Blog

The Damaging Effects of International Perceptions of American Correctional Facilities on the United States

In our interconnected globalized world, no country operates in isolation. That’s why governments and their citizens outside the United States watch what happens within our borders, form impressions, and make decisions that can have both subtle and overt impacts on how they engage with us.

One American policy area that’s frequently reviewed is the field of corrections, particularly jails and prison conditions. Negative perceptions of American correctional facilities, including policies and practices, carry significant damaging consequences for the United States, affecting its reputation, diplomatic relationships, international cooperation, domestic policies, and overall societal well-being. Why?

Reputation and Diplomatic Relationships:

The United States has long prided itself on embodying and advocating for democratic values and human rights. However, negative information about its jails and prison systems weaken this image and erode its moral authority to advocate for these principles. Criticism of the United States on these goals undermines America’s standing among nations, leading to a loss of influence and credibility in international forums. This includes situations in which foreign governments are concerned about the treatment of their citizens incarcerated in U.S. prisons. Reports of human rights abuses, crowding and overcrowding, inadequate services, and violence within American correctional facilities create tensions and conflicts with other nations, straining diplomatic ties and undermining cooperation in areas such as trade, security, and intelligence sharing. Moreover, countries may hesitate to extradite individuals who are wanted by different justice systems in the United States if they fear that individuals will face harsh conditions or inhumane treatment. This reluctance impedes transnational efforts to combat organized crime, terrorism, and other cross-border criminal activities, limiting the collective ability to address global crime.

Economic Ramifications

Negative perceptions of American correctional facilities can extend beyond the political realm and impact the private sector as well. International businesses, investors, and tourists may choose not to visit the United States or be deterred by negative portrayals, resulting in decreased foreign direct investment, trade, and tourism revenues. Adverse perceptions can harm the economy, reducing job opportunities and hindering economic growth.

Leadership on Human Rights

As a champion of human rights, the United States has an obligation to ensure that its correctional facilities adhere to internationally recognized standards. Negative perceptions of American prisons undermine its moral authority to advocate for human rights globally. This weakens its ability to influence other countries to improve their own prison systems, their wider criminal justice systems, and promote broader respect for human rights worldwide.

Societal Well-being

The impact of negative perceptions extends beyond diplomacy and international relations. Deplorable conditions within American correctional facilities reflect systemic issues in society. Poor prison conditions and human rights abuses frustrate attempts to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners, perpetuating a cycle of recidivism. This not only harms the individuals directly affected but also has broader societal consequences. The overall goal of the criminal justice system should be to facilitate successful reentry into society, and addressing these issues requires comprehensive reform efforts, transparency, and collaboration both domestically and internationally.

The future is now

International perceptions of American correctional facilities are wide-ranging and multifaceted. But when they are negative, it can damage America’s reputation, strain diplomatic relationships, hinder international cooperation, and have economic ramifications. Furthermore, this state of affairs compromises the United States’ ability to lead on human rights issues and detracts from the overall well-being of American society. To restore its global standing, strengthen diplomatic ties, and contribute to a more just and humane world, federal, state and local governments need to allocate sufficient resources (i.e., tax revenue) to comprehensive correctional reform efforts, including prioritizing effective rehabilitation programs. Hopefully, this approach can help the United States change its international reputation as leader in mass incarceration, and foster a society that prioritizes justice, dignity, and successful prisoner reintegration.

Gun buyback programs as symbolic politics

Recently a number of jurisdictions in the United States have gained attention for implementing and championing the use of gun buyback programs.

These crime reduction initiatives, which have been around since the 1970s, offer a nominal amount of money, gift certificates, or free tickets (to a sporting event or movie) to people willing to turn in guns, shotguns, rifles (or other types of firearms), (regardless of what condition they are in) to the police or a third party with no questions asked.

The hope is that this initiative will reduce the number of guns in circulation, and lead to a decrease in gun violence included in stick-ups, street robberies, and all manner of homicides.

Without a doubt gun buyback programs engage communities, raise awareness about gun violence, and encourage responsible gun ownership.

But the reality is that despite the well-meaning and intentioned goals of these initiatives, and the positive news and social media attention directed towards gun buyback initiatives, including the provision of statistics on how many guns were collected, few of the buyback schemes are subject to empirical evaluation. Empirical evaluation would develop meaningful measures and subject the gun buyback process and impact to rigorous analysis.

Thus among the variety of gun control initiatives, buyback programs seem to be an unnecessary expenditure of resources that could be better spent on more meaningful strategies, including public education and training for individuals who own a gun or wish to do so, or other gun control initiatives.

More importantly, gun buyback programs existing empirical research indicates that they are ineffective in reducing crime. The majority of firearms turned in during buyback programs are often older or non-functional weapons that are unlikely to be used in criminal activities. Criminals, who are the primary concern when it comes to gun-related violence, are generally less likely to participate in buyback programs or turn in their weapons voluntarily.

Additionally gun buyback programs are relatively costly requiring significant financial resources and manpower. Critics argue that these resources could be better allocated to other crime prevention measures that have proven effectiveness, such as community policing, targeted law enforcement efforts, or mental health support systems.

Most importantly gun buyback programs have a limited impact on illegal firearms: They tend to have minimal impact on the availability of illegal firearms in circulation. Individuals who own guns illegally are unlikely to participate in buyback programs. Critics contend that buybacks can inadvertently create a false sense of security, as they may lead to the belief that the streets are safer when, in reality, criminal access to firearms remains largely unaffected.

Yet gun buyback programs still persist. Why then do they persist? Two possible explanations come to mine. First, either those politicians, community activists, and some chiefs or commissioners of police may not be familiar with the empirical evidence that question the utility of gun buyback schemes. Second, and more likely those who initiate or advocate gun buyback initiatives may simply want to show their constituencies that they are doing something about the problem (ie., symbolic action). And for them doing something is better than nothing.

Numerous bold initiatives have been proposed from repealing the Second Amendment, to less provocative suggestions like California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent proposal to create a 28th amendment that would enshrine four gun safety measures in to the constitution.

This seems more appropriate as a long term strategy to reduce gun violence, homicides and the devastation that this problem has caused.

Photo Credit

Eric Garcetti
Mayor Garcetti and LAPD Chief Beck at our annual gun buyback announcement (2018)

Differentiating “talking to” from “talking with”

I’m neither a linguist nor a semantician, and I make lots of mistakes with the English language. However, I firmly believe that the words and expressions we use should not only approximate what we mean, but should also be as precise as possible.

Thus, I find myself intrigued (or rather, confused) when people use the phrase “talking/speaking to people” instead of “talking/speaking with people.”

Most individuals would not pay much attention to this subtle difference, but technically, these two expressions are not interchangeable.

The first phrase implies a unidirectional conversation, akin to a speech, where one person talks to another (or a group) and hopes that the recipient of the communication hears or listens to it.

The second phrase typically refers to a discussion or conversation that is bidirectional.

When taken to its logical extreme, the choice between “talking to” and “talking with” reveals subtle power dynamics between speakers and listeners.

If your intention is to have a genuine conversation and foster true dialogue, then it’s probably best to use “speaking with” instead of “speaking to” in all your references to these kinds of interactions.

Photo Credit
Photographer: Frederick Dobler
Title: lost wisdom
you can almost see the knowledge that you’ve forgotten