I would have it no other way...
Let's start off by understanding (and conceding) that my statement you quoted does not directly apply to the case of the Paramedics who were convicted, nor does it attempt to address whether they deserved the guilty verdict and/or did anything wrong.
Now on to the meat and potatoes. My assertion is that the prison systems are not designed to do two things (I'll get to what I purport they are designed to do further along) numbered below:
- protect society from those who would cause it harm, and
- punish offenders, with the goal of not having them commit the same crime due to these consequences
Why? I'll work backwards from #2. Punishing offenders with the goal of not having them commit the SAME crime seems a bit monolithic, so let's go out on a limb and say that this would also include committing any other crime after being "rehabilitated", and then ideally returning to become a productive member of society. It is widely known, and notated in this
National Institue of Health article, that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Additionally, a recidivism study by the
Bureau of Justice & Statistics reported that 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years. This does not align with the "goal" presumption in #2. We have the world's second largest prison population (China #1) effectively moving through a revolving door. The goal of #2 appears to be apathetic or incompetent failure, as the numbers reflect exactly that... poor performance.
Ok, now #1. So how does the prison system protect society from those who would cause it harm? The easy answer is to lock people up and throw away the key, right? Statistically speaking, if released they are going to offend again and wind up right back where they started. Historically, there has been no substantive meaningful effort to engage in anything other than the above. Why? Because there is no desire to do so as long as the financial incentives for incarceration remain. Overpopulation of prisons, spurred by the "War on Drugs" of the 80's led to the privatization of prison systems, which DO a fiscal interest (
and duty to shareholders) in keeping beds full... NOT protecting society. There has been an inversely proportionate relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates over the past 30+ years. Crime rates have decreased while incarcerations have increased. Why have incarceration rates increased? Certainly NOT to protect society, but because it is PROFITABLE. Private corporations have not only received federal funds (from taxpayers) for housing inmates but have also "taxed" their labor wages. Essentially double-dipping to create a profit (
Princeton Legal Journal). The prisons are benefitting from and exploiting a cheap and readily replenishable labor source, which brings into question ethical concerns involving
Finally, my position (and point of my initial reply) is that the prison system is not this champion and shining beacon of justice that some may presume it to be (and as laid out in #1 and #2 above). The criminal justice system, and the sum of its components (police, prosecutors, judges, etc.) whether through willing volition, acquiescence, or unconscious bias, employs a well-developed and insidious practice of disproportionately targeting minorities which in turn helps fuel the incarceration machine. This goes directly to my statement regarding arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing inequity.
Note: I used frivolous in my original post recklessly and will acknowledge it here (won't delete/edit it)
A couple more relevant sources below (NIH, UN, JAMA):
Mass Incarceration, Race Inequality, and Health: Expanding Concepts and Assessing Impacts on Well-Being
The Drug War, Mass Incarceration and Race
Structural Racism, Mass Incarceration, and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Severe Maternal Morbidity