Restraint of a person's liberty by judicial or other detention
Today on The Dominic Enyart Show, we're discussing both how the government can dismantle the crime epidemic and how we can do our part as Christians to reduce crime. The things the government should do include: -Bringing back a swift and painful death penalty. -Abolish abortion. -Abolish no-fault divorce. -Abolish pornography. -Abolish public schools. -Re-criminalize homosexuality. Things the church should do include: -Oppose evolution. -Fight sexual immorality. -Fight abortion. -Get out of the “don't judge” mentality. -Homeschool your kids and warn other parents about the dangers of public school. And then (saving the best for last) -Preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and bring as many to Him as possible. For more information, see How the Church Should Respond to the Crime Epidemic and KGOV's List of Gay Mass Murderers Mondays Bob Enyart Live (Broadcast Classics) Tuesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Wednesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Thursdays Theology Thursday (with Bob Enyart) Fridays Real Science Radio (with Fred Williams) Follow us on Twitter and Instagram! Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more... And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with K'asheechtlaa (Louise Brady) originally aired in April of 2021. Many of us have access to more choices than we ever thought imaginable, in fact, it is quite easy to find ourselves amidst an abundance of products, eating foods cultivated across the world, or selecting from a myriad of variations of the same “thing”. But this “abundance” of choice masks ecological depletion, and as we gain access to that which is far from our homes, actual place-based abundance is often jeopardized. This week on the podcast we explore this in context to herring in Southeast Alaska with guest K'asheechtlaa (Louise Brady). Everything from chinook, seals, whales, eagles, halibut, and dolphins, all depend on herring directly or indirectly. In addition to nourishing so much of the Pacific marine ecosystem, these kin are embedded in the culture and spirit of Sheetʼká (Sitka). But as herring have been utilized in pet food, fertilizer, fish meal for aquariums and salmon farms, and marketed as a delicacy abroad - fisheries have been mismanaged by the state of Alaska and overfished to near extinction. K'asheechtlaa is a woman of the Tlingit nation in Sheetʼká Ḵwáan, an island off the coast of Southeast Alaska. She is Raven-Frog or Kiks.ádi Clan, Kiks.ádi women are known as the herring ladies, they have a story or original instruction that connects them spiritually, culturally, and historically to herring. K'asheechtlaa is the founder of the Herring Protectors, a grassroots movement of people that share concerns that the herring population in Sheetʼká Ḵwáan, and the culture tied to it, are under threat. Music by Lake Mary, The Ascent of Everest, Alexandra Blakely, and Fountainsun. Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
Aurinko Permanent Corrections is not like other prisons. At Aurinko Permanent Corrections, they believe in rehabilitation. They believe that all of us have the ability to be better, do better, and it is with this certainty that the warden might look you in the eyes and ask: "So why aren't you doing better? And what do I have to do to you to make you start?" Welcome to the Penumbra, dear Traveler. We hope you enjoy your stay. (Trigger warnings can be found at the bottom of this episode description and at the end of the transcript.) --------------You can find all of our transcripts here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/1bnWLw5dTW4l9A0bmOMzEiy6XqqsXHHi_Transcripts will come out along with the public release of the episode.On staff at the Penumbra:Alice Chuang -- Head of DesignGinny D'Angelo -- Head of Merchandise and OutreachMelissa DeJesus -- Script editing teamEllison Estephan -- Promotional artistHarley Takagi Kaner -- Co-creator, Head of Episode Development, Director, Sound designerJoelle Kross -- TranscriptionistNoah Simes -- Production managerGrahame Turner -- Script editing teamKevin Vibert -- Co-creator, Head of Operations, Lead writerRyan Vibert -- Composer and performer of original musicRecorded by Mertz at The Bridge Sound & Stage--------Attribution: Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode "Kind of Girl" by Jeris, featuring spinningmerkabaFrom Gurd To Nark by Siobhan Dakay (c) copyright 2021 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/SiobhanD/64324 Ft: GurdonarkSeven(New Music Remix) by bwatts (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/bwatts/39793 Ft: alex beroza“Metal Door Knocking” by Blood Pixel Hero https://freesound.org/people/BloodPixelHero/sounds/621230/“Quartz Crystal Singing Bowl” by juskiddink https://freesound.org/people/juskiddink/sounds/129219/“Horror ambience 15.wav” by klankbeeld https://freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sounds/137070/“Space Buzz Tone.wav” by thatjeffcarter https://freesound.org/people/thatjeffcarter/sounds/165437/“Taped Bagpipe Music.wav” by Puniho https://freesound.org/people/Puniho/sounds/172687/---------Trigger warnings:- Incarceration and prison- Enclosed spaces and sudden loud noises- Torture- Mob violence- Emotional abuse- Threats of violence and death- Manipulation and "brainwashing"- Abuse by mental health professionals- Self-inflicted harm- Starvation and sleep deprivation
Attorney Dale Minami is most known for leading the legal team that overturned the conviction of Fred Korematsu. Forty years earlier, Korematsu had defiantly disobyed Executive Order 9066--which unjustly incarcerated over 100,0000 Japanese Americans during World War II-- which led to Korematsu v. United States, widely considered one of the worst and most racist SCOTUS decisions in American history.
Leaving prison and trying to re-establish life in the community comes with an incredible set of challenges – housing, employment, family relationships – and under it all, recovering from the trauma of incarceration itself. Thousands of people were released from prison in Connecticut in 2020 as the Department of Corrections tried to stem a tide of COVID in its facilities. This episode we go inside the Hartford Re-entry Welcome Center, and Ryan Lindsay will introduce us to Antonio Rivera, who came home from prison during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. John and Mercy speak with Iliana Pujols from the Connecticut Justice Alliance about her work with young people touched by the criminal justice system. Iliana is also a member of CT Mirror's Community Editorial Board. Organizations featured in this episode Community Partners in Action See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In light of the current pandemic of violence, we're going back to a sermon from the late, great Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church. “The Bible is a Criminal Justice Textbook.” Now more than ever, Christians must be extremely familiar with the arguments for Biblical justice. As Peter says, you must always be ready to give an answer. Mondays Bob Enyart Live (Broadcast Classics) Tuesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Wednesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Thursdays Theology Thursday (with Bob Enyart) Fridays Real Science Radio (with Fred Williams) Follow us on Twitter and Instagram! Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more... And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with Nuskmata (Jacinda Mack) originally aired in February of 2020. From roller coaster rides at Disney World to museums dotting the Pacific Northwest, symbols of mining and the Gold Rush remain deeply enshrined in the collective imagination of the mythic West. Hidden beneath this cultural veneer, the material realities of today's superscale mining are often out of sight, out of mind. In this week's In The Field episode, we trace the historical contours and material legacy of the mining industry across so-called British Columbia, unearthing stories from a region that bears an estimated 1,100 abandoned mines, 150-year-old mining laws, and more mining exploration companies than anywhere else on Earth. Guided by the raw testimony of mother, water protector, and organizer Nuskmata (Jacinda Mack), this episode braids together the history of the Gold Rush and colonization in B.C., the state of salmon, the practice of free, prior, and informed consent, dirty mining for a “clean” energy revolution, and the urgent necessity of reform. Music by Cary Morin, Compassion Gorilla, Lynx and the Servants of Song, The Mynabirds, The Melawmen Collective, and The Honey Tongues. Please visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
A new MP3 sermon from Heritage Bible Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: The Temporary Incarceration of Satan Subtitle: Revelation, blessing to reader Speaker: Pastor Dave Georgeff Broadcaster: Heritage Bible Church Event: Sunday Service Date: 5/15/2022 Bible: Revelation 20:1-3 Length: 53 min.
A new MP3 sermon from Heritage Bible Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: The Temporary Incarceration of Satan Subtitle: Revelation, blessing to reader Speaker: Pastor Dave Georgeff Broadcaster: Heritage Bible Church Event: Sunday Service Date: 5/15/2022 Bible: Revelation 20:1-3 Length: 53 min.
A new MP3 sermon from Heritage Bible Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: The Temporary Incarceration of Satan Subtitle: Revelation, blessing to reader Speaker: Pastor Dave Georgeff Broadcaster: Heritage Bible Church Event: Sunday Service Date: 5/15/2022 Bible: Revelation 20:1-3 Length: 53 min.
Mohamedou Ould Slahi is not a Canadian citizen. He's Mauritanian. But he did spend a few weeks in Canada, and during that time he was watched. It is that evidence gathered by Canadian authorities, he claims, that led to his eventual detention and torture, and 14 years in security facilities. Now he's suing the Canadian government for $30 million. How did a few weeks in Montreal change his life, and how much is our government to blame?GUEST: Michelle Shephard, terrorism and human rights reporter, filmmaker and podcaster
“Prison food in the United States is a public health and human rights crisis,” the Maryland Food & Prison Abolition Project states on their website. “By weaponizing the experience of eating, the state transforms one of our most basic needs into an everyday form of violence. The short- and long-term effects of poor food conditions on incarcerated individuals' health also constitutes a form of ‘premature death'—oftentimes damaging a person's physical and mental health and well-being for the rest of their life.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa, who spent nearly 50 years eating prison food himself, speaks with Kanav Kathuria, co-founder of The Maryland Food & Prison Abolition Project, about the institutionalized cruelty of the system that keeps incarcerated people malnourished and fed barely enough to stay alive.Read the transcript of this interview: https://therealnews.com/i-wouldnt-even-feed-this-to-my-dog-the-inhumane-reality-of-prison-foodPre-Production/Studio/Post-Production: Cameron GranadinoHelp us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer: Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-pod-rtbSign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-pod-rtbGet Rattling the Bars updates: https://therealnews.com/up-pod-rtbLike us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/therealnewsFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/therealnews
Glenn Loury is a professor of economics and social sciences at Brown University, and a prominent podcaster and social critic who speaks and writes about race, inequality, and social policy. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: – Lambda: https://lambdalabs.com/lex – LMNT: https://drinkLMNT.com/lex to get free sample pack – Coinbase: https://coinbase.com/lex to get $10 in free Bitcoin – ROKA: https://roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order – MasterClass: https://masterclass.com/lex to get 15% off EPISODE LINKS: Glenn's Twitter: https://twitter.com/GlennLoury Glenn's Substack: https://glennloury.substack.com Glenn's YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/GlennLouryShow The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (book): https://amzn.to/3N7jmz0 Race, Incarceration,
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with ALOK, originally aired in August of 2021. “I validate the idea that survival is the ultimate act of creation in a world that has reduced us to fascist arithmetic, of being a quantitative statistic, not a human soul. So we still found a way to care, love, and create - isn't that art? I teach people to decipher the art that they're already doing, recognize the artistry and the everyday miracles of life around them, and create from that place.” This week we immerse ourselves in the aforementioned call to recognize the myriad of creations all around us from guest ALOK, who guides us in an ever-expansive dialogue around spiritual wellbeing, the importance of creative literacy, and the tremendous freedom that awaits us when we make gender unknowable. We begin our conversation by foregrounding the importance of moving out of the paradigm of understanding trans and queer as something that is exclusive to the body. Instead, ALOK shares how challenging the gender binary is not only in service to our collective wellbeing but is a reverential offering in acknowledging our true celestial expansiveness that has been dimmed under binarism, heteronormativity, and colonialism. ALOK is a gender non-conforming writer and performance artist. Their distinctive style and poetic challenge to the gender binary have been internationally renowned. As a mixed-media artist Alok uses poetry, prose, comedy, performance, fashion design, and portraiture to explore themes of gender, race, trauma, belonging, and the human condition. They are the author of Femme in Public (2017) and Beyond the Gender Binary (2020). Music by Soda Lite, Rising Appalachia, and Lady Moon & The Eclipse. Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
This week, we're sitting down with the incredible Dr. Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, Associate Professor of Social Medicine at UNC and Lab Director of the Re-Envisioning Health & Justice Lab. She co-founded The COVID Prison Project and just launched the Third City Project, and she's sitting down with us this week to discuss the unbelievable effects that incarceration can have on health. If you want to help us grow, subscribe and leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcast fix!Sources for this episode:https://www.uncrehealthjustice.com/about-our-team https://whyy.org/segments/why-good-health-care-in-u-s-prisons-may-be-hard-to-come-by https://healthandjusticejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2194-7899-1-3https://www.med.unc.edu/cher/cher-team/lauren-brinkley-rubinstein-ph-dhttps://sph.unc.edu/adv_profile/lauren-brinkley-rubinstein-phdYou can buy Lauren's book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0823268802/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_P2BCQFRZK5KQZ5T1MBZ4Support the show
In this episode of Amplified Voices, Amber and Jason speak with Melissa Tanis, a ferocious advocate for parole justice, compassionate release, and children of incarcerated parents. Melissa shares her story of having her father incarcerated when she was five years old and the impact that it had on her own life as well as the lives of her family members. She shares the emotional path she navigated to reconnect with her dad after many years of no contact. She authentically outlines her feelings and understanding of his complex journey through accountability - highlighting the harshness of a system that sees people and the sum of their crime, rather than as complex human beings with the ability to change. Melissa was able to find her father after many years through his participation in the Shakespeare Behind Bars program and the resulting documentary film. After being denied parole and compassionate release based on the nature of his crime, her father passed away in prison. Melissa is a graduate of Columbia School of Social Work, with a concentration on policy. She is the Policy and Communications Manager for the Center for Justice at Columbia School of Social Work. She has worked for over five years in the Communications and Policy field and has dedicated her work to supporting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people and their families. She is a member and consultant for the Release Aging People in Prison Campaign, an adviser for the New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents, and a volunteer with the Parole Preparation Project. Support the show
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion would become illegal in at least 26 states. That means two main things for people who hope to terminate a pregnancy – increased confusion and increased criminalization.Today is Victory Day, an important holiday in Russia that marks the defeat of Nazi Germany 77 years ago. Some reports say Putin might use the occasion to claim victory in Ukraine, while others suggest he may just use the day to further escalate the violence.And in headlines: Northern Ireland had a historic election, John Lee was elected to be Hong Kong's next chief executive, and Ncuti Gatwa will be the first Black actor to play The Doctor in Doctor Who.Show Notes:Ban Off Our Bodies Rally on May 14th – https://bit.ly/3P1KxgNDonate to abortion funds, take action and more via Vote Save America – votesaveamerica.com/roeFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/whataday/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
A motivational and aspirational conversation with a formerly incarcerated man who transformed from founder and leader of the Dallas Bloods to a practitioner of peace and nonviolence in the neighborhood he once helped destroy As a child of an incarcerated father, Antong Lucky grew up in an impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhood in East Dallas, Texas, born at the same time as East Dallas experienced an alarming rise in crack cocaine and heroin use. Despite his high grades and passion for learning, Antong is introduced to gang life and its consequences. Eventually, Antong forms the Dallas Bloods gang, inaugurating a period in the 1990s of escalating retaliatory gun violence buoyed by a lucrative illegal drug enterprise until he is ultimately arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison. His journey through the doors of transformation came through the pain of incarceration and introspection that caused him to question the cognitive distortions embedded in him since childhood. Once in prison, Antong denounced his gang affiliation and began working to unite rival gangs, quickly rising to become one of the most respected and sought-after mentors in prison. A spiritual transformation further inspired Antong to return to his old neighborhood after early release. This is when Antong connected with Omar Jahwar, a local leader and helped negotiate the first ever Peace Treaty in Dallas. From there the two began to work to heal individuals, families and bridge the gap between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Redemptive Activism) became Antong's foundation to bring people together from all walks of life. He trains police officers and community members on effective strategies to build harmony. Antong is considered a hero in many communities. Get Antong's New Book: A Redemptive Path Forward: From Incarceration to a Life of Activism. Learn more about Antong at Urban Specialists, Heal America, Bishop Omar School of Entrepreneurship, & Stand Together. Listen to Part 1 of this Episode
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with Dr. Bayo Akomolafe, originally aired in January of 2020. Our hearts and minds are set to work by the urgent eco-social crises of this time. Caught in a cultural twitch of frenetic production and the sticky paradigms of modernity, we've penned vocabulary and designed technologies, manufactured frameworks and crunched numbers in an effort to diagnose and “treat” planetary collapse. We are invited by this week's guest, Dr. Bayo Akomolafe, to pause and abandon solutionism, step back from the project of progress, and dance into a different set of questions: What does the Anthropocene teach us as a destabilizing agent that resists our taming? How can we show up in our movements of justice if “the ways we respond to crisis is part of the crisis”? What happens when we unfurl into a space of slowness and relinquish human mastery to a wider cosmic net of relations? Bayo Akomolafe (Ph.D.) considers his most sacred work to be learning how to be with his daughter and son, Alethea Aanya and Kyah Jayden—and their mother, his wife and "life-nectar,” Ijeoma. An author, speaker, renegade academic, and proud father, Bayo is Chief Curator and Director of The Emergence Network, a constellation of humans and nonhumans working together trans-locally to curate projects, rituals, conversations and events that nurture senses of the otherwise via practices that trouble the traditional boundaries of agency and possibility. Bayo is also a visiting professor at Middlebury College, Vermont, and has taught in universities around the world. He is a consultant with UNESCO, leading efforts for the Imagining Africa's Future (IAF) project. Bayo has authored two books, We Will Tell Our Own Story! and These Wilds Beyond our Fences: Letters to My Daughter on Humanity's Search for Home, and has penned forewords for many others. Music by Daniel Higgs Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
This week Tamika and Mysonne open the discussion about certain issues that need to be changed in our community such as prison reform. Moreover, they had special guest J. Jordan call in where he spoke about post conviction poverty, going over different barriers in the system, and collateral consquences. Afterwards, Mysonne introduces his mentor Pretty Tone, who speaks with him about his expereience in the streets, growing from dificult situtations and more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Shamawn L Wright is the founder of Bridge Builders which helps people in underserved communities bridge the gap from lower education to higher education. He is also a motivational speaker. In this episode, we talk about: How taking responsibility is the first step to changing your current situation. The 3 things you can do to instantly change the narrative of yourself. How Shamawn grew up from a rough childhood to now creating an incredible life for himself. @s._wright @bridgebuildersng
This is Part 1 of an inspirational conversation with Antong “Kiddo” Lucky. Antong was the founder of the “415 Dallas Bloods”, Antong Lucky, transformed himself into a redemptive leader and impactful activist. Through his descent into the futile hopelessness of gang culture, his spiritual & leadership awakening in prison, and his courageous contrarian activism, viewers will be inspired by Antong's dynamic energy of compassion. This is a story of adversity & personal accountability. By witnessing Antong's idea of Radical Empathy, viewers will aspire to reveal the best of themselves, the essential decency of humankind, & the shape of the days to come. This conversation has the poor and impoverished, the rich and famous; politicians, preachers, and peace makers. It's a 21- year journey of activism that is exemplary and inspirational. This series ends on an aspirational note providing real solutions that can heal our divisions and tackle our urgent problems of today. Part 2 of this conversation will come out on May 9th, 2022. Visit DoseofLeadership.com to learn more. Check out Antong's book A Redemptive Path Forward
DeVeonne Gregory is a dedicated youth mentor, who has dedicated immense efforts to preventing youth incarceration and encouraging youth education and career development. DeVeonne shares her experiences of building young lives through mentorship.
Tony spent three decades in and out of jail for property crimes and safecracking. When he joined an unusual club inside Hobart's Risdon Prison, he found his voice for the first time. Then a few years ago, on a fishing trawler far out to sea, he began the painful process of changing his life
Historian Hugh Ryan joins Zerlina and Jess on the show to discuss his new book The Women's House of Detention: A Queer History of a Forgotten Prison, out on May 10! This singular history of a prison, and the queer women and trans people held there, is a window into the policing of queerness and radical politics in the twentieth century.The Women's House of Detention, a landmark that ushered in the modern era of women's imprisonment, is now largely forgotten. But when it stood in New York City's Greenwich Village, from 1929 to 1974, it was a nexus for the tens of thousands of women, transgender men, and gender-nonconforming people who inhabited its crowded cells. Some of these inmates—Angela Davis, Andrea Dworkin, Afeni Shakur—were famous, but the vast majority were incarcerated for the crimes of being poor and improperly feminine. Today, approximately 40 percent of the people in women's prisons identify as queer; in earlier decades, that percentage was almost certainly higher.Historian Hugh Ryan explores the roots of this crisis and reconstructs the little-known lives of incarcerated New Yorkers, making a uniquely queer case for prison abolition—and demonstrating that by queering the Village, the House of D helped defined queerness for the rest of America. From the lesbian communities forged through the Women's House of Detention to the turbulent prison riots that presaged Stonewall, this is the story of one building and much more: the people it caged, the neighborhood it changed, and the resistance it inspired.Hugh Ryan is a writer and curator. His first book, When Brooklyn Was Queer, won a 2020 New York City Book Award, was a New York Times Editors' Choice in 2019, and was a finalist for the Randy Shilts and Lambda Literary Awards. He was honored with the 2020 Allan Berube Prize from the American Historical Association. In 2019-2021, he worked on the Hidden Voices: LGBTQ+ Stories in U.S. History curricular materials for the NYC Department of Education.
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with Dr. Kim TallBear originally aired in February of 2020. Intimacy and sexuality is the soil that gives rise to creativity, pleasure and regeneration of new life. As mainstream understandings of sex, marriage, and family shift, Dr. Kim TallBear highlights how the colonial project of nation-building disrupted the vitality of Indigenous kinship by imposing heteronormative monogamous marriage and the nuclear family structure. How have these constraints bred hyper-sexualized, paradoxical and fetishized beliefs that degrade relationships, wellbeing of communities and the land? Dr. Kim TallBear is Associate Professor, Faculty of Native Studies, University of Alberta, and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience & Environment. By unraveling the doctrines of scarcity and separation, we are challenged to shatter pervasive beliefs of boundaries, binaries, and scarcity within our relations. Music by M83, Frazey Ford & FRASE. Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
On this West Virginia Morning, one out of every ten West Virginia children have a parent who has been incarcerated. As the adults navigate life after prison, the odds are stacked against them. A few years ago, the West Virginia Council of Churches created the West Virginia Reentry Council to help people navigate the probationary system while juggling everyday responsibilities.
Former Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow argues for greater forgiveness by the law and the justice system. Using examples from around the world, she shares how forgiveness can lower crime and reduce incarceration. She warns about the highly punitive American justice system which forgives bankruptcy but not misdemeanors. The very same kind of crime in the United States and in Sweden or in Finland, will produce in the United States perhaps a 20 years' sentence, and in one of those Scandinavian countries, maybe 5 to 10 years. The US is far more punitive, and Martha argues there is no evidence that that produces lower rates of crime. In fact, the US has higher rates of crime.What‘s the right balance between forgiveness and punishment? It's not an easy question. A justice system needs to hold people accountable for their crimes and be fair, treating people the same, but when should the law forgive and allow for fresh beginnings? Martha Minow is the perfect person to ask. She's written a book titled When Should Law Forgive?
Roots in north Greenville Mississippi and south side Chicago Illinois. I'm from 413 the swamp of downtown Killeen Texas. Been rapping since I was 12-13. My music career was put on hold due to Incarceration. I was on infinity entertainment up under playas dynasty part of a group called swamp boys with murda(41 potential) and LIL tec. Than an artist on green city records up under big rowdy and Scottie Lee . I became known with collabs with big spade song 41 niggas on top. And bell county boys with lone star. The song stepped on came about me returning to the music scene how mfs trying to treat me as an underdog don't want to give me my recognition and how I was going to step on mfs in this rap game with my bars, punchlines, metaphors and facts of my life. I'm not to be slept on. Imma blow. COME DIVE into the HEAT with my mans and his intro to life's story with the P.E.G Family on iHeartradio and all platforms. The vibes are set and unmatched. ITS A VIBE TING!!!!
Photo: An Interior View of a Jamaica House of Correction, c.1837. Caption: An Interior View of a Jamaica House of Correction, this illustration shows a scene during the Apprenticeship Period (1834-38); man on left being flogged, in center at bottom, a woman has her hair cut off. Below the title is a message from Jamaica's Governor Lionel Smith to the Jamaican House of Assembly: The WHIPPING OF FEMALES, you were informed by me, officially, WAS IN PRACTICE; and I called upon you to make enactments to put an end to conduct so repugnant to humanity, and SO CONTRARY TO LAW. So far from passing an Act to prevent the recurrence of such cruelty, you have in no way expressed your disapprobation of it. I communicated to you my opinion, and that of the Secretary of State, of the injustice of cutting off the hair of females in the House of Correction, previous to trial. You have paid no attention to the subject. Published in Phillippo, James Mursell, 1798-1879. Jamaica: Its Past And Present State. London: J. Snow, 1843, after p. 172. #Keystone: Incarceration in America and after. Salina Zito, @SalenaZito CNN, New York Post; author, The Great Revolt. SalenaZito.com @DCExaminer LA https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/this-road-to-redemption-began-with-a-poetry-book-slipped-under-a-prison-cell-door
Marlene Sanchez grew up in San Francisco's Mission District and experienced the effects of the criminal justice system from an early age. She landed in juvenile detention after getting into a fight at school, an experience that led her to community organizing and activism by the time she was 15. Now she's the new executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, working to end mass incarceration. We'll talk with Sanchez, the first woman of color to lead the organization, about the fight for criminal justice reform, advocating for incarcerated women and what it means to invest in communities of color.
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen Miller, originally aired in September of 2021. “If this new green economy continues to perpetuate the same ethos that resource extraction has, we will not find any solutions and we will see our suffering perpetuated.” Heeding this call from Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen Miller, we explore the fruitful spaces between radical imagination, public policy, and on-the-ground activism as we think about what it means to take meaningful steps towards creating a non-extractive future. In this week's episode, Ruth shares how tending to the future must center Indigenous values and lifeways. With this in mind, we look at the totality of what a “just transition” can offer us beyond limited definitions shaped by economics, policy, and job growth. Instead, Ruth shares the ways in which a just transition can be understood as a cyclical movement inspired by kinship, care, and reciprocity. Ruth Łchav'aya K'isen Miller is a Dena'ina Athabaskan and Ashkenazi Russian Jewish woman, raised in Dgheyay Kaq (Anchorage), Alaska. She is a member of the Curyung Tribe from the Lake Clark region and also has roots in Bristol Bay. Ruth is the Climate Justice and Just Transition Director for Native Movement, a matriarchal grassroots Indigenous organization that fights for the rights of Indigenous peoples. She has worked many years towards climate justice and a regenerative economy for all on her lands and beyond, her work also includes international advocacy. She is a daughter, a granddaughter, an aunty, a language learner, a traditional beadworker, and a subsistence fisherwomxn. Music by Madelyn Ilana, Høly River, and Mariee Sioux. Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at firstname.lastname@example.org Resources “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715100 Scott Hechinger Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1447596444886523911 “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog: https://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/let-s-take-hard-look-who-jail-and-why-we-put-them-there Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”: https://www.lisc.org/media/filer_public/05/0b/050ba3aa-044f-4676-bc1e-6e2b6c48412c/091317_bcji_resources_police_legitimacy_fundamentals.pdf “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-people-favor-rehabilitation-over-incarceration/ Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.
This episode was recorded on October 12, 2021 Dr. Glenn Loury and I discuss the Pareto principle, the economics of inequality, PC culture, climate change, race in America, IQ and The Bell Curve, intelligence vs. wisdom, AA meetings, Christianity, and more. Dr. Glenn Loury is an American economist, academic, and author. In 1982, he became the first African American tenured professor of economics at Harvard. Among Dr. Loury's published works are The Anatomy of Racial Inequality and Race, Incarceration, & American Values. He was elected president of the Eastern Economics Association in 2013 and received the Bradley Prize in 2022. ___________ Links ___________ Dr. Loury's substack: http://glennloury.substack.com The Glenn Show: https://youtube.com/channel/UCuEhthcgt1AImOzXPYsMzeQ The Anatomy of Racial Inequality: https://amazon.com/Anatomy-Racial-Inequality-Preface-Lectures/dp/0674260465/ref=asc_df_0674260465/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=519487730108&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=770218243983853108&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9019578&hvtargid=pla-1454356324992&psc=1 Race, Incarceration, and American Values: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B08BT4WHFG/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i2 ___________ Chapters ___________ [0:00] Intro [01:23] Dr. Loury's Career [04:38] The Pareto Principle [10:51] Market Failure & Climate Change [11:57] The G Factor (general intelligence factor) [13:45] Why Stephen Jay Gould Is Wrong [17:01] Neuroticism & Divorce [26:06] Race & Incarceration in the US [36:16] Culture & Biology [38:09] The 80/20 Principle [47:20] Openness & Entrepreneurs [49:21] Meaningful Work & Inequality [56:35:] The Bell Curve [01:01:09] Political Correctness around IQ [01:14:58] Dr. Loury's (Shifting) Political Views [01:21:09] Drug Addiction & Spiritual Transformation [01:27:10] Intelligence vs. Wisdom [01:30:16] The Glenn Show [01:35:40] George Floyd Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Check out The Restart Roadmap: Rewire and Reset Your Career now! In this week's episode, Jason sits down with best selling author, award-winning personal trainer, public speaker and host of the Adversity Advantage Podcast, Doug Bopst. Although Doug's accomplishments might give the impression that he's always had it figured out, his path to success was anything but typical or easy. Doug admits he truly believed that he would be dead by the age of 25. At just 21 years old, Doug was sitting in a jail cell after being arrested and convicted of drug charges. How did he get caught? How much was he earning and spending as a top drug dealer? He shares the catalysts that altered the trajectory of his life forever and how he finds the strength to continue pushing forward in another episode that you cannot afford to miss. LinkedIn.com/SECRETS to post your job for free! Coinbase.com/trading for $10 in free bitcoin Novo.co/secrets to sign up for FREE Fahertybrand.com code SECRETS for 20% off Host: Jason Tartick Voice of Viewer: David Arduin Executive Producer: Evan Sahr Produced by Dear Media.
Ghislaine Maxwell, through her brother Ian, wants you to know that she is shocked and perturbed by the fact that she didn't get her sentence overturned. In what, according to the Maxwell's and their surrogates amounts to the most cruel and unusual punishment in the history of the galaxy and is the gravest of injustices. Meanwhile, in the very building she is housed in, people are rotting away on minor drug charges. (commercial at 12:02)to contact me:email@example.com:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10722119/Ghislaine-Maxwells-brother-Ian-says-perturbed-judges-refusal-grant-retrial.html
In honor of Chris' freedom day, April 14, 2020, the day he was released from prison, I'm reposting one of the most impactful episodes I've ever recorded. My guest today was a musician on the cusp of breakout success, when in 2008, he was wrongfully convicted in Cincinnati, OH and subsequently served almost 13 years in prison for an armed robbery he didn't commit. Crucial DNA evidence withheld by the State from his defense at trial proved his innocence, and a federal court finally threw out his convictions in 2020. Additional misconduct by the State kept Christopher locked up in a county jail even after the federal court ordered his immediate release. Under threat of contempt charges from the federal court, the State finally released him, and he walked free with the help of the Ohio Innocence Project. Now he has a message and practical solutions. Just weeks after his release he has launched OH10Unlimited, his start-up company aimed at training youths and young adults to set goals, establish a rock solid work ethic, and connect with mentors. OH10Unlimited specifically focuses on music as therapy and as a means to address the need for criminal justice reform. OH10Unlimited promotes and trains young artists in every aspect of a complete and healthy human being: physical fitness conditioning; emotional well-being by connecting its members with a network of positive and productive people; and by providing high-quality, practical, essential tools young artists need to make a marketable product but often can't afford. Please welcome, Christopher Smith, aka Ol' Hound! www.gofundme.com/f/the-christopher-smith-story Intro music composed by Steven Wicks.
More than 70 million Americans have an arrest or criminal record that in many cases prevent them from getting housing, work and reconnecting with their families after incarceration. Those challenges are the subject of a NewsHour documentary premiering Wednesday on PBS called "Searching for Justice: Life After Lockup," produced by Mike Fritz and Frank Carlson and hosted by Amna Nawaz. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
This week we are rebroadcasting our interview with Woman Stands Shining (Pat McCabe), originally aired in September of 2021. In the fast-paced movement of today's media, it's easy to become entangled in narratives of extinction, loss, a lack of time, and a tremendous amount of misanthropy. However, when we pause to look within the ecosystems around us we can find examples of life pushing through the most difficult of circumstances. Our more than human kin continues in defiance, refusing to cease their own lineage under the current modern paradigm of exploitation and desecration. In this week's episode, we look into a thriving life paradigm, which places a reverences for life at the center of all action, with guest Woman Stands Shining (Pat McCabe). In this expansive conversation, Woman Stands Shining coalesces topics of Indigenous sovereignty, land back, how gender and consent behave in different paradigms, and the vital importance of moving out of modernity's obsession with intellectualism as the primary way of knowing, into a powerful call to choose a timeless paradigm that is life-affirming for us all. Woman Stands Shining (Pat McCabe) is a Diné grandmother, activist, artist, and international speaker. Her primary work is proposing to the Five-Fingered-Ones, that paradigm is a choice, and pointing to Indigenous cultures as examples that we have evidence that human beings can participate in paradigms in which we can become beings capable of causing all life to thrive. Music by The Range of Light Wilderness, Violet Bell, and Sea Stars. Visit our website at forthewild.world for the full episode description, references, and action points.
This is the first episode of our Creative Interventions series. In this series, we will explore the Creative Interventions Toolkit, which provides tools, resources, and a model for community interventions in interpersonal violence. We'll go section-by-section and talk to some of the folks whose work served as the source material for this project. You can find digital versions of the Creative Interventions Toolkit or purchase a physical copy by visiting www.creative-interventions.org. According to their website, “Creative Interventions provides vision, tools and resources to help anyone and everyone create community-based, collective responses to domestic, family, and sexual violence. The community-based approach centers those closest to and most impacted by harm, honors their expertise, and builds collective knowledge and power as the solution to violence.” The CI Toolkit has been around for a while now but AK Press released it in print for the first time last December. So, while we've talked about it in previous episodes, we wanted to use this occasion to spend more time with it in the hopes of spreading some of the tools, frameworks, skills, strategies, and roles in ending interpersonal violence that come out of this movement. We're starting this series off with a conversation with Mimi Kim and Rachel Herzing, setting the stage by talking about where the CI Toolkit came from, how it's structured, and how it proposes intervening in violence and, importantly, how its community-centered approach differs from others. Mimi Kim is the founder of Creative Interventions and a co-founder of INCITE! She has been a long-time activist, advocate and researcher challenging gender-based violence at its intersection with state violence and creating community accountability, transformative justice and other community-based alternatives to criminalization. As a second generation Korean American, she locates her political work in global solidarity with feminist anti-imperialist struggles, seeking not only the end of oppression but of the creation of liberation here and now. Mimi is also an Associate Professor of social work at California State University, Long Beach and Co-Editor-in Chief of Affilia. Her recent publications include “The Carceral Creep: Gender-Based Violence, Race, and the Expansion of the Punitive State, 1973-1983” (2020) and “From Carceral Feminism to Transformative Justice: Women of Color Feminism and Alternatives to Incarceration” (2018). She is currently working on a restorative justice pilot project addressing domestic and sexual violence in Contra Costa County, California. Rachel Herzing has been an organizer, activist, and advocate fighting the violence of surveillance, policing and imprisonment since the 1990s. Rachel was the director of research and training at Creative Interventions. Rachel was also the executive director of Center for Political Education, a resource for political organizations on the left, progressive social movements, the working class and people of color, and a co-director of Critical Resistance, a national organization dedicated to abolishing the prison industrial complex. Episode Resources & Notes Creative Interventions Website Creative Interventions Toolkit (Free PDF) Creative Interventions Toolkit in Spanish (Free PDF) Creative Interventions Workbook (Google Doc) Follow CI on Facebook Follow CI on IG Follow CI on Twitter Credits Created and hosted by Kim Wilson and Brian Sonenstein Edited by Ellis Maxwell Website & volunteers managed by Victoria Nam Theme music by Jared Ware Support Beyond Prisons Visit our website at beyond-prisons.com Support our show and join us on Patreon. Check out our other donation options as well. Please listen, subscribe, and rate/review our podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and Google Play Join our mailing list for updates on new episodes, events, and more Send tips, comments, and questions to firstname.lastname@example.org Kim Wilson is available for speaking engagements and to facilitate workshops. Please contact email@example.com for more information Twitter: @Beyond_Prison Facebook:@beyondprisonspodcast Instagram:@beyondprisons
For Reginald Dwayne Betts—a poet, lawyer, and activist who supports and contributes to prison decarceration efforts—reading and writing have a mind-expanding power that never wanes. The author of three books of poetry and a memoir, his prose is intimate and raw. Even when he's not writing about himself, Betts finds ways to build personal connections with his subjects for his award-winning work in The New York Times Magazine—subjects that have included the rapper Tariq Trotter of The Roots, the late actor Michael K. Williams, and Vice President Kamala Harris. He also brings a literary bent to his activism: In 2020, he founded Freedom Reads, a nonprofit that aims to build libraries inside 1,000 prisons and juvenile detention centers across the country. The program recently installed its first sets of bookshelves at MCI-Norfolk, the Massachusetts prison where Malcolm X was incarcerated, and last month, in a public event at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., it presented the 500 titles that comprise each collection.Betts, a graduate of Yale Law School (where he's currently in a Ph.D. program), became an advocate for respecting the rights and dignity of the people who are in or who have gone through the American carceral system after experiencing it firsthand himself. Instead of resigning himself to the violence and dehumanizing conditions of incarceration, he turned his focus to books—many by Black writers and poets—that showed him the depth and richness of self-reflection, and that got him thinking about the stories he himself had to tell. On this episode, Betts speaks with Spencer about the long-term impacts of his time behind bars, the current renaissance of prison writing, and the transformative act of giving people who are incarcerated access to literature and books.Special thanks to our Season 5 sponsor, L'ÉCOLE, School of Jewelry Arts. Show notes:Full transcriptdwaynebetts.comA Question of Freedom [18:39]Betts's 2021 commencement speech at Wesleyan University [25:46]Felon: An American Washi Tale [30:24]“Kamala Harris, Mass Incarceration and Me” [30:36]“A Son, A Mother, and Two Gun Crimes” episode of Death, Sex & Money podcast [38:06]“The Lives They Lived” [42:55]Shahid Reads His Own Palm [01:00:27]Bastards of the Reagan Era [01:00:27]Felon [01:00:27]“Could an Ex-Convict Become an Attorney? I Intended to Find Out” [01:03:01]Freedom Reads [01:10:23]“Memorial Hoops” [01:16:54]
http://www.pbtx.comhttp://goodsonbail.com/PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/minddogtvSponsors:KOA Coffee https://koacoffee.com/?sscid=21k6_79g17FIVERR https://go.fiverr.com/visit/?bta=86037&brand=fiverrcpa&utm_campaign=minddogTVSOUTHWEST RAPID REWARDS https://swa.eyjo.net/c/3290446/517226/4705SUPPORT THE HAPPY MINUTE https://ko-fi.com/minddogtvTRUE FIRE GUITAR MASTERY: http://prf.hn/click/camref:1101lkzyk/pubref:minddogGet Koa Coffee at http://minddogtv.com/coffee