FREE ESSAY ON VENGEFUL EQUITY

VENGEFUL EQUITY

This paper will address the issues surrounding the criminal incarceration of women in
American society through the discussion of the views of Meda Chesney-Lind in her 1997
paper Vengeful Equity: Sentencing Women to Prison. It will present critical reasons of
incarceration dealing with the onset of the Rockefeller Laws, problems with translation,
and results. In the paper I will also present solutions of Chesney-Lind as well as my own
opinion for possible options other then common prison sentencing as it is practiced
today.
The United States in recent times has seen the sudden rise of females in our prison
systems. This is most solely due to the introduction of the Rockefeller Laws and its
guidelines of mandatory minimum sentencing of criminals for specified crimes. The law was
designed to reduce bias in the ever volatile world of race relations and eliminate
harsher sentencing for equal crimes based on color. In the female world, consideration of
possible mitigating circumstances surrounding an individuals' crime has been taken away
from the presiding judge's discretion. Important factors are not allowed to enter in the
decision process such as why the crime was committed and by who. 
While the number of women behind bars has risen as of late, the number of violent
offenders in these prisons has actually fallen quite drastically. The proportion of women
in state prisons for violent offences declined from 48.9 percent in 1979 to 32.2 percent
in 1991 (Chensey-Lind 1997). That would leave the remainder of the near tripling of
incarcerated women since the 1980's as nonviolent offenders. Some of these women are
imprisoned for property crimes, such as stealing for their drug habit, or often these
women have been busted for drug trafficking, often referred to as drug mules (individuals
caught moving drugs for someone else). Because of the mandatory minimums, the courts can
no longer take into consideration the reasons the offenders committed their crime and
level sentences more appropriate such as probation with supervised counseling. Their
hands are tied to levy mandatory sentences for even first time offenders. Most of the
time, much too harsh for the crime, the perpetrator becomes the victim of the court and
its attempt to fight the war on drugs.
As they stand now, women incarcerated are not having their needs met in regards to having
their problems, often responsible for incarceration, addressed by the system. For the
most part, limited funds are given by the government to fund the programs addressing
these issues, whether they be drug addiction clinics within the walls, or therapy to help
women avoid destructive relationships. Chesney-Lind states that every dollar spent
locking up women could be better spent on services that would prevent women from
resorting to crime. Thus, without the proper attention to these issues, a large portion
of the inmates will most likely return to their old lifestyle and ultimately return to
the prison system to be failed again. 
Issues of gender differences in prisons from their male contemporaries are over-emphazied
in my opinion. Some differences cited by Chesney-Lind are physical, childhood,
motherhood, and the lack of ethical strip-searches. 
Physical differences were highlighted in a paragraph discussing chain gangs. Individuals
from male chain-gangs were initiating lawsuits of unfair treatment because women were not
required or even allowed for that matter to participate in these excursions. The state
this lawsuit was brought against was Alabama. They then created a women's chain gang to
eliminate the lawsuits. Chesney-Lind seemed to think this ridiculous. I believe it was
the right choice by the state. Women do not need to match the work of the male inmate,
but must do similar work in their own capacity, for example women should not be required
to lift the same amount of weight, but should be required to exert comparable amounts of
physical energy. 
Physical abuse and early childhood abuse were debated by Chesney-Lind as a difference
that is taken into consideration when comparing male versus female incarceration.
According to her article, 43 percent of women surveyed reported they had been abused at
least once before their current admission to prison. Males given the same survey resulted
in only 12.2 percent reporting abuse. From my psychology background I can easily state
that men are 45 percent less likely to admit sexual abuse, and a fair amount of those
physically abused do not recognize it as abuse. I also present the question, Are you not
ultimately responsible for your own actions? If you can not control these actions,
regardless of the reason why, you are a threat to society, therefore in need of
correction. 
Motherhood for inmates is staggering. The question is what to do about it. A study by
Bloom and Stienhart found that 38,000 women incarcerated mothered more than 56,000
children. Also uncovered in this study about two thirds of female prisoners had a child
under the age of eighteen. No legislation can solve this problem, and I do not believe
there is any right answer as far as it concerns inmates at the individual level. To
attempt to regulate this dilemma overall, I would suggest that no contact of any child is
to be given to the inmate during the term of the sentence. The state should adequate
funds to support the child if no relative is willing or able to care for them properly.
Infants born in prison should be nursed during the recommended duration and put up for
adoption if the mother is serving the long end of a long term sentence or life in prison.
If the mother were allowed a short-term private bonding experience occasionally with a
child, I would hope the same courtesy would be extended to an incarcerated father. 
Stripe searches are not an easily adaptable process for anyone at the receiving end.
Stating the magnitude of women who are previously sexually abused and their inability to
mentally manage a strip search is just silly. Men are just as likely to not enjoy an
invasion of their orifices. I do not know of any man who goes to a doctors office hoping
to get a hands on anal probe to check his prostate gland. A possible solution to this
horrific event for women is to simply mandate a gynecological visit for new inmates
giving the option for a female doctor to perform the procedure. This will insure a proper
procedure as well as satisfy a feminine medical need just as important for women behind
bars as for the free. 
I do not believe any of these topics creates a stellar difference between male and female
needs with correction. Women, for the most part, fall into crime for the same three
reasons as men; Drugs, poverty, and greed. Women like men, do these things by choice. For
the most part, no one forces a needle in their arm, forces them to court and sometimes
marry an idiot, have children, drop out of school, or to spite their parents and run with
the bad crowd. These are choices and I feel they are all avoidable. Just to clarify my
thought pattern on this subject, here are a few examples of what I am referring too. 
A women who runs drugs for a lover. Idiot!
A women who drops out of school. Idiot!
A women who has children before she can afford it. Idiot!
A women who has sex for drugs or money. Idiot!
A women who does drugs. Idiot!
Chesney-Lind's paper has a theme built in that she seems to believe most women would be
better served in monitored halfway houses or other such institutions giving them help and
allowing limited freedom. I believe this to a point. Yes, more education and options to
learn new skills are very necessary to provide an outlet for these women and men to
escape going back to the same lifestyle. I believe more funds should be provided by the
incarcerating party to support these programs behind bars. Perhaps the state and federal
government should initiate these programs to everyone who is in danger of falling out of
society and into crime before it happens. This all sounds great on paper, and I see
tremendous potential in the actions she wishes to seek for women while resenting her lack
of concern for men. Her title would be more clearly written as, Save the world and start
with the women because they are nicer after all! 
My main concern with the short comings of her proposal, besides the fact men are
outcasted, is her lack of recognizing peoples inability to stop short of hitting rock
bottom. Along with a concern not related directly to Chesney-Lind. A general
indecisiveness at the government level to put forth a mission statement regarding the
propose of incarceration to begin with. 
Women, like men, follow the same laws of human nature. Whether it is a rebellious teen or
a depressed adult, once the loop to disaster is fastened by addiction or the spiralling
downward slope of easy money, it is up to the person to get better. Halfway houses, I do
not believe, will break the cycle of these loops. Long stays in prisons with proper
counseling and ample time to reflect on ones chosen path is sometimes the only answer. I
can not remember the prisoners name at FCI (the last one to speak) brought this point up
crystal clear when a student asked if any alternate form of corrections could have helped
her. She spoke as quickly as she seemed sure, No, [I believe this was the only
option.]for me I believe strongly that this women will not be coming back to prison. Her
loop seems broken. She seemed to bottom out. 
The ever annoying friction (at least in my head) between prison as correction or
punishment, or both must be further addressed by the goevernments. Half of me thinks
Chesney-Lind's ideas of alternate corrections is the best way to go, and the other half
tells me to punish this scum, they do not deserve to walk my street and sit in my parks.
Which is it? 
After many minutes of deep thought, I can only think of one compromise to the situation.
Rewrite the law books to separate nonviolent and violent offenders when sentenced.
Different prisons for different crimes and terms of sentence. Lifers, murders, and
rapists are imprisoned in punishment type prisons to adequately terminate any social
outlets they have, no contact with anything but agonizing free time to think when hard
labor is not being served. Non-violent, and perhaps abusers (in the sense of child
batters, wife beaters) could be better served in institutions that both provide education
and mandate it to be released. They should also provide counseling for those with
physically abusive natures and obviously drug addiction. Providing group therapy for
those who abused relatives and/or their loved ones. Reinstating a self worth and skills
to survive on when the sentence comes to the end, while providing a proper atmosphere for
the inmate to fully understand what they have done and why they are there. 
Limiting this not just to women, but to all men who qualify under the same crimes. I find
it a terrible shame that men are lumped together with only the benefit of a few
psychology behavioral surveys damning them. But I guess, what can you expect from a world
still caught up with racial tension and sexual discrimination at the top of everyone's
thought process. If we were to actually punish those who score high on these surveys,
you'd have to throw away the key twice on black men. 
I don't buy it, it is bull*censored*, and that is my personal view on Chesney-Lind and
her paper, Vengeful Equity: Sentencing Women to Prison.