The irrationality of the prison-industrial complex

Author(s): Louis Kontos

Source: Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 4, The Prison Reentry Industry (December
2010), pp. 575-578
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29790984
Accessed: 02-03-2020 06:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dialectical
Anthropology

This content downloaded from 207.62.77.131 on Mon, 02 Mar 2020 06:36:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dialect Anthropol (2010) 34:575-578
DOI 10.1007/sl0624-010-9214-6

The irrationality of the prison-industrial complex

Louis Kontos

Published online: 24 November 2010

? Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

In order to approach the topic of reentry pragmatically, it is necessary to reject

ideological arguments regarding not only crime and punishment but also employ?
ment; in particular, the argument that viable employment, hard work in exchange for a
living wage, is a gift that not everyone is entitled to receive. None of the ex-inmates
writing in this volume speak with any sense of entitlement, nor is there a combative or
plaintive tone in any of these essays. The authors are stating in various ways that what
is expected of them does not make sense, that there is a slim chance of successful
reentry without ex-inmates being able to support themselves through legitimate work.
This problem requires attention ahead of all others related to reentry.
The prison system in the United States has its origins in a mixture of
enlightenment thinking and religious fervor. In the eighteenth century, public
punishments such as the pillory were replaced with incarceration. The Quakers
developed the penitentiary as a place where the criminal could be reformed through
isolation and forced labor and obligatory religious instruction?all of which were
supposed to cleanse his soul and make him possibly worthy of reentrance into the
community. The idea that the community was involved in the punishment and bore
some responsibility for the 'treatment' of the prisoner was kept alive until the 1950s.
Growing crime rates in the 1960s, coupled with political reaction to urban
'disorder', made this argument appear suddenly impractical and irrelevant. At the
same time, social movements specifically tied to criminal justice issues were
reenergized in the 1960s. The movement toward deinstitutionalization was most
pronounced and had its furthest reaching effects?particularly in juvenile reforma?
tories and insane asylums. The argument was that labels had predictable and
inadvertent consequences, including with regard to reentry that needed to be
balanced against the need to treat mental illness and punish wrongdoing. Nowadays,
the argument that labels and prevents people from living productive lives, thus

L. Kontos (El)
John Jay College, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: lkontos@jjay.cuny.edu

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 207.62.77.131 on Mon, 02 Mar 2020 06:36:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
576 L. Kontos

increasing the possibility of disorder?seems to have played itself out; the 'failure'
of the rehabilitative ideal and alternatives to incarceration has become the stuff of
common knowledge and commonsense. The argument that 'everything' has failed
reinforces the argument that vengeance (just desserts) is a sufficient and worthy goal
of the prison system.
This type of argumentation bears a resemblance to that of eighteenth century
reformers, at least around the idea that the threat of punishment should dissuade
ordinary people from thinking about committing crimes, and around its moralistic
tone. It does not, however, embrace the Christian ideal of redemption, which
motivated the Quakers, nor is it consistent with the Old Testament, which it more
closely resembles. That is, Hebrew Law encouraged compensation in all cases
where harm was done and forbade disproportionate acts of vengeance?hence 'eye
for eye'. The sense of proportion and fairness has been lost in the public and
political discourse about crime, where it has seemed until very recently impossible
to be 'tough' enough. What is the right type and amount of punishment for someone
who has robbed a pedestrian at gun point, or an embezzler who makes off with two
thousand dollars or 200 hundred thousand? Greater public awareness and input is
needed regarding the specifics of punishment.
Public attitudes have softened over the last decade?no one seems to know why.
It is possible that something similar is now happening as during the birth of the
prison in the eighteenth century, as Foucault described it, where the transition from
torture to incarceration as punishment was supported by changing public attitudes
about offenders whose tortured bodies elicited sympathy. Nowadays, the prison
system has entered public consciousness through the high numbers of ex-convicts
who reenter society, upwards to 600 thousand each year. The chances of never
running into someone who has served time in prison are increasingly slim for the
majority of the population. Further, there is now great fascination with the lives of
prison inmates, as can be seen by the popularity of an ever increasing amount of
'reality' television shows about prison. The viewer is left with the feeling of stark
realization, an epiphany of sorts. The absurdity of treating people like wild-caged
animals for however many years and then expecting them to return as productive
members of society is hard to miss when confronted with the reality of prison life?
that is, any slice of it, no matter how it is edited. Perhaps, a similar television
program on the 'process' of reentry would soften public opinion a bit more. Here,
viewers would be treated to the spectacle of people whose debt to society is already
paid in full but who are still not free. They would see people follow (sometimes
arbitrary) rules with exact precision and gain nothing for their troubles.
Bringing the prison system into the forefront of public consciousness will take more
than reality television. The countervailing forces are many: the ongoing 'war' on
crime and drugs is one-sided (it is a war, after all), with arrest and incarceration as a
single mode of response to crime and disorder?predicated in its entirety on the
assumption that non-punitive measures, anything resembling 'alternatives' to
incarceration or involving a concern with prevention or rehabilitation amounts
not only to an inadequate response but a flirtation with danger that is morally
reprehensible because it involves innocent people against their will. The non
believers, the people who argue that the way to create a safer society is primarily

Springer

This content downloaded from 207.62.77.131 on Mon, 02 Mar 2020 06:36:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The irrationality of the prison-industrial complex 577

through greater educational and employment opportunities, have been successfully

cast as part of the problem, whereas the loud voices of establishment politicians and
political punditry, which have virtually nothing to say about social justice or peace,
have come to appear as voices of reason, especially over the last three decades?which
is to say, far too long. Though now perhaps, the tide is starting to turn.
The concept of reentry has the benefit of not having ideological baggage. The
scholars and ex-inmates that have contributed to this volume are not making
ideological arguments. Their recommendations are pragmatic and sensible and can
only be read in that way. Notable among the contributors who are ex-inmates is that
their criticisms of the prison system are muted?none of these authors talk about the
rampant abuse of authority in prison, or victimization that prisoners routinely suffer in
the hands of other prisoners, or the lack of amenities in prison that are needed for a basic
human existence. There is perhaps good reason for that (aside from painful memories).
The ex-inmates are now authors writing about reentry?drawing selectively from
experience to make the problems associated with reentry vivid. The reader is left to
imagine what becomes of others with less resolve and fewer resources.
Anonymous (with Dombrowski, this volume) was moved to various facilities 'for
profit' without regard to the fact that the support he received from family members
was being compromised in the process. Family seems to have played the biggest
role in his successful reentry?family not only provided emotional support but also
paid for his hotel when he got out, provided the use of a car, and paid for an airline
ticket. Anonymous worked his way through law school. He became a productive
member of society. The illogic of a prison system that moves people around for
profit stands in stark contrast with the struggle of an ex-inmate to do the right thing,
a struggle that might have failed if it did not involve an entire family. How difficult
should it be for ex-inmates to reenter society? What happens when they do not have
family upon which to rely?
Wheeler (this volume) provides a vivid illustration of this dilemma. His family
became 'non-existent' after 20 years. He does not know where his 'first meal' will
come from when he is out of prison. Nothing in prison prepared him for reentry.
'Transitional' programs that were available to him appeared to do that, but his
description of them belies the claim. The programs he describes are preoccupied
with teaching inmates about how to fill out job applications and take interviews, not
with jobs. Inmates are sent to job sites that turn out to be dead end leads, even to
places that no longer exist. Wheeler adds 'I wish that there were a program I could
participate in that would provide me with information that would help lessen the
stress I am sure to experience'.
Mobley (this volume) says that he only started to think about reentry when he
was granted a parole date, 'not a day before'. The lack of forethought was not
unique to him, however. 'In fact, I was not permitted to engage in reentry activities
until I received a parole date'. He does not say what such activities looked like. But
he makes it clear that they did not help him. The problem with which he needs help
is lack of stable, viable employment. 'Employers just do not want us'. Mobley drifts
through jobs that pay 40 dollars for 12-14 h shifts. He, too, is a success story,
despite great odds and without any certainty regarding the future.

to Springer

This content downloaded from 207.62.77.131 on Mon, 02 Mar 2020 06:36:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
578 L. Kontos

Oliver (this volume) has been out of prison for 10 years and feels that his
sentence has not yet ended. 'I did not ... plead guilty expecting to receive a life
sentence', and as if proving a point, he has harnessed an incredible amount of
discipline and personal resourcefulness and has been accepted into graduate school.
He is published in peer reviewed journals?yet his prison record follows him into
his new life, seemingly derailing it. Oliver lost his graduate assistantship and the
stipend that came with it, with which he was able to live. His experience
underscores the fact that reentry is an uphill battle even when the ex-inmate truly
commits himself to hard work, even when he excels. Kelly (this volume) relates a
similar experience, where social stigma barred him from Wall St., and where
mandated work (in compliance with programs) amounted to a waste of time and
talent that could have been better spent making an honest living while developing an
academic career, which now appears to be happening despite the odds.
The life experiences of these ex-inmates are similar only with regard to the prison
ordeal and problems associated with reentry. If unemployment and not knowing
where the next (or first) meal is coming from is the problem that none can avoid
without substantial assistance from family and friends, it is time to start talking
honestly about this problem. Public attitudes and public policy toward crime and
punishment need to change. The questions that are posed squarely within the reentry
literature can no longer be avoided. If depriving offenders of their freedom is
deemed an appropriate response to crime, how long should they be deprived? Where
does punishment end and freedom begin? If incarceration is supposed to make
society safer, how is safety served by a system that produces the predictable result
of 1/3 of ex-inmates reoffending year after year? What must be done to change this
system?for the sake of fairness (justice) and for safety?

Springer

This content downloaded from 207.62.77.131 on Mon, 02 Mar 2020 06:36:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms