2004 Speeches

We Are Our Brothers' Keeper

March 9, 2004

Dr. Roy L. Austin
U.S. Ambassador to Trinidad & Tobago
T&T’s Prison Service Luncheon for the visit of the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice
Trinidad Hilton Hotel

Good morning, and thanks to Commissioner Leo Abraham and officers of Trinidad & Tobago’s Prison Service for according me the honor of addressing the group here assembled. Thanks, too, to the members of America’s National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice for returning to Trinidad and Tobago for the fourth time to engage in activities that epitomize the American character—utilizing resources with which we are blessed to improve others’ lives.

I have entitled my short statement today “We Are Our Brothers’ Keepers.” I do so because I was reminded that the term keeper was once often applied to jail and prison guards. Also, those of you who are sufficiently acquainted with certain editions of the Bible will remember Cain’s question of God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” I answer that question with a resounding yes. I am, you are, we are our brothers’ keepers. We are our brothers’ guardians; and I speak of a brotherhood that extends to all human beings. How are we supposed to carry out that duty? Since crime and criminals are the primary professional concerns of persons working in the criminal justice system, and the Prison Service is hosting this luncheon, I shall concentrate on the role of prisons in crime reduction.

Although societies spend large sums of money to build and run prisons, there have been many negative assessments of prisons’ effects. Let me remind you of how negative these assessments can be by turning back to the height of the Diversion “fad” in the U.S. in the 1970s. At that time, many criminologists, criminal justice professionals and policy makers were advocating “diversion.” That is, minimize penetration of offenders into the criminal justice system, or keep them out of the system altogether. We were expected especially to severely restrict experiences with incarceration.

There were two rationales for this advice. The first was that insertion in the criminal justice system serves to stigmatize offenders (especially juveniles). Others then treat these offenders as outcastes; and the offenders in turn, sometimes as an act of vengeance, increase their criminal involvement. The second rationale stated that if offenders are incarcerated they associate with more sophisticated offenders, and learn the techniques and motives that increase their criminality upon release.

Trinidadians who are aware that one UWI study reports that 56% of the country’s inmates are recidivists may be inclined to agree that prisons only increase the likelihood of further crime. Knowledge that former inmates released from U.S. prisons show a re-arrest rate of 67% within three years may encourage the same conclusion. So why should a government expend large sums of money building and maintaining prisons, feeding and housing inmates, and compensating prison employees? I next address some proposed responses to crime and their likely effects in order to help you decide whether prisons may be a waste of valuable resources.

Some citizens may argue that when a member of society hurts another by engaging in a criminal act, the offender must be taught that society disapproves of his/her criminality. One means by which that lesson may be taught is by punishing the offender in accord with the seriousness of the offense, and in a manner acceptable to the society. Imprisonment is an acceptable form of punishment in many societies.

Imprisonment is also supported by some members of society because it incapacitates. That is, imprisonment reduces an offender’s capacity to engage in similar offenses.

Now, neither punishment nor incapacitation may be accepted by some citizens as sufficient to justify the financial and other cost of prisons to a society. However, many people claim that the punishment associated with prisons serve as a deterrent to crime. On the one hand, imprisonment may make the punished offender less likely to repeat, an effect known as specific deterrence. On the other hand, punishing an offender may influence other persons to avoid punishment by conforming to laws.

Deterrence is more socially acceptable as a goal of incarceration than punishment for its own sake or incapacitation. However, there is greater disagreement over the claimed deterrent effects of imprisonment than over the latter effects. Unfortunately, scientific studies have not encouraged confidence in claims of deterrence.

Strangely, perhaps, most studies that have manipulated types of punishment yield findings indicating no support for the belief that increasing the severity of punishment will increase the likelihood of deterrence occurring. Yet many of us continue to believe that longer prison sentences are needed in order to deter crime. At the same time, several studies show that increasing the certainty of punishment has a deterrent effect; but few of us pay attention to the importance of making punishment more certain. There is a third punishment variable, celerity or the speed with which an offender is punished. While there is little supportive evidence, it is believed that an increase in the celerity of punishment increases the likelihood of deterrence.

A recent study does restore our faith in the efficacy of severe punishment as a deterrent to crime. That study revealed “a substantial crime-reducing” effect of harsher sentences, especially for robberies. It is noteworthy that the deterrent effect observed is specific to the offender punished. Whether there is a general deterrent effect is not mentioned by the authors; but whatever type of deterrence occurs, the men and women who are the keepers of their society’s prisons have every right to be proud about their contribution to reducing crime and, thereby, helping fellow citizens to enjoy happier lives.

The concept of deterrence applies to situations where we avoid behaviors because we fear the consequences, not because of moral concerns. When people are persuaded to conform only because of such fear, societies must expend massive amounts of resources to remind them of the negative consequences likely to follow criminal behavior. It is, therefore, more cost-effective if people conform because of moral considerations. When a prior offender becomes law-abiding because of such considerations, we say that rehabilitation has occurred. Can prisons bring about this preferred state, rehabilitation?

Criminal justice professionals continue to aim at the ideal of rehabilitating offenders, and to hope that the non-recidivist has undergone this conversion experience. They, therefore, utilize programs intended to rehabilitate, although it is difficult to determine whether any reduction in recidivism may indicate rehabilitation rather than deterrence or maturational reform. Some researchers claim that correctional work programs that enhance practical skills and develop interpersonal skills are most effective for reducing recidivism. That is, we may expect some desirable results from prison programs. At the same time, researchers also note that hard physical labor may satisfy our desire to punish but fails to reduce recidivism.

While well-run prisons may be achieving society’s goal of reducing recidivism, we who accept the responsibility to be our brothers’ keepers cannot be satisfied with the high level of recidivism that occurs. We must continue to seek more effective programs; and one direction in which we may look is towards the further development of differential treatment.

The concept of differential treatment assumes that criminals differ form one another in ways that are important for reducing their criminal involvement. Just as we do not treat all diseases alike, optimum success in reducing recidivism requires that there be a proper match of treatment strategy and criminal. My own early research showed that an authoritarian environment produced lower recidivism rates with one type of delinquent while a permissive environment yielded better success with another type. I was able to identify two other studies for which the results were similar when properly interpreted. We who acknowledge that we are our brothers’ keepers must follow these and other promising leads to create social environments that optimize happiness in this world.

May we all serve as examples that will prevent others from running afoul of the law.