Dear Aunt Marilyn

By Anna Beim

WRI 111: Writing Seminar

To read Student Editor Yushuo Wang’s comments on the writing moves found in this essay, click on or hover over the footnotes within the text.

Dear Aunt Marilyn,

I am reaching out regarding our conversations about the current state of criminal justice in America, specifically in relation to the nation’s failing rehabilitative system for people who have been incarcerated. In our conversation, we talked about America’s crime rate and whether strict punishment is more effective than rehabilitating people who break the law. In your argument, you supported the increase in incarceration, stricter sentencing laws, the death penalty, and the general mindset of “crime and punishment” to promote “law and order.” ¹ We also discussed general opinions surrounding these people and the reentry process. ² Your opinion during this conversation argued for retribution over rehabilitation to deter further crime, disagreeing with increased support through rehabilitation since it may give former offenders unnecessary compensation. You argued that compensation through rehabilitation is unfair due to their past crimes, counteracts punishment through imprisonment, dissuades hard work to re-enter society, and does not deter further crime. I believe we may have had some differences of opinions and misunderstandings about this topic. I hope to be able to resolve any tension and misconceptions from our conversations, so you can better understand my argument.

As a country, we have made incredible progress in development over recent decades. However, certain institutions of our government fail to meet their purposes—and when the government fails in its duties, it affects us all. In particular, the American criminal justice system suffers from innumerable flaws that inhibit this institution from reaching its true purpose of deterring crime and achieving justice. Currently, the United States has the world’s highest per capita incarceration rate at 639 inmates per 100,000 people as of 2018 (Gramlich, 2021). In comparison to the rest of the world, the United States has 20% of the world’s prison population despite making up only 5% of the global population (American Civil Liberties Union, 2022). There are multiple glaring flaws in our criminal justice system that drive these saddening statistics; however, many people believe that this is due to a result of high rates of crime—not the justice system. This common misconception often leads Americans to support increasing incarceration rates and strict sentencing policies, as you supported in our previous conversations. ³ Intuitively, this makes sense: imprison the criminal, decrease the crime. ⁴ Statistically, however, incarceration at such high rates has an almost negligible impact on lowering crime. According to the Vera Research Advisory Board, most studies on the impact of incarceration on crime rates state that “between 1980 and 2000, each 10 percent increase in incarceration rates was associated with just a 2 to 4 percent lower crime rate,” while “[s]ince 2000, however, the increased use of incarceration accounted for nearly zero percent of the overall reduction in crime” (Stemen, 2017). ⁵ Based on these statistics, incarceration does not legitimately decrease crime. Therefore, we must focus on the forces behind mass incarceration and ways to improve the justice system to fix it.

To discover the issues within the criminal justice system that drive these high incarceration rates, we must go back to the origins of the system: its purpose as a whole. ⁶ One research article I read, “Punishment vs. Rehabilitation” by H.R. DeLuca et al., observes and critiques the American prison complex’s failure to accomplish its contradicting goals of both punishment and rehabilitation. The article lists the four generally acknowledged goals of the justice system as deterrence, punishment, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Deterrence relates to preventing future crime by fear of punishment, incapacitation prevents people who break the law from committing further crimes by imprisonment, and rehabilitation helps prisoners change by understanding the factors that caused their crimes and teaching them how to be a more productive part of society. ⁷ The authors claim that the criminal justice system centers around extensive forms of punishment, while its rehabilitative programs are lacking and ineffective. Ultimately, the writer argues that “it is virtually impossible to create an environment in which punishment is inflicted on the inmates while, at the same time, the social values and goals advanced by that institution are accepted and internalized by them” (DeLuca et al., 1991). In other words, the paradox of the criminal justice system lies in its inability to both punish people who commit crimes while also re-educating them, preventing proper rehabilitation that lowers crime rates. While this study was conducted decades ago, this phenomenon remains true today. With this information, it is easy to see how the American justice system fails to properly rehabilitate convicted people into society. This failure only boosts incarceration rates and inhibits the reduction of crime—an outcome that we both agree needs to be fixed. ⁸

While the issue of over-imprisonment in our society has multifaceted causes, I will focus on the failing rehabilitation system of the institution, our punitive mentality as a society, and the ways in which these issues prevent former prisoners from reentering society. According to a report published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2021, 33% of imprisoned people released in 2010 found no employment for four years after their release. Only 40% of these people released at this time were employed at any given time during the study, leaving a shocking 60% of them failing to find a basic living. Even the 40% that managed to find employment had an average of 3.4 jobs throughout the period of study, meaning that they did not acquire jobs that provided financial stability or means of upward mobility (Carson et al., 2021). These formerly convicted people face pressure from all angles: financial struggles, parole pressure and threat of re-incarceration, and discrimination from society. Employment is crucial to reintegrate former offenders into society; when this cannot be achieved, they are typically re-incarcerated, a result referred to as recidivism. ⁹ These rates of recidivism in the United States are abnormally high: According to another study published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “62% of prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 were arrested within 3 years, and 71% were arrested within 5 years” (Durose et al., 2021). These statistics are among the highest rates of recidivism in the world, a shocking fact that reveals the flaws in our approach to criminal justice when compared with other countries.

The job market is already so competitive for those who have no criminal record—for the formerly incarcerated, it’s not difficult to imagine the struggle of finding a secure job with potential upwards mobility when you have a criminal record. Even for our family with no criminal history, competition in the job market has been difficult. Even though I was young, I remember when some of our family members lost their jobs during the 2008 recession, and we had to rely on each other until the economy recovered. ¹⁰ Finding a job in that desperate, competitive environment put a huge strain on our finances. Who knows what we would have done if we didn’t have this kind of support system? For those released from prison, that is how finding a job feels—even when there is no economic crash. You can imagine how difficult employment is in a world where society looks at a former prisoner and only sees their crime. Without rehabilitative programs and effective reentry processes after release, previously imprisoned people have to endure the psychological effects of incarceration alongside a world of people who condemn and discriminate against them because of their past. ¹¹ From this perspective, it makes sense that so many of these people go back to prison, which is a fatal flaw of our justice system.

The societal stigma that makes employment so difficult for former prisoners stems from traditionalist beliefs, many of which you have expressed in the past. These beliefs prioritize the punishment over other corrective actions for those who break the law as justice for their crimes, which encourages a nationwide mentality that condemns and stigmatizes former offenders. Living beside people who have been released from prison can be very intimidating, so I understand how that influences your opinions against policies that encourage re-entry, such as rehabilitative programs. ¹² However, this fear is often rooted in the idea that people who have broken the law are inherently dangerous and violent. In reality, those released from prison are evaluated based on their behavior and likelihood of posing a threat to society (Sawyer et al., 2022). Additionally, the false dichotomy of “violent vs. nonviolent” offenders spurs this fear. “Violent” does not refer to crimes involving physical harm—it actually covers a wide range of crimes deemed “more serious”, such as theft (Sawyer et al., 2022). This black-and-white dual category system for crimes is harmful, as it encourages these fears of dangerous threats released back into the world and excludes anyone who falls into this category from prison reforms typically geared towards benefitting nonviolent offenders (Bazell, 2021). Furthermore, these “violent offenders” released from prisons are actually the least likely to commit further crimes once released, not contributing to rates of recidivism nearly as much as nonviolent offenders (Sawyer et al., 2022). Broadening my understanding of those who have committed crimes in the past and recognizing these statistics has helped me move past this fear and stigma against people who have been released from prisons. Rehabilitation programs and reform should not be exclusive for non-violent offenders—we must be more clear on what “violent crimes” truly mean and work towards individualized rehabilitation for all types of offenders for the good of society. ¹³

When we treat these people as subhuman and undeserving of liberties, we prevent proper rehabilitation and the advancement of the country as a whole. According to research studies published under the American Psychological Association, societal stigma against former offenders “promote[s] avoidance or withdrawal, hindering employment searches, treatment seeking, and adherence to probation requirements, all of which increase[s] the risk of recidivism” (Moore et al., 2018). Ultimately, all of these pressures will leave an overwhelming number of former convicts struggling to make ends meet—and as the story goes, poverty breeds crime. As a result, the criminal justice institution’s reliance on retribution rather than rehabilitation leads to high rates of recidivism and extremely difficult means of reentering society. When we place too much emphasis on “teaching criminals a lesson,” we are furthering the cycle of incarceration and recidivism, encouraging re-incarceration rather than true progress. I encourage you to reevaluate the way you view people who have been incarcerated and where your fear truly comes from. ¹⁴

In our debates and discussions of this topic in general, I feel that you may have mistaken my argument for rehabilitation as a way to stop punishing people who break the law entirely. While it may seem like I am condemning punishment as a whole, I would like to clarify that my support for rehabilitation does not mean eliminating retribution. ¹⁵In actuality, it seeks to find a balance between the two methods in order to properly achieve justice alongside the reintegration of the formerly imprisoned into society—our current system, however, does not have this balance. In order to achieve proper reintegration, it is crucial that we invest in developing rehabilitation and reentry programs, give back rights to former offenders, and help end the stigma associated with them. In terms of rehabilitation programs, “Punishment vs. Rehabilitation” outlines a clear solution to the paradox of the prison system that fails to rehabilitate its prisoners. ¹⁶The authors propose to separate the prison system into two programs, one that is punitive and incapacitates the person who committed the crime (while remaining humane), and a post-prison sentence that intensely supervises them while providing therapeutic and remedial programs (DeLuca et al., 1991). By splitting the prison system into different forms of sentencing—one punitive, the other rehabilitative—the criminal justice system can appropriately address both punishment for crimes while supporting reintegration methods. This transition period would include programs that provide ways to successfully transition back into society as well as therapeutic programs to recover from the damage of incarceration and trauma from earlier in their lives. If we provide former offenders with a transition period, rates of recidivism will intuitively decrease.

Despite many of these alarming issues and solutions to reverse their effects, I have often heard the question, “Why should I care?” After all, you have mentioned that these are people who have violated the laws of our country. You may believe that if they can’t rejoin society, maybe they belong incapacitated in prison. However, our high rates of imprisonment and recidivism don’t just affect the formerly incarcerated—it affects us all. If you find it difficult to sympathize with people with a criminal record due to their past crimes, try looking at the situation from an economic perspective. ¹⁷The sheer number of prisoners incarcerated in the United States must be fiscally supported by taxpayer money. Based on an article I read in the Los Angeles Times, “The High Cost of Punishment”, U.S. taxpayers pay an overwhelming amount of money for a system that is proven to have a negligible effect on public safety. Citing statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the article places the cost of spending on incarceration at $81 billion, which only includes the cost of prisons, jails, parole, and probation. The article argues that “[t]his expenditure might be worth it if we were safer because of it. But with so many offenders returning to prison, we clearly aren’t getting as much public safety—or rehabilitation—as we should for this large expenditure” (Gingrich et al., 2014). Increasing our incarceration rates without an effect on the rate of crime will take more money out of your pocket without any benefit to society. I believe we would both agree that the U.S. has far more important areas of spending that do not need this drain on government revenue. ¹⁸

Overall, the prison system in America fails to uphold its endeavors to provide both punishment and rehabilitation to people who have committed a crime. Our country suffers from mass incarceration and high recidivism rates without benefitting society, leaving both law-abiding citizens and the formerly incarcerated at a disadvantage. If we put more energy into rehabilitating people who have been imprisoned by restructuring the prison complex and ending the societal stigma against them, we can help develop our country as a whole. I hope this letter clarifies my position regarding the rehabilitative status of the American criminal justice system and perhaps influences your opinions about the subject. After all, the only way we can make change is by working together. These informative and meaningful discussions are exactly what America needs to keep progressing, and I would be happy to discuss this with you further the next time we can talk! ¹⁹

Best wishes,

Anna

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. (2022). Mass incarceration.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/mass-incarceration#:~:text=Despite%20making

Bazell, S. (2021). The ‘False Dichotomy’ of Violent vs. Non-Violent Crimes. The Crime Report.

https://thecrimereport.org/2021/02/03/the-false-dichotomy-of-violent-vs-non-violent-crime

Carson, A. E., Sandler, D. H., Bashkar, R., Fernandez, L. E., Porter, S. R. (2021). Employment of persons

released from Federal Prison in 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/eprfp10.pdf

DeLuca, H. R. (1991). Punishment vs. Rehabilitation. Federal Probation.

https://wake.idm.oclc.org/loginhttps://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/docum

ent/2267178267?accountid=14868

Durose, M. R., Antenangeli, L. (2021). Recidivism of prisoners released in 34 states in 2012: A

5-year follow-up period (2012–2017). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/recidivism-prisoners-released-34-states-2012-5-ye

ar-follow-period-2012-2017

Gingrich, N., & Hughes, B. W. (2014). The High Cost of Punishment. Los Angeles

Times. https://wake.idm.oclc.org/loginhttps://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/

Gramlich, J. (2021). America’s incarceration rate falls to lowest level since 1995. Pew Research Center.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/16/americas-incarceration-rate-lowest-si.

Moore, K. E., Milam, K. C., Folk, J. B., & Tangney, J. P. (2018). Self-stigma among Criminal Offenders: Risk

and Protective Factors. American Psychological Association. Stigma Health, 3(3), 241–252.

https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000092

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html

Stemen, D. (2017). The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer. Vera Research Advisory

Board. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf

From Professor Phoebe Zerwick

Commentary:

I have read a great deal about the “carceral state,” our country’s overreliance of punishment, and the hurdles that stand in the way of people coming home from prison, but few pieces do as well in distilling the research and potential arguments for a general audience as Anna’s letter to her Aunt Marilyn. First, the writing shows that she waded into this complex field with confidence and intelligence. She brings multiple sources together in a single paragraph, a sophisticated move for a student at any level, especially in a first-year student. She also summarized succinctly, translating jargon into clear prose. For example, in summarizing a study of punishment and rehabilitations, Anna writes: “In other words, the paradox of the criminal justice system lies in its inability to both punish people who commit crimes while also re-educating them, preventing proper rehabilitation that lowers crime rates.” Anna is passionate about this subject but avoids the purple prose that often undermines an effective argument. Instead, she relies on data, research, and her own moral compass. And she knows just when to address her aunt directly. When writing about the difficulty people coming home from prison face finding steady work, Anna reminds her aunt of the struggles many of their relatives faced during the 2008 recession:

“Even for our family with no criminal history, competition in the job market has been difficult. Even though I was young, I remember when some of our family members lost their jobs during the 2008 recession, and we had to rely on each other until the economy recovered. Finding a job in that desperate, competitive environment put a huge strain on our finances. Who knows what we would have done if we didn’t have this kind of support system? For those released from prison, that is how finding a job feels—even when there is no economic crash.”

This move to establish common ground shows a keen awareness of audience. In the abstract, it can be hard to relate to the struggles of someone with a felony record. But here Anna skillfully reminds her aunt that their family is not so different from those with relatives in prison. The letter also stands out for its respectful tone and measured cadence, all signs of a thoughtful writer.

Assignment:

Advocacy Letter

This assignment is designed to give you practice writing an evidence-based argument that appeals to a specific audience. Pick an issue related to our study of wrongful conviction and the criminal legal system and write a letter aimed at persuading someone who holds a different point of view than yours.

Audience awareness will be especially important in this letter because your audience already holds strong beliefs about the issue, and probably also about you based on your position. You will need to demonstrate that you are well versed in the intricacies of this debate and that you have considered the issue from multiple angles before having made up your mind. Ask yourself: Why does your audience believe what they do? What assumptions might you have about them based on their argument? What assumptions might they have about you based on your position and group membership? Where do you see eye to eye? Where and why do you disagree? And importantly, what is at the heart of this controversy? Are there possibilities for compromise? Looking at the values, assumptions, and interests involved, this will be an exploration of the debates between groups and a consideration of why the people who care about this issue may disagree.

You will need to build a balanced argument in which you make a claim and then support it with reasons and evidence, establishing credibility and making logical and emotional appeals suited to your audience. Begin by defining your topic clearly, explaining your connection to and position on the issue. Remember, there are many ways of defining a topic. A case study or anecdote may be the best way to get started. Make sure you are providing sufficient context. Then lay out your argument clearly and concisely, providing reasons and supporting evidence to demonstrate why your topic constitutes a problem that needs to be quickly remedied.

Your discussion must show that you understand the major issues of the debate and the various positions that participants in the debate articulate. Think of yourself in conversation with your audience.

Responsible advocacy requires an appropriate amount of research. Your letter should include at least six sources (books, magazines, journals, newspapers, interviews, films, etc.). Materials found on the library’s research databases count as print sources, even though technically they are electronic and web-based. One of your six sources may be a credible website. You may use any of the texts we’ve studied this semester as part of your research. Make sure you analyze your sources carefully for their credibility before deciding how to use them in your letter. If you choose to use more than six sources, you may use additional websites. It is important that you seriously examine and address multiple positions within your letter. For this reason, at least two of your sources should be arguments or evidence that support opposing views.

You will also want to consider what Wayne Booth calls your “rhetorical stance” and decide which appeals from the rhetorical triangle to emphasize. Depending on your audience, you may consider writing in the first person. This is a chance for you to write in your voice, and strike a balance between concrete and abstract language. Finally, think about experimenting with your ending, beyond the traditional restatement of points you’ve already made.

The letter will be evaluated on the depth of your ideas, your thesis, the transitions used to keep your focus, overall organization, use of evidence, the summary of the other side, your consideration of audience through your tone and language, the quality of your revisions, the peer review you offered others, your reflection, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Note: Some of the language used in the assignment was taken from Prof. Elisabeth Whitehead’s final assignment.

Editor Comments

1
This is an example of a clear layout of arguments from a counterpart.
2
The following sentences help remind Aunt Marilyn of their previous conversation and keep readers aware of what they have talked about.
3
Using supportive data to justify the somewhat fallible justice system in the United States, Anna eloquently related the common misconception of American citizens to Aunt Marilyn’s point of view.
4
When speaking to our opponents, a concession is necessary because it shows we are able to think in their shoes.
5
Here is a great demonstration of how thorough research strongly backs up one’s standpoint.
6
This one sentence is not negligible in the way it serves as a transition from the last paragraph, and how it patiently breaks Anna’s argument into parts to keep Aunt Marilyn following.
7
Accessible unpacking of definitions.
8
For persuasion, Anna skillfully built a connection between the research findings and her and Aunt Marilyn’s shared views.
9
Anna propelled her argument layer by layer, for “recidivism” is one step further than “incarceration.”
10
Anna is clever enough to include a family anecdote that Aunt Marilyn cannot resist, if not resonate with.
11
An invisible but effective transition is embedded here to link to the societal stigma in the opening sentence of the next paragraph.
12
Before addressing the main cause of the fear, Anna once more showed her understanding of Aunt Marilyn’s viewpoint – a method that could be taken when pacifying an opponent.
13
The closing sentence reiterates the main idea of this paragraph to call attention to Aunt Marilyn.
14
Mentioning how the “cycle of incarceration” may impact the entire country, Anna pushed her argument into a bigger picture, a picture that Aunt Marilyn lives in and cares about.
15
Clarifying her point of view, Anna at the same time intensified her credibility, in which Aunt Marilyn could tilt her head and try to believe.
16
A closed and compelling loop is created by pairing a problem with a solution.
17
Bringing up an alternative angle, Anna showed, but did not tell, Aunt Marilyn why she should care.
18
Offering an opponent the two parties’ common ground is a wise way to calm them down while giving ourselves more time to advocate for our opinions.
19
Anna bridged the gap between herself and Aunt Marilyn by making good use of the fact that they are both American citizens, so their mutual goal is a brighter future of the country.