America must decide if it wants to rehabilitate prisoners or continue punishing them

America prides itself on being number one in many categories, but there’s one “first place” title we hold that shouldn’t be a point of pride — leading the world in most incarcerated citizens. The United States makes up only 5 percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. For a nation that gratifies itself on being a free society, this should be an issue of great shame for the U.S. Our prison population has reached historically unprecedented levels, with 2.3 million Americans incarcerated today and some 5 million on parole or probation — meaning that for every 31 adults, one will end up in jail.

One of the issues is that American prisons were not intended to hold the number of prisoners that they currently do. America doesn’t possess the proper funds to keep those facilities adequately or effectively running either. Prisons are vastly overcrowded and underfunded, creating limits on rehabilitative and educational programs. They also do not have the resources to properly train staff. Ultimately, these inhibit prisons from satisfying even basic human needs: maggots in food and inadequate servings are just a start as far as food problems.

The world is becoming a safer place, and overall, crime in the U.S. is dropping, which begs the question, “Why are our prisons still growing?”

Overcrowding is a consequence of a change in U.S. crime policies as opposed to an actual increase in crime. Voters in the ’80s and ’90s, regardless of political affiliation, supported tough-on-crime policies, which is why this period saw a rise in incarceration rates. The war on drugs caused the number of incarcerated drug offenders to soar 1,200 percent between 1980 and 2018 — a result of both Democrat and Republican policies. But now, voters have softened their position.

Three-quarters of American voters currently think the criminal justice system is in need of improvement. Voters now advocate for policies that afford judges more discretion to tailor punishments specifically to individual cases — in essence, a holistic overview of the offender should be taken into account. Eighty-five percent of voters believe the primary goal of our justice system should be rehabilitation in order for individuals to eventually rejoin society and become productive and law-abiding members. Currently, the prison system is more detrimental to society than it is beneficial, as exemplified by the revolving door of prisoners. The fact that those released from prison are more likely to end up back inside rather than successfully reintegrating into society underscores the ineffectiveness of our current justice system.

Studies show that children with an incarcerated parent are more likely to end up in prison themselves. Additionally, around 70 million Americans have criminal records, which could serve as a barrier to employment following release. Investing in rehabilitation rather than more punitive measures will ultimately make communities safer when former prisoners rejoin society and reduce crime for future generations.

There also emerges a racial component to the criminal justice issue — specifically, the racial disparity between the rates of incarcerated white people versus people of color. African Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of white people, despite composing a significantly smaller portion of the total U.S. population. In five states with predominantly white communities — Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont and Wisconsin —  the ratio jumped to a rate of 10 to 1. According to the ACLU, a black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in comparison to a white person, despite approximately equal rates of use. Clearly, racism has lingered in the criminal justice system.

Now that Americans have realized the grim reality of our justice system’s ineffectiveness, it’s time that Republicans and Democrats catch up as well. A new criminal justice reform bill currently being introduced will give both parties that opportunity. The bill, which has already amassed bipartisan support, would implement progressive provisions that have already proven to be effective in cities like Philadelphia. These provisions include lowering minimum sentences for some drug-related felonies, expanding programs for early release, promoting vocational training programs and requiring inmates to be placed in prisons closer to their homes. Although it doesn’t encompass all the measures that Democrats have been advocating for, it is a first step in the right direction — a step that would be felt by millions of Americans.

But even a bill that has garnered support from President Donald Trump stands to fail through the power of one man: Mitch McConnell, who is reluctant to bring the bill to the floor. The argument from McConnell’s orbit is that time is short, and there’s always next year. However, an issue that has been allowed to fester for decades and has detrimentally impacted the lives of millions can no longer wait until representatives feel more comfortable voting on it. If we do not evaluate and adjust our justice system accordingly, then Americans will have to reconcile between being a nation of freedom and one that outranks all other countries in stripping freedom from its citizens.

Written by: Hanadi Jordan — hajordan@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Being “pro-life” often stops at policies concerning abortion

The majority of people are indeed “pro-life” — it’s just that liberals are generally not willing to trade the life and free will of women for the life of an unborn child. The real question is the degree and duration of one’s “pro-life” position. It’s understandable if voters feel that conservative pro-life principles start at conception but, ironically, these principles are terminated at birth — when conservative policies tend to leave children and their families to fend for themselves.

Republican attitudes toward affordable health care and adequate education are most telling. While the Affordable Care Act, in conjunction with the Children’s Health Insurance Program, is largely responsible for providing 95 percent of American children with health coverage, the ACA was widely and vehemently contested across the Republican party. The position seems to be that all humans have the right to life — just not the right to maintain one. The fears of many people who choose to have an abortion trace back to this very issue: caring for their child. Many simply don’t have the financial means to do so, and the problem is exacerbated when the government makes access to healthcare more difficult and expensive.

The United States seems to fall even shorter when it comes to education. Public investment in K-12 schools has declined drastically. For the 2017-2018 school year, at least 12 states cut the primary form of state funding for elementary and secondary schools, known as general (or formula) funding. General education funding in those states was reduced by 7 percent per student over the last decade. Seven of the 12 states (Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oklahoma) also enacted income tax cuts that cost up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. While this gave tax payers back some of their money, it also specifically reduced funding for education. The current administration’s plans to further reduce federal education funds will magnify this problem. Just how pro-life are conservatives then?

The Trump administration’s child separation policy is a bold manifestation of this apparent disregard for human life. While children were being ripped from their parents, babies torn away from their mothers — even while breastfeeding — the pro-life movement was notably silent. Even with the discovery of photos of children being kept in cages and recordings of them crying out for their mothers and siblings, the pro-life movement remained blaringly mute on the matter. It’s an ideological fallacy to think you can advocate under the pro-life title while simultaneously ignoring the detainment of children because of their nationality. Harming innocents in an attempt to deter immigrants is decidedly anti-life. The pro-life community, in the spirit of their fundamental beliefs, has an obligation to speak out.

Roy Moore, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, was the 2017 Republican nominee for senator of Alabama. The race between Moore and Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee, gained national attention when several women accused Moore of sexual misconduct — some of whom were teenagers at the time of the alleged incidents. Moore was even banned from the local mall for making young girls feel uncomfortable. Rather than trying to distance itself from Moore, some members of the Republican party — most notably the Trump administration — rallied behind him instead. While Moore thankfully lost the election, he managed to garner 650,436 votes. Where were the pro-lifers when a representative of their party had credible accusations of assault and pedophilia waged against him?

All of these policies — and many more — reveal the limits of pro-life sentiments held by conservatives. They’re only willing to be pro-life when it means blocking abortion rights. Above all else, it seems that conservatives put loyalty to party over loyalty to their so-called pro-life principles. At the risk of offending conservatives, I have to ask: Just how pro-life are you?

Written by: Hanadi Jordan — hajordan@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Democrats and Republicans cite the right to free speech only when it’s convenient for them

This summer Nike launched an ad campaign featuring former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, sparking controversy and outrage from many, including President Donald Trump. This is because Kaepernick, starting in 2016, protested social injustice — specifically unjustified police violence — by taking a knee during national anthems before his football games. Many mischaracterized Kaepernick’s actions as disrespectful to the American flag and, by extension, America.

The disproportionate use of excessive force against minorities by law enforcement isn’t an issue Democrats are conjuring up to spur polarization — it’s sadly an inarguable fact. While black citizens constitute 13 percent of the US population, they make up 39 percent of people killed by police while behaving non-violently. Aside from fatalities, black citizens, especially men, are disproportionately pulled over and harassed by police. While black people are no more likely to use or sell drugs than white citizens, they are far more likely to be arrested for drug-related crimes and serve sentences that are longer than those of white men convicted for the same crimes.

In light of these facts and the numerous killings — many of them caught on camera — of unarmed, unthreatening, law-abiding black citizens, Kaepernick and other athletes took a knee during the national anthem throughout the 2016 season. For many Republicans, these demonstrations amassed more outrage than the killings themselves. While these Republicans feel disrespected when citizens kneel during the anthem, many people — not just Democrats — feel disrespected in turn when Republicans downplay these unjustified killings. Half of the country feels the travails of black citizens are a politically-motivated fabrication, while the other half feels the former is heartless and uncaring. This disparity makes it incredibly difficult to reconcile or at least hear one another sincerely and with good intentions.

Yet the point of this column is not to convince you to support or condemn taking a knee or the Nike campaign or Republicans. We may never agree on the legitimacy of these protests, but we should at least be able to agree on the legitimacy of the First Amendment and our constitutionally-protected right to free speech.

The message behind Kaepernick’s protest is arguably less important than his fundamental right to free speech. Both Republicans and Democrats have historically shown a deep respect for the First Amendment; both have used it to defend the actions of those who share their political beliefs, and even at times to defend the rights of those we find repulsive.

This is one of the most polarizing periods in U.S. politics. Basic rights that both Republicans and Democrats used to agree on irrespective of political ideology are now being vehemently fought over. It seems as though there is no issue that Americans can agree on, even when it comes to rights we all share.

It is in all of our interests to defend each person’s right to free speech, thereby strengthening respect and enforcement of the First Amendment. Imposing limits on free speech because you don’t like what the other side has to say is entirely anti-democratic and anti-American. When you take away free speech, you take away free thought — you take away freedom itself.

The outrage and assumption of ill intentions are made in bad faith. At a time when the United States is deeply divided, both sides seem to ignore their core beliefs and sincerity in favor of their party. Republicans oppose the right to free speech when it’s used to promote issues critical to many black Americans. And while former president Barack Obama didn’t enact a “zero tolerance policy” for immigration like the Trump administration, he did separate families — an issue for which Democrats have only criticized Trump.

We would be far better off trying to understand rather than combat each other. But if we can’t do that, we can at least defend the rights that all Americans share, including Kaepernick’s right to peacefully spread awareness as well as Nike’s choice to embrace and magnify his message.

Written by: Hanadi Jordan — hajordan@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.