True Casualties: The Children of Prisoners

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 5/25/2006 | Mark Earley

[Mr. Silverback]

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

When Joe’s dad went to prison, Joe went to prison too—a prison of shame and anger. Responding to his father’s incarceration, Joe fought, drank, and smoked dope. And while Joe’s prison was figurative, he was on a path leading to a real prison with bars and barbed wire.

Joe is not a unique case. As a recent article in the National Journal claimed, “The next generation of prisoners is going to come from the current generation of prisoners.”

Sadly, society stands idly by as the children of prisoners become the unintentional casualties of the “war on crime.” With more than 2.3 million individuals currently behind bars in America, our incarceration rate quadruples that of previous decades. And the children of these prisoners are five to seven times more likely than the average child to end up in prison one day. Even more shocking, the American Correctional Association concluded that 52 percent of female juvenile offenders had an incarcerated parent.

Tragically, intergenerational punishment extends even beyond the United States.

On a recent trip to Bolivia, I had the opportunity to visit San Pedro prison in La Paz. As I watched throngs of prisoners shove each other out of the way for their daily bowl of gruel, I noticed a little girl with matted hair and grubby face lift up her own bowl among the ranks of hardened criminals. Although innocent of any crime, she had no other choice but to join her parents behind bars.

She doesn’t deserve prison. And neither do the 2 million American children with an incarcerated parent. But that’s exactly where we will send them one day if we do not begin to reform the criminal justice system.

We must reevaluate who we lock up, why we lock them up, and how we lock them up. Prisons are for people we are afraid of, not mad at. In other words, prisons are for dangerous offenders who pose a threat to society. We need to challenge “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, responsible for filling 60 percent of our federal prisons with drug offenders, many of whom have no prior criminal record for a violent offense and many of whom are not drug dealers. On top of that, we need to consider the ramifications of separating families by incarcerating prisoners far from their homes.

But we can do more than influence public policy. Jesus said in Matthew 18:5 that “whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.” The Church has always heeded the call to care for at-risk children—forgotten children. And these children are the most at-risk and forgotten children in America. God has a bias toward those who do not have advocates. As His followers, we should too.

Thanks to a caring Prison Fellowship mentor and a local church, Joe has embraced Christ and now spends his free time participating in mission trips and playing football with friends from the church youth group. Through Prison Fellowship’s Angel Tree program, we have watched thousands of children of prisoners like Joe escape the vicious cycle of crime and come to Christ.

Would you consider helping us reach the unintended casualties of the war on crime? Help us by mentoring a prisoner’s child or buying a child a Christmas gift on behalf of their incarcerated parent. Help us to send a child to a week of Christian summer camping. Call us at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527), and we’ll tell you how you can help and make a difference.

This is part seven in the “War on the Weak” series.

[Mr. Silverback]

We must reevaluate who we lock up, why we lock them up, and how we lock them up. Prisons are for people we are afraid of, not mad at. In other words, prisons are for dangerous offenders who pose a threat to society. We need to challenge “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, responsible for filling 60 percent of our federal prisons with drug offenders, many of whom have no prior criminal record for a violent offense and many of whom are not drug dealers.

I agree with the above, except for the part about three strikes. Three strikes laws based on violent offenses take incorrigible practitioners of violence off the streets. They aren't ruining anybody's lives for them, and letting those thugs do regular time sure isn't going to help their kids any.

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[SR 50]

If this is true, then the children should be imprisoned at the same time as the adult, save a lot of innocent lives and a lot money later on.

[coloradan]

In some states, three strikes applies to any felony, including nonviolent drug offenses, writing bad checks for the third time, or looking crosseyed at a cop or touching him with your pinkie (which is felony assault on a police officer in some jurisdictions). Possession of one round of .22 rimfire is also a felony if you've got a previous felony conviction, or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. Furthermore, possession of a shotgun or rifle that is 1/8" too short is also a felony - a "violent" felony, by definition. (Many nonviolent drug crimes are also "violent felonies" by definition as well.)

[SampleMan]

I completely agree, because until men are sent to prison, they are model fathers. Perhaps we can just set up prison childcare, where the cons can nurture our young?

[wizr]

Drive some of CA's San Jouquin Valley back roads and you will find its other harvest: prisons. They appear to be the new crop for many valley towns.

We do need to reform our justice system. Not to become more lenient, but to make it more difficult on those that commit crimes. Prisons should not be a place to sit out their time, but a hard place to forget, and to teach their children not to go there.

I feel that some think of prison as 3 square meals and a roof over their heads. Better than many on the street, and a way for illegals to be secure in America.

[after dark]

Thanks for the heads up on weird laws.

I will make sure that neither my pinkie nor the pinkies of my loved ones will ever touch the nice police officers. I want the police to know that I and all my loved ones respect all police officers. I am not being sarcastic.

It is troubling that prisons are great cash cows around the world. Those who can't believe me ,repeat after me China...

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Thanks for the ping. Good read. I need to chew on this one for a while, though. ;)

[Mr. Silverback]

Yes, but is the problem three strikes, or including too many crimes in three strikes? Earley comes out against three strikes. I believe that if the three felonies are all serious violent crimes, three strikes is exactly what needs to be done. The fact that some idiotswant to include crimes that don't belong just means the laws need to be reformed, not done away with.

[Mr. Silverback]

Wow, you're a real double bacon genius burger.

Study after study after study shows there is a vast difference in the likelihood of criminal involvement between kids who have a Dad in jail and those who don't. Try getting a grip on the nature of the problem being discussed before you post again. Maybe there's an American Idol thread you can get in on.

[after dark]

I know your comment is not directed at me ,but I want to respond anyways.

I agree three strikes is perfect for violent victimizers .

There are on the other hand people who benefit by building prisons and keeping them full. I believe those people are responsible for the lack of mercy that many poor and uneducated people receive from our legal system.

[after dark]

The people who want to throw the book at petty criminals are not stupid. They are greedy and calculating.

It is not out of a humanitarian love that they would want petty criminals caned but because they could not make as much money off of caning as they can off of warehousing human flesh.

[Mr. Silverback]

There are on the other hand people who benefit by building prisons and keeping them full. I believe those people are responsible for the lack of mercy that many poor and uneducated people receive from our legal system.

Agreed. In fact, the only problem I had with Earley's entire column was his blanket rejection of three strikes.

[coloradan]

I don't have a problem with three strikes in general, but I think far too many crimes are "violent felonies" that shouldn't be. As I wrote, The State considers mere possession of a gun that's 1/8" too short, or more than x oz of pot a "violent felony," even though no one, not even a fly, is hurt by such possession. I agree with the need to reform laws - let's start by throwing out some gun control laws.

[txzman]

"Three strikes laws based on violent offenses take incorrigible practitioners of violence off the streets."

Uh, last two stories I read about had men going to prison for life for stealing food from Walmart and bouncing a check. Not my idea of taking violent crime off the streets.

[SampleMan]

Try getting a grip on the nature of the problem being discussed before you post again.

Nature of problem: Dirt bags procreating.

You think the problem is that the dirt bags are in jail. I think the problem is that they are dirt bags. Your studies show nothing more than that criminals in prison have children that don't fair as well as children that have law-abiding, involved fathers. You needed to studies to know that?

Your answer is what? Release criminals back on society for the sake of their children (what about my children?), or should the state take away their children and raise them in a better environment? The latter could be tough as not many of these men are married to the children's mothers, so they don't have custody rights to take. Take them out of jail and they remain dirt bags. They do not morph into wonderful fathers. How do the studies compare between jailed dads and violent, drugged out dads?

Want to work on the problem? Try promoting what is known to almost eliminate poverty and crime: Marriage, school, & work.

Finally, what is "American Idol", Is that what's on down at the social workers office?

[SampleMan]

There are on the other hand people who benefit by building prisons and keeping them full. I believe those people are responsible for the lack of mercy that many poor and uneducated people receive from our legal system.

Lack of mercy? With recidivism at 95%, it is a lack of mercy to the innocent to let these perps back on the street for another chance. How many innocent people are you willing to see victimized, so that you can be merciful to the unrepentant?

There is nothing about being poor or uneducated that makes a person a criminal, and its an insult to those who are poor and honest to say so. On the other hand, the exact traits that make a person a criminal, also lead to them being poor and uneducated.

[SampleMan]

So you don't consider nonviolent criminals a problem for society, or their continued victimization of people to be worth stopping?

I do. And I think its laughable to think that con men, drug dealers, and crack heads are otherwise decent, loving parents that will provide positive formative years for their children if only society would let them.

Is this a DU thread?

[coloradan]

Wow, what a post!

So you don't consider nonviolent criminals a problem for society

I am able to distinguish those "crimes" that harm others, from those which do not. Theft, fraud, etc., harm others. Owning a short gun, some pot, or other such things do not. I admit that writing bad checks does harm others, but locking someone away forever for doing it seems harsh, especially compared to killing someone.

or their continued victimization of people to be worth stopping?

I didn't say I opposed all laws, and so long as laws continue to exist, there will be enforcement mechanisms in perpetuity.

And I think its laughable to think that con men, drug dealers, and crack heads are otherwise decent, loving parents that will provide positive formative years for their children if only society would let them.

I didn't say that either. Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting. Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?

[SampleMan]

A burglar can do a great amount of damage to hundreds of people's lives, whether he/she is violent or not. When you steal from a person, you are taking their time and labor against their will.

I find it sad that criminals have children, I do not, however, find it abusive to keep those criminals away from my children.

And if you don't agree with the pot laws, then you can work to have them overturned, after which it won't be a crime.

Is it your position that disagreeing with a law or its punishment makes it permissible to break it? I would only agree if the law violated basic human rights. I don't concur that drug laws do that.

Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting.

Yea, so what's your point? That because not everyone else is a perfect parent we should give criminals a pass?

Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?

Well if "whatever that is" is beating a child into a coma, abandonment, constant abuse, nonsupport, or exposing the child to a constant chain of criminal activity? YES!