A Personal Reflection on Mass Incarceration

By Abigail Pasiuk

A recent study released by bipartisan political organization FWD.us, in partnership with Cornell University, determined that half of adults within the United States have an immediate family member who has been incarcerated. Incredibly, the affected population totals 113 million people. On July 25th of 2018, I became part of this statistic. That was the day my father began serving his 38-month sentence in a federal prison. 

This has been an incredibly painful experience not only for him, but for my mother and my family. It is through this personal on-going experience that I have begun to understand the ethical issues that mass incarceration presents to our society. The issue is ethically and socially complex, but by drawing upon the biblical principles of justice, I believe we can illuminate alternatives to the current model of retribution and punishment. By applying the biblical principles, it may be possible to promote a transformation of criminal justice from retribution and punishment to a system rooted in restoration and healing.

Incarceration is at an historical high in the United States and, according to Human Rights Watch, 2.3 million people are currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons and jails. In addition, an estimated 5.1 million people are serving sentences on probation or parole, making the United States the country with “the world’s largest reported incarcerated population.” While there are many contributing factors to the problem of the incarceration of masses of people, mandatory minimum sentencing, exorbitantly long sentences, and racial sentencing disparities are among the leading causes. 

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, by which legislatures have removed the sentencing decision from judges and juries, have instead placed enormous power in the hands of prosecutors. Prosecutors can threaten a defendant with the prospect of a long mandatory term of incarceration upon conviction at trial, in order to entice the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge. It is not uncommon for a person to plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit just to avoid the prospect of unjust conviction of a more serious crime and a lengthy prison term. Gregory Lee writes, “Ninety-six percent of felony cases are determined by guilty pleas and not trials. The system has thus transferred power from the independent juries to prosecutors, failed to distinguish those who have committed crimes from those who have not, and watered down the term ‘felony’ to encompass a host of minor offenses.” 

This reality was manifested in my father’s experience from the moment the Department of Justice began to investigate his financial company. Over the course of nine years, the DOJ threated to level multiple charges against him and indict the majority of employees at his small company if he did not plead guilty to a single count of “conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.” Given that the company employed several relatives, the DOJ specifically threated to indict his 80-year-old mother who was the receptionist, his son, his brother and even his wife if he did not accept their plea agreement. Although my father had hundreds of phone recordings, thousands of documents, and other evidence to prove his innocence of the claims against him, the prosecutors insisted he adopt their “narrative” and accept the charges. The other option was to spend tens of thousands of dollars he didn’t have fighting the federal government in court to defend himself and family members facing similar accusations. 

Given that the sentencing guidelines for this offense dictate a sentence of up to 25 years in prison, their plea agreement that reduced the charges to a single count with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment felt like the better path – albeit unnaturally. This sentence length was to be reduced through his substantial assistance in convicting the individual who knowingly committed fraud against my father and his clients. While the judge ultimately makes the decision on sentencing, he works within the guidelines provided by the prosecution, who recommended a 44-month sentence. The judge ultimately decided on a 38-month prison sentence paired with a multi-million dollar fine. As my father absorbed the shock of this reality right there in the courtroom, the judge also informed him that if he did not assist the prosecution in the other case, his sentence would have been much, much longer. He also proudly stated he has a reputation for handing down sentences that even exceed the guidelines.

Extremely long prison terms were created primarily during the so-called “War on Drugs” first implemented by Richard Nixon, then reinforced by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and expanded throughout the late 20th century. Long sentences have been imposed on poor, black and Hispanic individuals at a much higher rate than for white persons. Racial sentencing disparities for drug offenses have led to an excessively high prison population for persons of color. Michelle Alexander writes, “there are more people in prisons and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980.” The War on Drugs not only led to mass incarceration but, as Lee observes, “has not reduced violent crime.” 

The combination of draconian incarceration terms for drug offenses, and the racial sentencing disparities that characterize the implementation of that sentencing option, has created a major, significant issue. Humans Rights Watch identifies that “black people make up 13 percent of the population and 13 percent of all adults who use drugs, but 27 percent of all drug arrests. Black men are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of white men.” This has become such an epidemic of confinement that author Michelle Alexander labels the phenomenon “mass incarceration.” Incarceration of such a large proportion of blacks, according to Alexander, is “like Jim Crow… [it] is a ‘race-making’ institution.” 

I witness this reality personally in the visitation room of Florence Prison Camp each time I visit my father and see the other family members visiting their loved ones. The majority of inmates are Latino and African American – almost none of whom have committed violent crimes.

The social framework that helped create mandatory sentencing guidelines stemmed from a misuse of the term, “justice,” and the desire of many politicians to be seen as being “tough on crime.”  The result is a racially charged and flawed system that values punitive rather than restorative sanctions which ultimately cause more harm than good. The punitive criminal justice system results in significant damage to neighborhoods, families and individuals alike. Another aspect of the hardships the inmates and families face are the mandatory restitution payments if there is a financial penalty issued by the judge. Inmates make anywhere from four to 40 cents an hour, but are required to make restitution payments anywhere from 20 to 500 dollars a month. Failure to do so results in punitive measures within the prison including no access to phone or messaging, the imposition of labor-intensive work assignments and additional restrictions. 

This other form of punishment shifts the burden onto the family’s shoulders as the inmates are incapable of paying such amounts. This leaves the single parent homes even more helpless and in a state of poverty while further fraying family ties. The harm is not limited to the term of incarceration. As felons attempt to reintegrate into society, they face hurdles securing employment. When released to a halfway house or home confinement, felons are required to show a document which states that they are on parole, were recently incarcerated and that they are a potential liability. Supervisors must also be available at a moments notice to receive a check-in call or visit from a probation or community corrections officer. These conditions of employment leave the majority of potential employers with little or no desire to view a resume, conduct an interview or hire those transitioning out of incarceration. Further, felons are often denied housing due to lack of financial resources, credit history and employment which at times results in homelessness. The social impact of the flawed criminal justice system is significant as family separation created in the system ultimately shapes the next generation and causes irreparable damage to the family unit. Their punishment is not over once their sentence comes to an end, as those that have a fine also have to pay anywhere from 10 to 25 percent restitution the rest of their lives. My father will never leave this behind as this restitution will follow him the remainder of his life. At 60-years-old, he will be starting over again with bankruptcy; my parents would be homeless and without any vehicle if it were not for the generosity of the support of family and friends. One can only imagine the alternatives those of a lower economic status face. It is little wonder that damaged individuals experience alarmingly high recidivism rates when they are left with little to no employment and housing options.

There is another way. Secular “justice” is based on punishment which often harms both the individual and community. The Christian application of justice represents a paradigm focused on restoration and healing. Glen Stassen and David Gushee define biblical justice by drawing on the Hebrew words tsedaqah – delivering-justice and community-restoring justice, and mishpat – judgment according to right or rights. It is “judgement that vindicates the right(s) especially of the poor or powerless.” 

The biblical understanding of justice is based on restoration of the individual(s) and is designed to facilitate the offender’s reintegration into the community. Justice as a form of deliverance is woven throughout the Scriptures as seen in Isaiah 5:1-7; 42:1-7; 51:1, 4-7; 53:7-9; Mark 12:1-9; Matthew 21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19. Stassen and Gushee draw from passages in the Gospels which describe “a central theme for Jesus” to include rather than exclude those who would often be excluded in society, namely those who are considered sinners, enemies and outcasts (Matt. 5:43-49; Luke 10:29-37; 15:11-32). The invitation for inclusion is to all people (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). While this message is one of inclusion and deliverance, it is also a call to repentance and healing – to turn from old ways and walk in righteousness with God (Luke 5:27-32; Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17). 

The foundation of this concept of biblical justice incorporates mercy and love. Lee argues that theologians such as Augustine believed that “Jesus’ call to mercy” was vital to being a follower of Christ and thus “encourage[s] the restoration of enemies to righteousness.” Given this biblical framework, Christians are to seek the “reformation of wrongdoers rather than their punishment” as this is what redemption is within a biblical view of justice. While this does not mean one should accept the sin or wrongdoing, it does mean there is hope for every individual. It places the dignity of human life at the forefront, and promotes hope and the possibility of healed individuals and communities. The biblical concept of justice also resonates deeply with inmates as my father has witnessed firsthand. Given the punitive nature of the criminal justice system, inmates are drawn to the biblical concept of justice and its restorative and redemptive teachings.

How can this understanding of biblical justice help inform a secular criminal justice system and begin to transform retribution into restoration? Amy Levad proposes a path toward biblical restoration through the implementation of programs that offer rehabilitation and support. She writes, “One model of restorative justice, Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA), connects to the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of rehabilitation.” These programs are currently found in select areas through the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. She explains how these forms of rehabilitation result in, “strong decreases in rates of reoffending, especially when compared with receiving no treatment. While incarceration alone can increase rates of recidivism, RNR programs can decrease reoffending by about 25-30 percent.” Levad’s framework illuminates the fact that “justice” can be achieved through rehabilitative means rather than solely punitive ones.    

This concept incorporates the biblical model of justice as it seeks to love prisoners and find a path toward healing while also inviting them back into the community. This outlines how the church can facilitate change in the broken system that is currently in place. Much of what is needed is communal support, acceptance and assistance in reintegrating back into society. Our experience with sharing my father’s story is often met with judgement and apprehension within the church as many people do not understand the nature of mass incarceration and the overall broken system. By understanding the nature of mass incarceration, the church can become a place of compassion, love and acceptance. Prison is a dehumanizing place and the church can serve as a community where dignity is restored. The biblical concept of justice is also an invitation for the church to welcome the outcasts, offer empathy and support, especially for the hurting families that are affected.  

As the above analysis illustrates, the epidemic of mass incarceration presents challenging ethical issues that undoubtedly cause harm to affected individuals, the communities of which they are a part, and our society at-large. Change is undoubtedly needed and the biblical framework of transformation and restoration offers a sustainable and dignified pathway that will break the negative cycles that are currently in place. 

— Abigail Pasiuk is a student at Fuller Theological Seminary in her final year of the Masters of Arts in Theology program. Her research interests are in the areas of feminist theology and biblical dimensions of justice, specifically engaged in her grassroots ministry to restore dignity and belonging among incarcerated individuals.

References:

https://everysecond.fwd.us/downloads/EverySecond.fwd.us.pdf

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (New York: New Press, 2012), 94.

"Trump a Disaster for Human Rights in First Year." Human Rights Watch. January 19, 2018. Accessed May 05, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-states#69df92.

Ibid.

Lee, Gregory W. 2018. “Mercy and Mass Incarceration: Augustinian Reflections on ‘The New Jim Crow.’” The Journal of Religion 98 (2), 197.

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (New York: New Press, 2012), 60.

Lee, Gregory W. 2018. “Mercy and Mass Incarceration: Augustinian Reflections on ‘The New Jim Crow.’” The Journal of Religion 98 (2), 197.

Ibid.

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (New York: New Press, 2012), 200.

Glen Stassen and David Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016), 127.

 Ibid, 137.

 Lee, Gregory W. 2018. “Mercy and Mass Incarceration: Augustinian Reflections on ‘The New Jim Crow.’” The Journal of Religion 98 (2), 213.

 Levad, Amy. 2016. “Restorative and Transformative Justice in a Land of Mass Incarceration.” Journal of Moral Theology 5 (2), 23.

 Ibid.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us