Skalduggery

Seriously, “Why have prisons?” Knowing what the goals for incarcerating law breakers are should help to define the strategic and tactical policy that is carried out behind prison walls. Though I plan on discussing the Oregon Department of Corrections’ (ODOC) Oregon Accountability Model (OAM), let’s leave the OAM out of this particular discussion for the moment. Again, “Why have prisons?” If we are at least moderately honest with ourselves, then often enough this is a question for which we rarely seek specific answers. But those answers are most often the defining determinants of how politicians, policy makers, and management (policy wonks) create the strategic policy which correctional practitioners struggle to turn into tactical policy.

Unfortunately, this is often a political question that has too many possible answers. In fact, this myriad of possible answers is one of the most glaring problems with developing effective, coherent, and reasonably operational policy. Oh, and let’s leave out the matter of the price tag and effective training.

Why bring this up? Because I think a general discussion of the most common answers to the question, “Why have prisons?” at least starts not only corrections practitioners, but the general public, in a reasonable discussion of the purpose and goals of Oregon’s prisons (more to the point, the purpose and goals of ODOC). As a start, here are four of the most common reasons/answers to the question.

1. Retribution – punishment, “just desserts,” getting what one deserves for a crime committed
2. Rehabilitation – to change or alter inmates through treatment or education to make them productive citizens upon release
3. Deterrence – this is generally understood to mean the punishment of criminals as an example in order to discourage others from committing crimes.
4. Incapacitation – prevent criminals from committing more crimes by locking them up and isolating them from society

Knowing these, I’d be most interested in what others think the answer(s) to the question is/are. Without referring to the OAM, I’m interested in what Oregonians believe the purpose of the corrections element of our criminal justice system actually is. Whether by email (the link at right) or by comment, please, let me know what you think. Until next time,

Cheers!

What matters is not what any individual thinks, but what is true. A teacher who does not equip his pupils with the rudimentary tools to discover this is substituting indoctrination [orientation] for teaching.

-Richard Stanley Peters

Visit Quote Snack for a great look at this quotation!

NEO Training Part 1
NEO, or New Employee Orientation, is what prospective Correctional Officers (CO’s) are subjected to in their first week of employment at Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP). I mention this specifically for OSP because not all Oregon correctional facilities train their employees in the same fashion, nor does each institution necessarily use the same materials for their training; in fact, some institutions do not have a NEO training week. There are both pros and cons to this reality; however, I am primarily concerned with OSP – so the focus will remain on OSP’s version of preparing a prospective CO for the realities of employment in a correctional setting.

Considering the 3″ binder full of OSP’s policies, procedures, and post orders, as well as the Department of Corrections’ rules and regulatory instructions, my peer group’s training sergeant did a pretty reasonable job of covering an enormous amount of disparate information. Unlike New York, new COs in Oregon are not sent to the training academy prior to starting their job. OSP chooses to deal with this lack of training by providing a one week crash course. In Oregon, if a new CO, or in New York’s parlance, a New Jack (a CO still serving their one year of trial [read probationary] service), makes it through NEO and the first few months of “sink or swim,” then the new CO is sent to the training academy. That little gem right there is worth a post all its own!

Back on point! So there we were, my peer group and five days of mind numbingly tedious information interspersed with a few fun moments thanks to our training sergeant. One of the points that were hammered home was the need for consistency. Several of the instructors said something close to, “straight up people, better to be a consistent asshole than to be a wishy-washy chocolate heart.” Often enough that statement was followed up with something along the lines of “mind you, I’m not telling you to be an asshole – only that a consistent asshole is better than an indecisive or inconsistent officer.”

Virtually every OSP post order has some version of this imperative: Staff will be totally consistent and uniform in enforcing all applicable DOC rules and policies and OSP procedures and directives. Somewhere along here I think it becomes obvious why I included the Emerson quotation. I think too, that the Peters quotation starts to make a little sense. The incredible emphasis on total consistency calls to mind the very bureaucrats that most of us despise. That a person would spend more time seeking the right pigeonhole in order to apply a “consistent” rule than to exercise a little creative/flexible thinking in order to find a reasonable solution to a problem should seem absurd to an American! And yet…

Too often, new COs walk away with an overwhelming affinity for the notion of consistency – because it removes the necessity to think and take a risk in decision making. Too often, the people training new COs rely on indoctrination methods rather than sound teaching methods in order to produce an officer with the tools to get at the truth of a matter or to think on his feet. Now then, after making these kinds of observations don’t make the mistake of assuming I think I am the best CO around! There are several officers that I think are better at the job. But the point really isn’t who the best is – it’s how to make us all better at the job.

In a budget crisis, we all know, the very first things to get cut out of the budget are education, training, and “in-service” instruction. It’s cheaper to indoctrinate than teach, and that is simple economics. However, our on-the-job (OJT) training could be much better. Take a look at SB – 257 (which aims at removing academy training) and think about it in practical terms. We do need to work with each other to do the best with what we’ve got! There are two things we can do here.

First, avoid that “foolish consistency.” I made a point of quoting a section common to most of OSPs post orders. The reason is twofold:

1. It was one of the most often repeated elements in NEO and OJT, and
2. How often the very NEXT imperative was NOT mentioned in tandem with a reasonable consistency.

This is how, dear reader, you know this isn’t just some negative screed. The writers of the post orders knew what a “foolish consistency” was and immediately followed the “consistency imperative” with a “mature thinking” imperative. If both elements were properly emphasized, then the writers had every reason to expect it would help prevent that very “foolish consistency.” What is that next imperative in the post orders?

Due to the large numbers of inmates typically present within the zone of control, it is especially important that all assigned staff exercise self-restraint and maturity of judgment as they enforce guidelines in a timely, decisive, impartial, and unobtrusive manner.

The second thing we can do is advocate for reasonable training. The idea that training can be computer based in an officer’s “spare time on the job” as worked out with his supervisor is – well, errant nonsense seems a kind way to put it. Unless a concerted effort is made by the top of the food chain to take the training seriously by supporting, scheduling, and TEACHING, it hardly seems reasonable to presume the bottom of the food chain will invest any more concern than the top of the food chain. Let’s make the most of our NEO training time (and our in-service training time).

Phew! I didn’t even manage to get to the videos we watched or the environmental conditions of the training… perhaps next week. Until then, take heart Oregon public – OSP truly is full of dedicated officers doing their best with what they’ve been provided, and THAT, is good news indeed.

Cheers!

Sorry about the late post, but for those of you who know me – the Jeep has finally given up the ghost, well, as Gary said, “I’ll help you push it off a cliff when you’re ready.” It’s flying into the abyss even as I write… Now I have to get another vehicle – just when America’s auto industry is in the toilet. Goody.

I suppose I could have railed at the state of the economy and our government’s complicity in the growing debt, but really, who wants to hear it? People here in Oregon should want to hear what’s going on right underneath their noses, and thanks to Chuck Sheketoff over at Blue Oregon, we do have some information about a misuse of general fund dollars in these lean economic times! The Oregon Production Investment Fund was set up by the state to subsidize film/video production in Oregon. Sheketoff’s entire article is enlightening, but the basics can be extracted from highlighting just a few paragraphs… First:

Here’s how it works. For every $100 an individual or corporation donates to the Oregon Production Investment Fund, they get a tax credit out of the General Fund worth $111. Yes, you read it right. Those who donate get back more from the General Fund than they contribute to the earmarked special subsidy fund. Instead of paying taxes that support schools, health and human services and public safety, contributors earmark some money for the film subsidies and then take even more out of the General Fund.

It’s such a great deal for the individuals and corporations who contribute that all of the tax credits are sold out through tax year 2011, and the agency that doles out the subsidies to the movie moguls is asking the legislature to pass SB 621 (PDF) so that they can issue 50 percent more tax credit subsidies.

In other words, rich folks and corporations make an incredible return on their donation, AND the Oregon Production Investment Fund does not have to compete head-to-head with public services, education, health and human services, etc., for General Fund dollars. If a donation occurs, then the state is obligated to pay out our tax dollars to the “investor.” Worse, the governor and his friends are trying to expand this great little deal by 50% – So the second small quotation should seal the deal here:

The proponents of the tax credit think it’s a great deal for Oregon and our economy and have an expensive consultant’s report (PDF) telling them what they wanted to hear to prove it. Yet, they’d rather hide their spending in the intricacies of the tax code than compete head-to-head for General Fund dollars with other public services.

Regrettably, even though Oregonians are going to see public services reduced because the economic crisis has wreaked havoc on state revenues, the Oregon Senate Finance and Revenue Committee yesterday voted in favor of the SB 621 expansion. The three Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the expansion, while the two Republicans voted “no.”

Maybe I took Mr. Smith Goes to Washington too seriously, but I’m optimistic that the full legislature will recognize SB 621 as economic folly and not only refuse to expand the Hollywood subsidy scheme but instead give it the curtain call it deserves.

Please read the article! It’s worth the small amount of time it will take, and I hope it will move you to call your representative to let him know how you feel. I’ll be calling mine! Let’s face it, there are more important things for Oregon right now, and a few million dollars may keep services to a few friends that desperately need it!

Cheers All!

Not long ago, I read an article by Carla Axtman entitled This ain’t Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” It refers to a Jeff Mapes article that addresses a new group called Common Sense Oregon that claims to, among other things, sniff out government waste. If you followed the links, it’s all about soda pop! Though I took issue with Carla’s title (mostly for fun), she took the time to include links to important considerations in corrections funding. Jeff gets a little paranoid about who’s funding/behind Common Sense Oregon. It seems both the left and the right are suspicious of big money, but use it prodigiously! For example, on the right, if George Soros funded it – well, it’s evil left. On the other (left) hand, if Loren Parks funded it – well, it’s the evil right.

Regardless, Jeff and Carla’s articles are reasonably balanced (though left leaning) and informative. If you read Common Sense Oregon’s blurb on the $3/4 of a million spent on soda for inmates, you’ll find it lacks the very common sense they claim to promote by using more snarky than reasoned information. Rather than respond to Max Williams’ response, Common Sense Oregon snarks:

Department of Corrections Chief Max Williams claims that food like soda pop is an important tool for managing prisoners. Perhaps if the prisoners weren’t hopped up on sugar from the free soda pop they are getting, there wouldn’t be a management problem.

Common Sense Oregon doesn’t bother with a reasoned response to Max Williams – they seem to use Saul Alinsky’s notion of using ridicule to win. I don’t know how other people weigh arguments, but I tend to dismiss people who use ridicule, arguing to the person, or red herrings to win debates. With that in mind, I’ll mention the last article about the soda pop and prison that was as bad as or worse than Common Sense Oregon.

Too many people with limited life experience make public charges. The Group “Common Sense For Oregon”, which frankly I had never heard of, has managed to get news attention over its non-revelation that Oregon is spending, according to them, $773,000 for free soda pop for prisoners.

The first point to make in regard to this, is that we have 1 out of 31 Americans incarcerated today and it is a national shame. So why are they there? One reason is the simple fact that new laws are continually enacted and implemented, further outlawing more and more activity. (Tim King)

“The first point to make in regard to this,” is that Tim King misuses statistics provided by a PEW Center report – and seems to do it deliberately. There are not 1 in 31 people incarcerated in the United States. There are 1 in 31 people under “correctional control,” meaning “prison, jail, probation, or parole.” The word Incarcerated actually does mean “to put in prison,” or “subject to confinement.” For those actually incarcerated see the PEW Center’s report 1 in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008.
At best, this is disingenuous.

If you read to the end of Tim King’s article, you’ll find it is filled with arguments to the person, ridicule, and red herrings. Moreover, you’ll find at the very end a paragraph describing his 20 odd years of experience – which is probably why he opens his article with “Too many people with limited life experience make public charges.” I’m not certain if this refers only to the amount (time lived) or variety of life experience, but I’m pretty certain a young person with limited experience is still capable of making a prudent and accurate public charge. Moreover, that an old man with a variety of experience is capable of making an imprudent and specious public charge – or even self-righteous accusations about another person or organization’s motives. My daughter tries to avoid mean spiritedness, seems Tim and Common Sense Oregon could both do the same.

Though I agree with Tim King’s assertion that the inmates should have the soda, it is not for the non-reasons he provides: it is because I agree with Max Williams – who probably actually does have more life experience with inmates and corrections operations than does good old Timmy. 😉

Cheers!

As I mentioned in my previous post, the aim of these posts will hopefully be predominantly corrections; however, I reserve the right to chase any sparkly thing! Sometimes, I believe the sparkles and corrections may converge. Sometimes, a patriot’s writing provides a number of avenues to explore. For example, one of Thomas Paine’s most famous pieces is his political pamphlet Common Sense. It relates Paine’s distaste for the necessary “evil” of government. I wish more people would take the time to read the whole pamphlet! It turns our current notion of “left” and “right” on its ear. More important, is the responsibility it ascribes to society and government.

Political Continuum - sent to Beck by Insider BrokenParadox

In Glenn Beck’s opinion, our Founding Fathers had a much less intrusive government in mind. Though I enjoyed this photo at Beck’s site, I really enjoyed his commentary on the “continuum of left and right” in our current political discussions, i.e., the claim that the GOP has moved too far to the “right.” It’s a fun episode to watch. Regardless of one’s opinion of Beck (most progressives think he’s a nut job), giving each side an honest hearing seems – well, somehow, very American. Beck thinks that the founders wanted to provide a government just small enough to avoid anarchy and allow maximum liberty – a thought that Thomas Paine also seems to share:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! (Paine, in Common Sense)

Society encourages our virtues, government punishes our wickedness. Not much further in to Paine’s wonderful little tract, he makes it clear that security is bound up in the government’s responsibilities. He was a real word mechanic that Paine:

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others (of course, the emphasis is mine).

Hmmm, he sounds kind of conservative. Regardless, the point I want to walk away with is that society and government are not the same, and that while we argue about what punishment is really all about (“corrections” in modern parlance), we very often fail to discuss society’s responsibility to inculcate the virtues – the four cardinal virtues, the three “theological” virtues, and of course, our civic virtue!

In future posts, whether discussing our security or the government’s punishment of wrongdoers, conceptions of these virtues will be central to many of the conclusions drawn. Consequently, at least some discussion will be aimed at an understanding of these virtues. The government’s job of security and its collateral responsibility of punishment must rely on society’s demand for virtuous conduct by our representatives. Whether right or left, Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Progressive, one can hope that at least some of these old virtues are still shared.

A final note: Please feel free to comment and engage in a dialogue – and as long as it remains civil (now there’s a word we should explore!) the comments will be only lightly moderated. I look forward to the conversation!