« Trying to Help | Main | Mass Tiber Leap »
January 05, 2005
When I was in prison...
Former blogger Peter Nixon writes of his experiences in prison ministry
Prisoners may be one of the closest analogues in our society to the lepers of Jesus’ time. As Jesus’ contemporaries feared disease, we fear the social pathologies that afflict many of those behind bars. Increasingly we seem to have given up on the possibility of rehabilitation and are content simply to keep offenders away from our communities for as long as possible.
But if we are to be followers of Christ, we need to challenge that worldview. Like Jesus, we must be willing to confront our fears, to seek out the lost and the exiled, and to offer them the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation. And with more than 2 million Americans behind bars, we need a lot more workers for this harvest.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83474b4d169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When I was in prison...:
Comments
Nixon's reminder of Christian duty to prisoners is well-founded.
Unfortunately, he blames recidivism on illiteracy, learning disabilities and mental illness. Criminal behavior becomes a congenital disorder, rather than an action capable of moral control. His talk of 'rehabilitation' is unusual given the apparent belief that the criminal are genetically incapable and therefore not ultimately responsible for their actions.
We do have the onus "to offer them the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation" and Nixon is correct on that score. However, when it comes to "rehabilitation," Christianity must put aside the tempting but commonly misused interpretation of genetic fatalism in posing criminality (or other immoral traits) as congential defects beyond intervention or control.
In the view of human dignity, the criminal are merely people, not a defective subclass of humanity. In view of that same dignity and free will, the ability of one person to rehabilitate another is doubtful - it takes the human exercise of self-will and self-control, not to mention the grace of God. Let us exercise humility, not hubris, with respect to our personal or collective ability to rehabilitate a person, let alone a population.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 8:35:32 AM
As Ren said to Stimpy "You're talkin' crazy stuff, man".
He says we shouldn't "fear" their "pathologies" that "afflict" them? While I'm sure there are more than a few who qualify as pathological, I don't know that I'd be so quick as to absolve them of personal responsibility.
Rapists, for example. I suppose he'd let the rapists out; I suppose that if they could just obtain some basic skills they certainly wouldn't rape again, would they? Would he feel comfortable allowing them to live in his neighborhood?
Society must err, if it does, on the side of public safety. I suppose some with life sentences wouldn't re-offend, but should we take that chance? Should society say, regarding the rapist or murderer, "Well, he may or may not re-offend, but if he does, it's only one person he'll assault."? I don't think we can take that chance.
This is why we have parole boards. To make the judgment on whether or not this or that person still presents a risk to society.
Something else struck me in his article - he wondered about "race and class" differences. This reveals more about him than I think he intended. Not in the "race" part, but in the "class" part. Is he so high up in the Ivory Tower that he wondered how he could ever deign to even interact with the "unwashed"? These are the types who clamor for letting out the criminals because they themselves run in a world where they'd never come in daily contact with the "lower" classes anyway. Let the rest of society deal with them.
But really, what else would you expect to read in US Catholic?
Posted by: Paul N. at Jan 5, 2005 9:09:17 AM
Good piece, Peter. Many of us simply talk, others act. You are among the latter.
To acknowledge that there is unfairness and injustice in the US does not imply that one is excusing criminals. How can anyone disagree with Peter Nixon's following words?
"The fears that many of us have
about prisoners are not unreasonable.
Dorothy Day famously warned the
idealists who came to the Catholic
Worker houses against romanticizing
the poor, and her advice applies to
those who want to work with the
incarcerated. I have encountered
some dangerous men in prison, men
who have yet to fully exorcise
their personal demons and face the
hard truth about the pain they
have caused others.
But while working with prisoners
has strengthened my convictions
about the depth of human sinfulness
and our need for God’s grace, it
has also taught me that injustice
is a soil in which sin plants strong
roots. For every man who comes to
chapel with a Bible in hand, there
is another who can hardly read at
all. Many of these men suffer from
learning disabilities or mental
illnesses that have been inadequately
treated. State and county budget cuts
have left programs that help
ex-offenders reintegrate into their
communities woefully underfunded.
Small wonder that more than two
thirds of those released from prison
are ultimately re-arrested."
Posted by: Phil at Jan 5, 2005 9:44:39 AM
"How can anyone disagree with Peter Nixon's following words?"
Easy. I just did. Read the first post.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 10:07:25 AM
Mark: tell us about YOUR on-the-ground experience in prison ministries. I know what Peter's is; I'd like to know your source of experience-grounded knowledge.
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Jan 5, 2005 10:20:29 AM
tell us about YOUR on-the-ground experience in prison ministries. I know what Peter's is; I'd like to know your source of experience-grounded knowledge.
I see. So unless one has walked the halls in our pentitentiary system you're unqualified to take a view of the criminal justice system. And unless you're black, Latino, or Italian ... well, you know how the rest goes.
You can admire Mr. Nixon's willingness to perform corporal works of mercy and still criticize the conclusions he draws from his experience.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2005 10:25:41 AM
I really don't know what to say to someone who scorns a man doing prison ministry for being too far up the Ivory Tower.
Posted by: Tom at Jan 5, 2005 10:29:30 AM
Years ago, when I was locked up, I was surprised to see who was open to God. There were a few Protestants who would come once a week and offer bible services, and it as surprising who went to the meeting. I was sleeping with another guy, and we got to talking about my religion and stuff, and soon after he said he was willing to go to confession the next time the priest comes around. He didn't get to go, as he left too soon, but I like to think he eventually went by himself.
The harvest is plenty, but....
Posted by: Jason at Jan 5, 2005 10:33:01 AM
I do a Bible study class with juvenile offenders on a regular basis, and I can't find anything that I disagree with in Peter's article.
To acknowledge that there are certain conditions beyond the control of the offenders that affect their predisposition towards crime (in the case of a lot of the kids that I work with, being locked up seems to be something of a family tradition) does not mean excusing them for their actions. On the contrary, it means that I emphasize free will a lot in my work so that they begin to realize that no matter where they are, they can embrace God and begin to reform their lives.
However, at the same time, it would absurd for me to conclude that they wouldn't be better off if their families were more stable and they had better role models. To use the old Catholic cliche -- it's not either/or, it's both/and.
Posted by: Bill H at Jan 5, 2005 10:35:57 AM
Bill,
How did you get involved with that prison apostolate? Does your diocese train you, or do you just have to seek the permission of the prison itself?
Posted by: Jason at Jan 5, 2005 10:43:51 AM
"Rapists, for example. I suppose he'd let the rapists out"
I didn't see anything in Nixon's words that would justify attributing this position to him. He said that we have a Christian obligation to treat prisoners with humanity. How someone reads that as a wish to have dangerous criminals released is beyond me. In fact, as Phil pointed out, Nixon says in the full article: "Dorothy Day famously warned the idealists who came to the Catholic Worker houses against romanticizing the poor, and her advice applies to those who want to work with the incarcerated."
Unless people are working in prison ministry like Nixon, or have actually been in prison (or both, as in the case of people like Chuck Colson), it's hard for them to realize how much our prison system is like one of living entombment. And far too many people, if they think about it at all, think that if prisons are Hobbesian hellholes, well, that's probably just a condign punishment for the offenses committed by the inmates.
"These are the types who clamor for letting out the criminals because they themselves run in a world where they'd never come in daily contact with the 'lower' classes anyway."
It sounds like Nixon is coming into a lot more contact with them than most of us do.
Posted by: Seamus at Jan 5, 2005 10:43:53 AM
Jason,
In my case, there was a pre-existing program run from our parish that I joined up with. Once I did that, I went through a brief training session with diocese and had to get a security clearance from the county corrections deparment.
If you wanted to start your own apostolate, my recommendation would be to go to the diocese. If they're like San Jose, they will probably have a couple of people on staff responsible for prison ministries in the diocese. They should tell you what you need to do to get started.
Posted by: Bill H at Jan 5, 2005 10:54:14 AM
"Mark: tell us about YOUR on-the-ground experience in prison ministries. I know what Peter's is; I'd like to know your source of experience-grounded knowledge."
Classic. Because I am not Peter Nixon, I am barred from saying anything about his ideas.
Jimmy Mac, the next time you feel inclined to cheer for a football team....SHADDAP! After all, when did you ever go head to head against Dick Butkus on the field. The next time you critique the President or a Senator...PIPE DOWN! When did you ever serve as President or Senator.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Jan 5, 2005 10:57:26 AM
The prevailing sentiment here seems to be lock 'em up and throw away the key.
So what should modern-day Catholics think now of Father Edward Flanagan, founder of Boys Town, who famously observed:
"There is no such thing as a bad boy. There is only bad environment, bad training, bad example and bad thinking . . . Understanding and not punishment is the solution for what is commonly called 'juvenile delinquency'. This is not just a statement. It is verified by more than a quarter of a century of work with boys of all classes."
Flanagan also championed prison reform; he believed rather passionately that adult criminals could be rehabilitated.
Was he a fool?
Posted by: Whitcomb at Jan 5, 2005 10:59:22 AM
What can I do to get involved in a similar ministry? (I'm not kidding.) As New Year's resolutions go, I'd like to more of those works of mercy I mentioned above.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2005 11:12:28 AM
Rich,
See my reply to Jason above.
Posted by: Bill H at Jan 5, 2005 11:36:06 AM
Thanks, Bill. I wrote too soon. Though given my diocese, I'd prefer an apostolate. I'll make the chancery my first stop in any event.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 5, 2005 11:39:07 AM
Kudos to his Works of Mercy. I'm not criticizing him in that regard. Just the idea that all of these guys are simply "victims" of their circumstances. There are plenty of people who live in poverty that are good people and don't commit crimes. I know a few of them, to tell you the truth.
There are people who can't read that don't commit crimes either.
Just as there are plenty of rich kids/people out there who are criminals too.
It's not all environment, yet neither does environment have no effect.
Sure, adult criminals can be rehabilitated - SOME of them. Here again, that's for parole boards to decide, if a sentence hasn't been fully served.
Posted by: Paul N. at Jan 5, 2005 11:47:26 AM
"Was he a fool?"
Well, yes he was, if he believed literally that "there is no such thing as a bad boy." That certainly doesn't mean he was wrong to push for prison reform, or to believe that many boys living a criminal life could be turned around. I rather hope he was speaking hyperbolically, for effect.
Something that makes me sick is our society's increasing penchant for dealing with crime by locking people (even minors) up and thowing away the key (see, e.g., http://www.dfw.com/mld/belleville/7875910.htm, http://www.courttv.com/trials/wrestling/background.html) If there are crimes that are truly so heinous and criminals so beyond redemption that they deserve life imprisonment without possibility of parole, then we ought to simply put them to death. If we don't inflict the death penalty in those cases, it can only be because we prefer to assuage our consciences by pretending that by sentencing the offender to a living entombment we have somehow been more humane and respectful of the criminal's dignity that if we'd simply had the stones to send him to the gallows.
Posted by: Seamus at Jan 5, 2005 11:47:49 AM
"Was he a fool?"
No, but he sure was wrong. I know nothing other than what you posted, but as moderation is a virtue, it would be bad to counsel extremism in the treatment of deliquents. Punishment certainly has a place for juveniles, who need to understand the consequences of their actions.
It is in no small measure that crime rates have gone down as recivisist offenders have been locked up. Dumb reporters at the NYT and other papers seem astonished by it, and occasionally you'll see headlines reading: "Despite increase in inmates, crime going down." It should better read: "BECAUSE of increase in incarcerations, crime going down."
That doesn't mean that the prision system itself should be unnecessarily cruel or a dangerous place. But there are circumstances in which should certain people should never be allowed to walk again in civilized society. Jails can go a long way towards reforming things so that inmates are not cruelly treated.
This discussion reminds me of the last jail scene in The Shawshank Redemption: "Rehabilitated? Well now, let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means...I know what you think it means. To me, it's just a made-up word, a politician's word so that young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie and have a job. What do you really want to know? Am I sorry for what I did?...There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. And not because I'm in here or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then. A young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him. Tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone. This old man is all that's left. I gotta live with that. 'Rehabilitated?' That's just a bulls--t word. So you go on and stamp your forms, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a s--t."
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Jan 5, 2005 11:54:42 AM
There are plenty of people who live in poverty that are good people and don't commit crimes. I know a few of them, to tell you the truth.
There are people who can't read that don't commit crimes either.
Just as there are plenty of rich kids/people out there who are criminals too.
Yes indeed.
However, the prisons are overwhelmingly, and in a way totally out of proportion to the larger society, populated by the mentally ill, the retarded, and those from the lower economic classes. Given that there is also some - not as much as everyone likes to claim - "white collar crime", still, I just don't believe that a whole lot of burglars from upper class backgrounds are either in the prisons or roaming the streets.
Is it your position, Mark, that there are just plain more morally bad people who happen to be born into poor families or afflicted by mental illness, by some strange chance, while those born healthy and into wealthy families turn out to be morally better too, by their own efforts?
Posted by: Leo at Jan 5, 2005 12:28:55 PM
Leo,
I'm not sure what your point is. The middle class will always have more resources than the poor to protect themselves from incarceration. They can afford to hire better lawyers, their lifestyle allows them to avoid the stresses that poverty usually brings, they might have better connections to sweep their crimes under the rug, and in general their economic satisfactions might bring more contentment which means better parenting and a more stable home environment.
It will ALWAYS be that way. So what's your point?
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Jan 5, 2005 12:44:28 PM
Matthew 25:43c
I think Mark K's comments are troubling from a Catholic view. Many criminals are bound by their addictions. Did they make the initial choice to drink and drive, to do drugs, etc.? Of course they did. No serious person doing prison ministry advocates a mass leniency.
But that doesn't let society at large off the hook for its role, either. If you preach that kids are adversely affected by the parents of their peers (the in-vogue moral issue du jour) you can certainly hold that opportunities are quashed by public policy, poverty, lack of education, lack of addiction treatment, and even -- gasp -- Christian apathy.
For people like Mark, my suggestion: get thee to a prison, encounter the real presence. Jesus was pretty specific in his teaching about finding him in the least of our brothers and sisters. Unless your Bible is torn out past Matthew 24, I don't see how you can avoid it.
Peter's piece is excellent, and the people who squirm over it probably have their consciences getting poked.
Posted by: Todd at Jan 5, 2005 12:50:04 PM
As Morgan Freeman's character suggests, the solution may be to lock 'em up long enough for them to age out of the most crime prone cohort-teens and twenty-somethings-which I believe is more or less being done now. An improvement would be to cull out the salvageable from the psychopaths and segregate them. Maybe ship the latter off-yeah that;s it!- to a penal colony on some Aleutian island. Airlift supplies periodically and let them formulate their own rules or go to hell in a handbasket. Who cares either way? And who knows? Maybe they'll surprise us.
Posted by: carolyn at Jan 5, 2005 12:51:50 PM
It is realistic to acknowledge the effects of the pathologies Peter Nixon mentions. The incidence of serious mental disorders in an imprisoned population is at least 10%. Effective mental health treatment in prisons would be humane and reduce recidivism.
In most jails and prisons in this country the current standards for evaluation and treatment of mental disorders appear to be woefully inadequate.
Posted by: TomM at Jan 5, 2005 12:55:14 PM
