
Life After 'Life': Aging Inmates Struggle For Redemption - kevinwang
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/04/317055077/life-after-life-aging-inmates-struggle-for-redemption?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140604
======
Surio
Reading this article reminded me of the scenes from the film, Shawshank
redemption. You know, where Brooks got released, but was institutionalised for
so long that he couldn't cope with the outside world and commits suicide? And
which was then used as a suspense moment when Red also reaches for the chair
and goes to the same beam?

EDIT: Not to mention, how Red narrates how hard it was for him to go on loo
breaks without asking for permission :(

~~~
_delirium
This is one reason the Scandinavian prison systems try to gradually move
people out into society prior to full release, as kind of a phased-in release.
It's common to move people who are considered less of a security risk to
minimum-security prisons that are less prison-like and more like boarding
schools, and then allow weekend releases towards the end of sentences, where
prisoners can leave for the weekend to spend time with family, but have to
report back on Monday. Sometimes this leads to bad headlines (prisoners can
"escape" by just hopping a short fence at a minimum-security facility, or
deciding not to come back from weekend release), but overall I think it has
positive effects.

~~~
Ntrails
Simply write the timings in such a way as where before they would have been
paroled at time t, their move to low security and reintroduction occurs at t.
Therefore they don't get to escape "easily" any sooner than they would have
under a previous systm?

------
ern
A condition for parole seems to be that the prisoner accept that they did the
crime
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma)).
I don't know the circumstances of the case, but assuming that the prisoner who
drove over his wife during an argument maintained that he intended to reverse,
would he have been paroled?

~~~
techsupporter
No. It is galling to me that, as your linked article states and has been
demonstrated in several court cases, factual innocence is not an immediate
overturning of the conviction, an expungment, and a written apology from the
governing body that erred.

~~~
rayiner
> factual innocence is not an immediate overturning of the conviction

Someone who can show that they are actually innocent can file a federal habeas
petition, and their proof of actual innocence will get past any procedural
hurdle that stands in their way: [http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-
analysis-innocence...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/opinion-analysis-
innocence-exception-survives-innocence-claim-does-not).

The problem is that most prisoners cannot show actual innocence. It's usually
a matter of showing some new evidence or some flaw in the original evidence
that doesn't rise to the level of convincingly proving that the original
verdict was incorrect. That's why DNA evidence is so often the basis for
releasing the innocently convicted: they rise to the level of convincingly
showing that the original verdict was in error.

------
WalterBright
I just don't see much point in sentences beyond 30-40 years.

~~~
narsil
That might be explained by the US prison system being one of punishment, not
rehabilitation. [0]

[0]
[http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx](http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx)

~~~
lazyjones
It's both punishment and big business.

[http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers](http://www.thenation.com/prison-
profiteers)

~~~
rayiner
Only about 8% of prisoners are held in for-profit prisons:
[http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-g...](http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry). Moreover, the prison
population started exploding long before for-profit prisons arose. The U.S.
prison population started exploding in the mid-1970's, as states passed tough-
on-crime measures like three strikes' laws in response to dramatic increases
in crime rates:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Incarcerated_Americans_as_a_Percent_of_Population.jpg).
But even by 1990, only a negligible percentage of U.S. prisoners were in for-
profit prisons:
[https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102....](https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf).

I strongly oppose for-profit prisons, but the whole "prisons are big
business!" trope the NYT likes to trot out is bullshit. For-profit prison
companies are opportunists, taking advantage of the trend of growing prison
populations combined with the heavy emphasis in the 1990's on trimming the
number of public employees.

But CCA didn't create the massive U.S. prison population. Voters did:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
strikes_law#Enactment_by_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
strikes_law#Enactment_by_states). Frightened suburbanite baby boomers watching
the news, shrieking "Just Say No!" at school events, voting for Three Strikes'
laws and aggressive drug enforcement. I.e. NYT's core readership.

~~~
danielweber
While I agree in general, there was serious lobbying for the Three Strikes Law
by people who stood to gain financially. It may have happened even without
their support, but they thought it was worth the payoff to put in millions of
dollars.

[http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-
cali...](http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-californias-
prison-blues)

~~~
rayiner
California's Prop. 184, which is probably the harshest three-strikes law in
the country because it doesn't require the third felony to be serious or
violent, was a ballot initiative that passed 72-28 in 1994:
[http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three...](http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_184,_the_Three_Strikes_Initiative_%281994%29).
Washington's Initiative 593 passed 75-25 the year before:
[http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initi...](http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Three_Strikes%22,_Initiative_593_%281993%29).

You can't get American voters to agree on anything by that kind of margin,
other than apparently the idea that you should get life in prison for stealing
a few hundred dollars each on three separate occasions.

Honestly, what really irks me about the "prison lobbying" angle is that it's
just a way to shirk responsibility. "Oh, it's those lobbyists that are to
blame, not my parents, friends, or me."

~~~
danielweber
That's the one the NPR article talks about (unless there was another in 1994).

 _Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had
committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences._

 _Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press
conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important
victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds._

 _But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major
player: the correctional officers union._

 _In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has
become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has
contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that
lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to
Wilson after he backed the three strikes law._

 _And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into
effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to
45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000
a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year._

 _Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its
members._

 _" We have advocated successfully for our members," he said._

... EDIT

You also show how it worked in Washington, which is a good comparison. Was
there similar lobbying there? (This is an earnest question, I do not know the
answer.)

~~~
rayiner
Here's a story about I-593:
[https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1996/may/15/citizen-
ant...](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1996/may/15/citizen-anti-crime-
initiatives-how-the-gun-lobby-bankrolls-the-war-on-crime). It took $200k to
get on the ballot, apparently funded by the gun lobby. Meanwhile,
environmental organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on
persuasion efforts, and can't get shit passed. Persuasion is cheap when people
already agree with you.

Here's the thing. A few million is enough to let my mom know that there is a
"tough on crime" proposition on the ballot and she should go out and vote. Ten
times that much won't convince her that being "tough on crime" is a bad thing,
that her granddaughter isn't in constant danger of getting kidnapped and sold
into sex trafficking, etc.

