is rare when original treatment is ‘ordered’.) Some offenders are taking therapies that have no relation to their crime, beyond satisfying a requirement of the courts. The courts have no choice but to order it, the defendant has no choice but to pay thousands of dollars for it and complete it, in order to term the case with the court and move on with one’s life.

The effects of mandatory sentencing are destroying the lives of otherwise productive members of society who have committed comparatively minor offenses. It also makes for a standard list of requirements attached to any ‘reform’ sentencing by the courts that may or may not relate to the offense. When the sentencing is not in line with the crimes, it weakens the reform aspects of punishment. When unrelated classes and therapies are mandated, long incarceration periods are required, the reform aspect is damaged and distorted when the punishment outweighs or doesn’t relate to the crime.

Mandatory sentencing runs on a chart/points system, like a math formula. The judge/magistrate starts with the type of crime and rather the offender is a first time or returning offender and matches it to the mandatory sentencing qualifiers (such as substances possessed and weights there of). Once this number is obtained it is adjusted based on other crime factors adding or removing points: was a weapon involved, was anyone hurt or killed, were minors involved, if one or several actors were involved – was the defendant a leader or a follower, and so on. There is room to lower the number, but much more to raise it. This final number then sets the parameters for minimums and maximums, if convicted, the court’s hands are tied into them. (FAMM. 2016.)

Because of this, most of the discretion has shifted from the judges bench to the DA’s office in plea deals. Many corrections clients take a plea deal for a lesser offense to avoid mandatory sentencing with jail/prison time, the system is full of stories where the defendant ‘could’ have won at trial, but wasn’t willing to risk it or couldn’t afford to keep fighting it. To top it off, the ‘lesser charge’ plead to will come with a sentence that will have its own mandatory requirements, tailored to the charge itself, and therefore likely to not line up with the offenders actual needs.

When pleading down, resulting charges may have no relation to the actual crime in question. However, the crime charged dictates the mandatory requirements of the sentenced handed down, what types and/or amounts of therapies, classes, level of supervision, and so on. When the final charge is off-base with the original crime and the sentence requirements match the charge, people are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are required to spend large amounts of time and money on things that will not only fail to ‘address/reform’ the situation, but will frustrate both the defendant and those servicing the court orders.

It is far less disruptive to one’s life to spend two years on probation than two years in prison or jail. However, that two years on probation will still disrupt ones life. It can result in loss of employment, family, friends, and so on, while costing $10-15 thousand (or more) to complete.

In 1980 there was a total adult correctional population of about two million people. In 2014, about seven million people accounted for the adult correctional population. (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016). There has been an increase in population from prison and jail to parole and probation, across the board it accounts for an increase of over 300%. The prison and jail populations between 1910 and 1980 only went from about 100 thousand to about 400 thousand (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016). The massive spike in numbers after 1980, lines up with the implementation of mandatory sentencing methods. It has only recently begun to decline (slightly) since the turn of the century, coinciding with the same time frame individual states started adjusting their mandatory sentencing laws to be more lenient. (FAMM. 2016.) This flood of offenders has not cleared up the courts, it merely formed the foundation of ‘assembly-line justice’.

Mandatory sentencing was meant to ‘reduce’ crime rates, but according to The Bureau of Justice statistics, the number of drug arrests has increased right along with sentencing rates. Though, the crime

rates are down from 13 million to 9 million, between 1980 and 2014 (United States Crime Rates 1960

– 2014.), they do not include drug crimes (usually recorded separately and the largest focus for

mandatory sentencing) which are rising (in opposition to the reduction goal). Drug related arrests were twice in 2009 what they were in 1980, accounting for 100/100,000 arrests from 50/100,000 (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016). When over a third of those serving long term mandatory sentences for repeat felonies connected to drug possession/trafficking have a drug and/or mental illness issue, and that the numbers are rising, it seems clear the current methods are not working. Punishing addiction or mental illness does nothing to resolve the issue.

Neither detention centers such as jails and prisons, nor enforcement agencies such as probation and parole are equipped for (nor should they be burdened with) the needs of serious addiction and mental illness issues. These are cases that never should have reached the justice system in the first place, but since they have, should still be redirected to treatment facilities equipped for such needs.

The first issues with providing proper addiction, mental health, and other treatments to offenders that come up, is the money and where it’s coming from. Treatment can cost a lot, to be effective. Addicts and the mentally ill don’t often have a stock pile of money to pay for such treatments, so the bill falls on the state. However, the state is already footing a bill of about $30,000 a year per prison inmate (1/3 of which committed their crimes due to addiction issues). Should said inmate have a mandatory sentence of 10 years, that’s $300,000 on the state (tax payers) to pay. 30 to 90 day rehabilitation treatments run $10,000-60,000+/- per person. Given a reported 40-60% of those who go through treatment relapse, we can still estimate half of those treated will likely succeed.

We have established that 100/100,000 arrests are drug related (Drugs & Crime Facts. 2016), and there are about 9 million arrests a year (United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2014. 2016.), this equates to 9,000 drug related arrests per year. 3,000 of these drug arrests are tied to addiction issues, and 1,500 of them could likely succeed in rehabilitation treatment. This results in a price difference of $450 million

to incarcerate those 3,000 people for 5 years, or $30-180 million to treat all the offenders instead. Even when calculating for shorter sentences, those 3,000 inmates cost $90 million a year to house. A two-year sentence for each, is all it takes to max out the cost of the most expensive 90 day treatment, for each offender. Treatment of addiction is not only more compassionate, it’s actually shown to be effective, and just so happens to be cheaper than incarceration.

The above only addresses those with addiction problems. A third of those serving mandatory sentences on drug charges also report mental illness problems, many beyond the justice systems ability to treat while ‘reforming’ other inmates. Not knowing how many mental illness inmates overlap with those suffering addiction issues, it can simply be presumed that 3,000 arrests per year require some level of mental health treatment. Unlike addiction treatment, mental health treatment is more likely to be life-long. Mental health treatment can range from $500+/- a year in insured, co-pay, maintenance costs, all the way up to $50,000-100,000 a year depending on the conditions of the illness being treated. The most common issues (exasperated by drug use) run from $500 – $2,000 a year out-of-pocket with Medicaid coverage (Burden of Mental Illness. 2016). 50 years of treatment at $2,000 a year is $100,000. 50 years of incarceration comes in around $1.5 million. Even if the state paid the difference for the out of pocket costs, it’s still significantly cheaper (and more effective) to properly treat people’s ‘problem’ than it is to punish them for the actions they resulted in.

Granted, there are some with addiction and mental health issues that need to be incarcerated, as well as treated. There are those who commit crimes with full knowledge and understanding of their acts, in accord with societal standards, and go through with them anyhow. I am in no way advocating a mass release of inmates, to treatment facilities instead of incarceration. I am just pointing out how much more cost effective and productive treatment is over punishment, for those it applies to.

Mandatory sentencing results in more problems than it solves. While intended to stop the

kingpins and deter the minions, mandatory sentencing has resulted in low level offenders flooding the

prison systems for long periods of incarceration, and not so many kingpins. “Low-level offenders often get longer sentences than high-level dealers.” (Minimums, 2016.) Mandatory sentencing does have deterrent effects, it’s results over the past 4 decades however, do not advocate the effects providing a strong argument for keeping them in place when compared to the cons. Courts are forced to satisfy a set of legal requirements set by congress, before considering individual factors in a crime. Some set requirements eliminate the courts abilities to consider certain individual factors, removing judicial oversight and the checks and balances system. It also prevents the courts from handing down harsher sentences to some, or allows them to act on bias and hand down a harsher sentence than is standard, defending it as being within the mandatory parameters.

Punishments are laced with court (sentencing) requirements that have little to nothing to do with the crime committed, or are inappropriate for the defendant/situation. However, they are required, the judges/magistrates must hand them out and clients must fulfill them to successfully term out their case with the courts. The systems ‘efficiency process’ is destroying the reform aspect of the system, and making it come off as a corporation for profit over a social structure focused on reform or social benefit.

While the ideals behind three strikes laws came with good intentions, the mandatory aspect

restrains the courts too much and needs to be reworked to allow for judicial oversight. Judges need to be able to see a defendant has an addiction problem, mental illness issue, caught up in something they don’t have any true connection with, and adjust sentencing accordingly. They need the freedom to filter the defendants that should be ordered specific treatments, to be evaluated for and assigned to take them. They need the opportunity to let the defendant who was in the process of turning their life around complete the task, rather than derail it due to environmental factors that resulted in criminal charges. They also need the freedom to exceed the maximums when the crimes truly deserve it. For those who

are too harshly sentenced, there are also those who get off too lightly. Mandatory sentencing results in

someone transporting a distributive amount of drugs (which can be a large or small amount, depending on the substance) receiving the same length prison sentence as another person convicted for over a decades worth of pedophilia related charges (including sexual contact).

While mandatory sentencing has good intentions, the justice system can not work properly when restrained, it needs to be fluid to adapt with us.

References

“Burden of Mental Illness.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 04 Oct. 2013. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

“Drugs & Crime Facts.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Drugs and Crime Facts: Contents. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

“FAMM – » What Are Mandatory Minimums?” FAMM. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

Minimums, Families Against Mandatory. Mandatory Sentencing Was Once America’s Law-and-order Panacea. Here’s Why It’s Not Working. (n.d.): n. pag. Families Against Mandatory Minimums. FAMM. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

“Special Report to the Congress | United States Sentencing Commission.” Special Report to the Congress | United States Sentencing Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. Aug. 1991.

“United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2014.” United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

Welch, Michael. Corrections: A Critical Approach. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. Print.

“What Are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws.” – Attorneys.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

— Jocelyn Johnson

Mental Heath In Juvenile Corrections

One area of the juvenile correction systems today, which is in need of repair, is the mental health aspect. Like the adult systems, many of the members of the juvenile justice population have mental health and substance use disorders. The numbers vary from study to study, but suggest that at least 60% of the offenders within the juvenile justice system are suffering from at least one disorder. There is little being done to address this obvious issue, seemingly due to communication issues between multiple organizations being involved with each individual. The problem is both in the functions of the mental heath care systems and the coordination and bureaucracy involved in linking multiple organizations.

How is mental health a justice system concern? When it is present in the majority of one’s population, it is likely a key factor in causation. While punishing the offense is a primary goal of corrections for juvenile or adult facilities, reform and prevention are close behind, and strongly focused on in juvenile justice. A 2006 study by Cocozza and Shufelt, found 70% of those in the overall population of offenders in the juvenile justice system had at least one mental health or substance use disorder (Juvenile Justice, 2016.). Another study published in 2002, showed similar trends with lower numbers, coming in at the 50-60% range for 1829 participants. And, another study conducted in 2000, using 18,607 participants, showed 70% of males and 81% of females qualifying for at least one mental or substance use disorder (Cauffman, 2004.).

The studies focused on lack of access to mental health services and treatment, prior to committing the criminal acts, as a major reason why it was so prevalent in the juvenile population. They also cited the lack of proper treatments for juveniles, once in the system, for it remaining there. The origins of the disorders were a spectrum of the mental health theories, in that they varied from inborn to environmental in cause, and the lack of treatment ranged from physical to financial access restrictions as well as other obstacles.

The solution to the mental health issues in the juvenile (as well as adult) justice system, is not within a justice system entity. The mental health system needs overhauled, so it can function as a treatment rather than a band-aid. Michael Welch’s text Corrections: A Critical Approach refers to the view of prisons, jails, and other detention centers as being the new poor houses. As they are densely populated by the lower-class, poor, un/under-educated, and those with mental health and substance abuse issues, they are a dumping ground that is quickly bursting at the seams.

Deinstitutionalization of psychiatric facilities and hospitals was passed by congress in 1963, making forced institutionalization illegal, resulting in the release of thousands of patients. Forcing patients to stay beyond minimum holds (ranging from 24 hours to a few weeks) was no longer an option for those who were still capable of making personal legal decisions. Before deinstitutionalization, once one entered a psychiatric facility it was very unlikely that one would leave (regardless of improvement). This was the fueling factor to deinstitutionalization, but the result was an over correction in the other direction. It is now almost impossible to get mental health care for those whom obviously need it, but are still cognitive enough to say ‘no’.

What mental health care treatment that is accessible, is difficult to obtain, and even harder to maintain. Many are in need of a facility that can provide inpatient treatment from months up to years, and few facilities can provide this. Many need some form of caregiver to ensure they attend sessions and take medications. All of this is above and beyond the funding for these systems. While there are facilities out there to provide such services, they are mostly non-charitable and un-affordable to those in the most need of them. Those that are charitable, have waiting lists years long.

Those that are court ordered or in another way obligated to receive treatment, are released from treatment at a set time, there is no way to ensure follow up and much (if any) progress made is likely to be lost. There is no long term care in place for mental health (or substance) issues that doesn’t require a level of patient (family) participation that can be beyond those in the most need. And they are some of the ‘time bombs’ we see coming but can’t stop/help.

Institutionalization is not the answer, but neither is ‘only’ self-responsibility, when it comes to mental health. There is a needed level of supervision/guidance in treating both mental health and substance use issues. This is one area that the patients are going to require help in a more personal manner than the justice system is able to provide. The research is there, but the funding and structure is lacking. Many of the properly aligned political improvements get twisted when moving up to congress, or buried under amendments and tack-ins to unrelated things, that get the whole package quashed before it leaves the ground. Solving the mental health issue is the root to the legal issues in many cases, but compliance with legal requirements supersedes treatment completion, resulting in reform failures. While juvenile justice systems have more funding to pay for the programs for offenders, funds are limited and the programs are strict. While continued treatment may be encouraged, once the requirements are met and the individual is removed from the justice system, the funding goes with it (and a strong motivating factor to attend – on both the juvenile and their guardian).

Reorganizing priorities with regard to funding and moving those funds into areas like mental health, substance abuse treatment, education, the justice system, and so on, we could make some progress. Better funding to education, mental health, and substance treatment will greatly reduce the number of individuals even reaching the justice system, let alone becoming long term residents.

If 60% of those in the juvenile justice system have mental health and/or substance use issues, and they had received proper treatment before they entered the justice system, they likely never would have made it that far. Imagine how much better the juvenile (and adult) justice system could work with half their population. There would be more room (overcrowding is a huge factor in many detention facility issues), and there would be more funding available for those there. There could also be facilities afforded for those who committed criminal acts, but were not suitable for ‘general population’ facilities, thus providing mental health treatment and segregating them away from an environment that is counterproductive to improvement. Removing the mentally ill from the general populations of prisons, jails, and other detention facilities makes for a more stable and productive reform environment for those not in need of treatment, as well.

That 60% of juvenile offenders have mental health and substance issues (often the latter leads to the former and visa-v), is a blaring signal that mental health treatment reform would hold a significant effect over the juvenile justice system in a positive way for all involved. We have the research that shows what is effective in treatment (thus far), and know how to diagnose many things. We just don’t have the funding to provide services to those who need it. Or the authority to treat those who exhibit

hostile intent prior to action. One cruel irony of underfunded mental health treatment, is that many of those suffering from mental illness are unable to maintain income (employment), due to their untreated mental illnesses. Another is it it less accessible to parents of children exhibiting signs of distress or schools from properly accessing students, resulting in a lost opportunity to begin treatment before things have a chance to escalate or worsen.

Resources

Cauffman, Elizabeth. “A Statewide Screening of Mental Health Symptoms Among Juvenile Offenders in Detention.” ScienceDirect. Science Direct, Apr. 2004. Web.

“Juvenile Justice Information Exchange » Key Issues.” Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

“Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention.” JAMA Network. N.p., 01 Dec. 2002. Web.

Welch, Michael. Corrections: A Critical Approach. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. Print

Jocelyn Johnson

A Living Wage

We decided years ago with the labor laws, that 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) of labor put into society, was the maximum amount of work any one adult should need to contribute in order to survive. With that in mind, the question of rather that contribution (no matter what it is) is worth a living wage makes no sense. The whole premise of society and monetary currency is that ‘one trades labor for money to obtain food, shelter, and so on’. Maximum labor put in, is equal to or greater than that of the minimum living wage requirements, in any given society by it’s own set standards of the maximums and minimums there in.

The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour (set in 2009). The average living wage in the US is $15 an hour, for two working adults with one child. Though, only 10 states’ average living wage is $15 an hour or less (Arkansas being the lowest at around $13). 24 states need $15.01 – $19.99 to meet their living wage requirements, 14 need $20.00 – $29.99, and 2 need over $30 an hour to meet the living wage average (California at about $30, and Hawaii at about $35).

At minimum wage pay, two adults would need to work 80 hours a week, each, to survive and support one child at the living wage standard. Twice the maximum labor supply society requires in trade for the minimum living standards, does not add up. The current national poverty line for a family with two adults and one child is $20,420 a year, which breaks down to $9.81 an hour at 40 hours a week. Even at $32,402 a year ($15.57 an hour/40 hours a week), this same family still qualifies for Medicaid.

Living wage means the minimum one needs to survive, so food, shelter, medication, clothing, the basics. Living wage simply means the least amount of money needed to meet ones basic needs within a given society. But, with the minimum wage set at less than half of the living wage, many people are working multiple jobs, just to afford being able to choose between medications and food.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2013 ‘Consumer Expenditure Survey’, this is the hourly wage break down to cover the average living costs:

$4.84 Housing ($774 a month — currently about $1000 and rising)
$3.57 Taxes

$3.39 Utilities/Household Operational Costs
$3.17 Food ($517 a month – the current government standard for thrifty, the lowest standard)

$2.65 Social Security

$1.74 Healthcare ($279 a month — currently over $700 a month for a family plan, not counting co-pays, just the coverage)

$19.36 ah hour for 2013 averages.

This leaves out items like transportation, which came in at $4.32 an hour ($691 a month). Or, clothing, education, personal care, debts, and entertainment which racked up another $5.36 an hour, all together. And, that still leaves out things like vices, miscellaneous, and cash contributions, which would account for another $1.57 an hour according to the study. So all together we should be making $30.61 an hour, to live the ‘average life’ in 2013… Anyone need to factor a student loan into that?

But somehow the corporation’s (whose CEO’s are making more in an hour what their employees make per year and are passing out bonuses like candy) can’t afford to pay the labor that supports them a living wage. Somehow, it will ruin the company, and no one will have a job, to pay workers a living wage. If a business can not afford to pay its workers a living wage in exchange for their labor, they can not afford to be in business, no one is entitled to own a business. However, according to our labor laws, if you put in 40 hours of work a week, you are entitled to pay for the basic living standards; not in need of finding another 40 hours of work in addition, that still may not cover your needs.

Greed has set in, and twisted the logic, that it is okay to pay below the poverty wage level. People buy into it, and defend the greed, asking why not find another job? Strike? When you’re working 60+ hours a week and still not making ends meet, you can’t afford to call in sick, let alone risk losing one of the jobs you have. When it’s legal to pay slave wages, most will, so job hopping does no good and there’s always someone waiting to pick up your hours if you go from one.

That job wasn’t meant to support a family! Why not? Because it’s food service, Janitorial, something else you look down on? In this country, with more prisoners than the rest of the world, where do you think felons can work after they have paid their debts to society and are re-entering it? Almost no one will hire them, they can’t vote anymore to advocate for themselves, so screw them and their family for wanting to survive after a mistake? Because anyone is so perfect? Because preach forgiveness and generosity, but scoff at those in need, lowering your property values?

And let’s not forget those who simply do not have the ability or opportunity, for many other reasons, to work a station ‘more to your approving’. Screw them paying rent and eating at the same time? The countries with American fast food chains in them, and living wage laws, only charge a few more cents for the burgers there. It did not destroy the business, it is profiting in other countries, just much more in ours. Yet, we blame our coworkers over the companies; they’re lazy rather than they’re greedy. The reason those jobs are seen as pocket change jobs when worked by teenagers, is supposed to be because they are worked part-time (20 hours or fewer per week), it’s not supposed to be twisted into justification to pay poverty level wages for the positions.

You want burger flippers to make as much as paramedics?!… No, give the paramedics a raise that appropriately reflects their worth above the minimum living standards. And so on and so forth, with all. You want to know why chain businesses are dying? No generation is killing them; people can’t afford to spend their money on such things. When you don’t make enough to cover even shelter, food, and healthcare in full, you can’t afford to stimulate the economy too.

We see one time bonus of a couple hundred dollars, as proof of trickle down, when that would actually be permanent raises instead. We see temporary tax benefits for citizens and permanent tax benefits to companies as a win, because instant gratification feels better than long term planning? Speaking of long term, it’s been 4 decades, that original Regan trickle down should be kicking in any minute now, right? And trying to reboot it again totally won’t cause another recession, crash, or any of the other things that happen every time people tried… Right? The growing mass of struggling Americans, just aren’t trying hard enough. They need to stop getting that ‘whatever treat’ they spend $10 on each payday, just trying to get some joy from their efforts. That is absolutely what’s breaking the bank, that $120 a year would totally solve all their problems… Really. Not the minimum wage being legally set to a living wage.

We keep electing people who profit off of keeping it legal to harm us. We keep buying into the spin, that those working three jobs over 60+ hours a week, are just somehow not trying hard enough. They are literally working harder, than we agreed as a society anyone should, just to barely survive. Yet here we are, still arguing their worth, in favor of a handful of people atop companies drowning in profits. Our morals are skewed, or at least the results of our actions make it seem so.

Between letting corporations lobby to keep wages at poverty levels, in trade for profit holders bank accounts. By letting big pharma lobby to keep us off universal healthcare, and allowed to rack up prices to an obscenely illegal standard almost anywhere else. By allowing the privatization of the criminal justice system, making recidivism and mandatory sentencing profitable, and turning the prisons into for-profit labor camps (that take jobs from society). By clinging to the horse and buggy of coal and oil for their lobbying that it’s not economic, when overall it is cheaper, creates sustainable jobs, and the longer we wait the farther behind the rest of the world we fall… Not to mention how we only have one planet to live on and you can’t eat, drink, or breath money.

For all the pockets we watch lined to our own detriment, while reelecting those who enable it. For all the lies we believe without even so much as Googling the topic… Perhaps we deserve what we get. We don’t seem too rushed to fix it, or to hear the facts, or to really do much of anything but wait on someone else to sort it. We’re so ready to crush each other down, to push the 1% higher, buying their trickle down fairy tales while watching their personal worth explode as the gap gets bigger. Watching the bottom half of the ladder to success, that the American dream (right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is supposed to grant access to, be severed trapping those born below a certain income line, to make the rich even richer. Ever waiting. Starving. Forgetting which side has the numbers, and who actually works for whom, and who actually has the power to fix these things. We The People do… At least when over a quarter of us don’t sit out the vote, in protest of the choices you get, when you don’t demand better.

Or maybe, we can realize it’s ‘our jobs’ to hold our elected officials responsible after all. That what’s best for us is more important to them than what’s best for a company, and their personal bank accounts. That we deserve a living compensation for our labors as the starting point, not the entitlement CEO’s and lobbyists would have us believe it is. That 40 hours is 40 hours, no matter what it’s spent doing.

References

“Federal Poverty Level (FPL) – HealthCare.gov Glossary.” HealthCare.gov, http://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/.

“Minimum Wage.” United States Department of Labor, 24 Feb. 2017, http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage.

Webber, Rebecca. “Average Household Budget.” ValuePenguin, ValuePenguin, 22 Nov. 2017, http://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget.

— Jocelyn Johnson