Thank you for this opportunity to elaborate on steps I think leaders can take to make America’s prison system more effective. My thoughts on effectiveness mean that leaders should implement reforms that will reduce recidivism and lower prison operating costs. To achieve such an end, I think we need fundamental reforms.

The reforms I think would work best would include a mechanism that offered opportunities for offenders to reconcile with society. Frankly, I do not see how we serve justice by isolating offenders, extinguishing hope, and oppressing their spirits. Such an approach, to me, leads to high recidivism and unsafe societies. It seems that only the taxpayer is punished by having to fund a system that perpetuates failure.

A far more effective system, I think, would encourage prisoners to earn freedom through merit. I believe the power of incentive is far more effective than the threat of punishment. Even a former Supreme Court Justice, Warren Burger, urged prison reform that would offer opportunities for offenders to earn freedom through merit over sustained periods.

Every offender would be a likely candidate to participate in such a program. Though only objective accomplishments would advance an offender’s standing. Leaders could work out details of what incentives would be appropriate. I simply argue for a mechanism that does not exist in the system of corrections today. From my perspective, that is a fundamental flaw that contributes to high recidivism and high operating costs.

I wish you success with your academic program and your career.

Sincerely,

Michael

One of the ironies of prison is that administrators don’t schedule pre-release classes until the prisoner comes to the end of his sentence. When I was in my 17th year, I asked my unit manager to support my job change request in order to facilitate preparations I was making for release. I needed more time for reading and writing. My unit manager asked why I was thinking about release when I was scheduled to serve eight additional years. He denied my request for the job change, telling me that the needs of the institution came before my needs to prepare for release.

That is the kind of mindset I hope to see change through effective prison reform. Administrators ought to encourage offenders to pursue paths that would help them prepare for law-abiding lives upon release. Those preparations ought to begin the day an offender surrenders to the prison system. As the offender makes progress, administrators ought to encourage further growth.

The objective – or at least an objective – of corrections, ought to be to reduce recidivism. The strategy in place of separating the offender from access to telephone, visits, e-mail, and furloughs works in the opposite direction. We need prison reforms, in mind, that would fundamentally change this system.

I was sad to read about your cousin. Many prisoners recidivate as a consequence of their not finding employment. It seems as if the prison system binds a man in chains upon his release, then tips him into the water and tells him to swim. When he sinks, the accepted response is to lock him in prison again. Rather than looking at the cause of so much failure, administrators deny accountability. As my unit manager told me, the needs of the institution come first.

The Pew Report illustrates the wretched state of corrections in America. To me it seems a blemish on the country I love, but as a man who has been imprisoned for 21 years, I know that experiences bias my perspective. I’d like to see prison reforms that include mechanisms that encourage offenders to prepare for release. I remain hopeful, even though I do not expect relief in my case.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions.

Sincerely,
Michael Santos

I appreciate the time you’ve taken to read my work, and I’m glad you’ve found some value in it as you study corrections. The people to whom I referred in this article were not serving their time in productive ways. Rather than making efforts to improve the system of corrections, they focused energy on explaining why they were not guilty and how it was an injustice that they had to live by the same rules that governed other people in prison.

Although they led careers as legislators before, they were prisoners now. I wanted them to use their influence to apprise colleagues of what they had learned about the prison experience. Instead, many of the men who formally held positions of power wanted to rail about how they felt that they had personally been wrongly convicted. They had less concern for what I considered to be a fundamentally flawed system. Those prisoners only thought about themselves. Still, I felt happy to have them in our population because their imprisonment brought attention to the system. We needed more attention to influence prison reform.

Bernard Madoff’s recent imprisonment, for example, has brought more attention to the struggles with which prisoners live than any 1,000 people who were convicted of less notorious crimes could bring. That’s why I’m pleased to see more people of influence come into the prison system.

Best wishes,
Michael Santos

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and I welcome this opportunity to respond. To answer your first question, I’ve known several prisoners who earned two-year degrees and I’ve known fewer than a dozen who earned four-year degrees. Although I’m sure there are some, I’ve not known any other prisoners who earned graduate degrees. Statistics on education in prison, however, clearly show that prisoners who earn academic credentials are far more likely to succeed upon release.

It is to that fact of the relationship between success upon release and education that I base my responses to your subsequent questions. From my perspective, taxpayers ought to have the goal of a successful prison system. Success would imply a system that promotes respect for the law and prepares more offenders to emerge from the prison system as law-abiding citizens.

Although education certainly succeeds better than oppressive conditions in reforming prisoners, few prisoners commit themselves wholeheartedly to education. As a matter of public policy, that should concern our leaders and our citizens. We want our country’s institutions to be effective. The high recidivism rates show that we need improvements, and I am convinced that prison reforms that include incentives can offer promise.

I do not dispute that long sentences can have a place in the system. Yet leaders ought to augment the system with mechanisms that encourage prisoners to earn freedom through merit. I don’t mean overnight. But if more prisoners could comprehend that a sustained and measurable personal investment in education could advance his release date, then more prisoners would commit to positive adjustments. It is the absence of hope that is responsible for such a paucity of prisoners who commit to education.

With more prisoners working to earn freedom, society wins through lower recidivism rates, fewer gang problems, lower prison operating costs, and safer communities. That’s my take, and I hope it helps your understanding of my perspective. I aspire to influence a more effective prison system, not an easier prison system. I am convinced incentives would help.

Best wishes,
Michael Santos

Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts. My answer to your question is that I certainly do think that taxpayers should demand the closure of all federal prison camps. They do not provide much value. They are like health clubs, and they should be anathema to all hard working Americans.

Any prisoner who is confined in a camp ought to be diverted to a community-based sanction, in my mind. The camps do not serve a purpose because the prisoners who serve time inside of camps have a classification score that allows them to interact with society. If they are not a threat to society, the camp prisoners ought to live in society with electronic surveillance and work at legitimate jobs that will allow them to pay the cost of their confinement. If the prisoner is inappropriate for a community-based sanction, then he ought to serve time in a real prison until he is ready for the community-based sanction.

Life in prison camp is easy, though I don’t see the purpose of using $15,000 per year to confine people under the honor system. This is the type of wasted taxpayer resource that has contributed to so much crisis in our economy.

Of course my perspective comes from my experience of having been locked in prisons of every security level. I prefer serving time in the camp than in higher security, though I think a better use of taxpayer resources would be to divert nonviolent, minimum-security prisoners to community-based sanctions.

I am opposed to the death penalty, as I do not believe it should have a place in an enlightened society.

Best wishes,
Michael Santos

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to your understanding of the criminal justice system. I am sorry to have read about the struggles your own family had with the system, and it is precisely your experience that convinces me of the need for prison reforms that would enable prisoners to nurture family ties.

In the Second Chance Act, Congress made findings that showed prisoners with strong family ties were the least likely to recidivate. That’s why prison reforms make good sense. The basis would not be to make prisons suffer, but to lower recidivism rates and to encourage more prisoners to prepare for law-abiding lives upon release. A prisoner with a strong family stands more reason to adjust to prison, and to society in positive ways.

The initial reforms I would like to see would open access for prisoners to communicate with family and positive role models. Administrators should encourage rather than restrict prisoner efforts to talk on the phone, to visit, and to communicate in writing. If necessary, administrators could condition telephone access, visiting, and e-mail on productive adjustment patterns.

These changes would not endanger society nor would they burden taxpayers. On the contrary, such reforms would lead to safer prisons and stronger family ties.

Best wishes to you and your family,
Michael Santos

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond to your questions. My prison adjustment began soon after I was locked in confinement. I was only 23. The crimes of drug trafficking carried long sentences, and I came to grips with the reality that I would serve a lengthy time in prison. The sentence itself would be too long for me to understand, as I knew I could serve more time in prison than I had yet to live.

Because my sentence was so long, and because I felt remorseful for the humiliation I had caused my family, I had to redeem myself. That was the message I received through prayer. My focus became education, and I set goals in place to work toward earning academic credentials.

When I began serving my term, a program was in place that allowed prisoners to qualify for Pell Grants. That funding enabled me to participate in an undergraduate program and earn a degree. I wrote to graduate schools and persuaded Hofstra University to admit me on a probationary basis. In 1995, Hofstra awarded my master’s degree. Those educational credentials opened other opportunities to live a meaningful life.

I strive to live as an example for my fellow prisoners and to inspire them to live goal-centered lives. In every prison where I’ve been held I’ve taught classes that described the strategies that have guided me through prison. I don’t think those strategies have made my time in prison easier, though they have made me feel more productive.

I hope you find my answers responsive to your questions, and I wish you success with your career.

Sincerely,
Michael Santos

My wife and I are grateful for your supportive comments. We work as a team. I would not be nearly as effective at contributing to society and preparing for release if I were not blessed with her love.

My observations do not suggest that prisons focus on punishment. They don’t. The focus is on isolation, or warehousing human beings.

I don’t sense that I’m being punished for example. Rather, I’m being confined – unnecessarily – at great cost to American taxpayers. The punishment ended decades ago, when I was initially processed into the system. Since then, I’ve adjusted and the punishment has worn off.

As far as the warehousing is concerned, staff members regularly tell me that their focus is preservation of the institution. High level administrators have told me they don’t care about what efforts I make to prepare for the obstacles that await my release. They implement rules to block my access to
society because their primary concern is the institution. It is only the First Amendment that protects me, as prison administrators do not support
transparency.

I am convinced, and the Pew Report corroborates, that prisons are more costly to run without prison reforms. The first reform I would bring would be to open access to telephone, visits, and e-mail so prisoners could work toward nurturing ties with family and positive support networks. Then I would implement incentives or mechanisms through which prisoners could work toward earning freedom through merit. We ought to measure justice by an offender’s efforts to reconcile with society and prepare for a law-abiding life. I do not think calendar pages turning is a particularly good measure.

Prolonged incarceration, especially for nonviolent offenders, is costly and destructive to the fabric of our society in my biased opinion. To me, reform is necessary because prisons have proven too costly, with the only benefits flowing to prison lobbyists and the organizations that reap the benefits of massive prison expenditures.

Thank you again for your support.

Sincerely,
Michael

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my thoughts. I am of the opinion that our society has come to place too much emphasis on imprisonment as a response to all criminal conduct. As you may know, reports show that America incarcerates more people per capita than any nation on earth. The costs are extraordinary, as detailed by Pew Research. What I strive to show readers is that alternatives to imprisonment exist, and taxpayers ought to demand more use of them.

With regard to white collar offenders, it is not that I think their punishments are not severe enough. My objection is to the extreme disparity in sentencing between white collar crime and other nonviolent crime.

I believe society ought to have standards, and those who occupy positions of higher power and privilege ought to be held to a higher standard. In Pennsylvania, for example, two judges were recently convicted of accepting bribes from corrections officials in exchange for filling private prisons with people who should not have been incarcerated. Those were judges, and in my opinion, society should have held them to a higher standard. Despite their receiving millions in bribes, they received lower sentences than people I know who sold pot to consenting adults. To me, that screams of injustice.

Regardless of what sentences judges impose, I believe a more effective system would offer mechanisms that encourage offenders to work toward earning freedom through merit. Such prison reforms would lead to lower recidivism and lower operating costs.

I hope you find my answers responsive to your questions, and I wish you continuing success on your journey.

Sincerely,
Michael