Breaking the Pendulum —— The Long Struggle Over Criminal Justice

I teach corrections and this book drew me for that reason. As a mental health therapist with over 20 years experience in correctional settings, I believe that our correctional system needs change. But who doesn't think their work place doesn't need change. This book is both good and bad. First, the good. The authors are accurate when they change the image from a swinging pendulum of rehabilitation to punishment to a conflict between the two ideals. It is true that both voices have been ever present in the history of American corrections. Punishment in the US was in large part established as a reaction to British imperialism, coupled with enlightenment ideals, likely strongly influenced by Cesare Beccaria. The principles of establishment were to make the criminal justice system more about the harm to others rather than the monarch, and to make punishment more humane. That the latter goal failed throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries is undisputed. Though the New York system emerged over the Pennsylvania system, this was due to the practicalities of running a prison. But, the book has flaws. First, the authors assume a false dichotomy, which is consistent with the present state of the two-party political system in the United States. Politicians in each party seem to believe they must cater to those who firmly hold the extreme versions of their party platforms. They forget that most voters have beliefs that synthesize ideology from both parties and from outside those parties. The authors of this book dichotomize rehabilitation and tough-on-crime, or a punitive mindset. The reality is that throughout the history of the US penal system, there are have been individuals at every stop along the spectrum. In other words rehabilitation-punishment is NOT a dichotomous variable, but a continuum - it is not two points in opposition, but a longitudinal phenomenon where a person can hold both perspectives in equal or unequal measures. Second, the authors fall squarely on one side of their false dichotomy. They see the dichotomy in everyone because they have accepted it as real for themselves and have chosen one side of that seed. The book is about destroying the opposition to their side of the dichotomy. As a result, they fail to present evidence that may contradict their perspective. Indeed, it may be difficult to present that evidence because most individuals toward the middle of the spectrum rarely publish or speak out. But what appears to be an "objective" account is a choosing of information and juxtaposing it to add appeal to an ideology. Third, the authors appear to expect perfection in the penal system. No system is perfect. Utopia would be great, but history has no examples of a successful attempt at Utopia. Indeed, all dystopias - left-wing and right-wing - began as attempts at Utopia. Saying that the penal system has flaws does not "prove" that it is bad. To be sure, there have been severe abuses throughout the history of the US penal system. As a Dickens fan, I take to heart his comments on Eastern in Philadelphia. Human beings should not be treated that way. However, as a mental health therapist in a prison for 7 years (4 as the lead) it was my responsibility to to mental health checks in the segregation unit. Segregation, if administered properly, does not have to be as these authors describe. Several inmates would commit violations so they could go to segregation and "get a break from the drama" as one inmate told me. In my mental health walk-throughs for seven years, there may have been 5 times total that I recommended change due to mental health issues. Fourth, it appears that the authors do not have much experience - if any at all - on the front lines of the correctional system. Ideology is great. Having an ideal model is great. But these can never be completely realized. There are always practical concerns that temper the ideal. Fifth, and most importantly, it appears the authors are advocating completely ridding the US criminal justice system of the penal system. It appears they do not believe in punishment. My work with victims' advocates groups has taught me that victims need justice in their healing. These authors appear to believe that victims should "just get over it." I hope that is not what they mean. If not, how do they envision getting justice for victims. Did the victim of Brock Turner get justice? She didn't think so. These criticisms are not meant to dissuade anyone from purchasing or reading this book. Any serious student of the correctional system needs to read this. It is only to say that reading any non-fiction book should be critical/analytical. The more you agree with a book without questioning it, the more should begin to doubt and start to question. Additionally, I have two challenges for the authors if they write a second edition. 1. Explain how they believe - in practical, not equivocal, terms - how victims will get justice 2. Explain how they believe law violators should be addressed in a way that keeps the community safe from known offenders

I teach corrections and this book drew me for that reason. As a mental health therapist with over 20 years experience in correctional settings, I believe that our correctional system needs change. But who doesn't think their work place doesn't need change. This book is both good and bad. First, the good.The authors are accurate when they change the image from a swinging pendulum of rehabilitation to punishment to a conflict between the two ideals. It is true that both voices have been ever present in the history of American corrections. Punishment in the US was in large part established as a reaction to British imperialism, coupled with enlightenment ideals, likely strongly influenced by Cesare Beccaria. The principles of establishment were to make the criminal justice system more about the harm to others rather than the monarch, and to make punishment more humane. That the latter goal failed throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries is undisputed. Though the New York system emerged over the Pennsylvania system, this was due to the practicalities of running a prison.But, the book has flaws.First, the authors assume a false dichotomy, which is consistent with the present state of the two-party political system in the United States. Politicians in each party seem to believe they must cater to those who firmly hold the extreme versions of their party platforms. They forget that most voters have beliefs that synthesize ideology from both parties and from outside those parties. The authors of this book dichotomize rehabilitation and tough-on-crime, or a punitive mindset. The reality is that throughout the history of the US penal system, there are have been individuals at every stop along the spectrum. In other words rehabilitation-punishment is NOT a dichotomous variable, but a continuum - it is not two points in opposition, but a longitudinal phenomenon where a person can hold both perspectives in equal or unequal measures.Second, the authors fall squarely on one side of their false dichotomy. They see the dichotomy in everyone because they have accepted it as real for themselves and have chosen one side of that seed. The book is about destroying the opposition to their side of the dichotomy. As a result, they fail to present evidence that may contradict their perspective. Indeed, it may be difficult to present that evidence because most individuals toward the middle of the spectrum rarely publish or speak out. But what appears to be an "objective" account is a choosing of information and juxtaposing it to add appeal to an ideology.Third, the authors appear to expect perfection in the penal system. No system is perfect. Utopia would be great, but history has no examples of a successful attempt at Utopia. Indeed, all dystopias - left-wing and right-wing - began as attempts at Utopia. Saying that the penal system has flaws does not "prove" that it is bad. To be sure, there have been severe abuses throughout the history of the US penal system. As a Dickens fan, I take to heart his comments on Eastern in Philadelphia. Human beings should not be treated that way. However, as a mental health therapist in a prison for 7 years (4 as the lead) it was my responsibility to to mental health checks in the segregation unit. Segregation, if administered properly, does not have to be as these authors describe. Several inmates would commit violations so they could go to segregation and "get a break from the drama" as one inmate told me. In my mental health walk-throughs for seven years, there may have been 5 times total that I recommended change due to mental health issues.Fourth, it appears that the authors do not have much experience - if any at all - on the front lines of the correctional system. Ideology is great. Having an ideal model is great. But these can never be completely realized. There are always practical concerns that temper the ideal.Fifth, and most importantly, it appears the authors are advocating completely ridding the US criminal justice system of the penal system. It appears they do not believe in punishment. My work with victims' advocates groups has taught me that victims need justice in their healing. These authors appear to believe that victims should "just get over it." I hope that is not what they mean. If not, how do they envision getting justice for victims. Did the victim of Brock Turner get justice? She didn't think so.These criticisms are not meant to dissuade anyone from purchasing or reading this book. Any serious student of the correctional system needs to read this. It is only to say that reading any non-fiction book should be critical/analytical. The more you agree with a book without questioning it, the more should begin to doubt and start to question.Additionally, I have two challenges for the authors if they write a second edition.1. Explain how they believe - in practical, not equivocal, terms - how victims will get justice2. Explain how they believe law violators should be addressed in a way that keeps the community safe from known offenders