Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto

A Statement of Conscience
Reverend Darcey Laine
March 14, 2004
Palo Alto, CA

It is easy to imagine that prisoners are not human beings. Somehow once a person is convicted of a crime and incarcerated, they become, in the eyes of the law, almost more like an object than a person. Many prisoners lose not only their freedom, but their right to vote, their capacity to reconcile with victims of their crimes, their right to the products of their own labor, their right to personal safety, their right to parent, their right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and certainly their right to dignity.

A desire for punishment and retribution is the driving philosophy behind our penal system. I can't remember the last time I heard a mainstream political candidate talk as if the purpose of prisons were rehabilitation. Certainly that is not how our prisons are constructed. Commonly politicians say that rehabilitation is a luxury we can't afford. But incarceration has significant costs, both financial and social. Last year we spent $30,929 for each inmate and $3,364 for each parolee. This past year California budgeted $5.7 billion (2003-2004 Budget Act) to run our prisons. Some states now spend more on Prisons than universities! In 2001 running America's prisons cost about $40 billion. Can you think of a better way to spend $40 billion?

The price tag hasn't always been so high. When the 3 strikes law was past in 1994 by California voters it was designed to dramatically increased sentences. It also increased the size of the total prison population and disempowered judges from considering the actual persons they sentence. And what has been gained in the bargain? According to a recent study, our crime statistics are the same as in states with no such law. Moreover, the population of third-strikers has increased by 28 times since the law passed in 1994. The total number of people incarcerated in California has increased by 10 times. For over half [57 percent] of third strikers, the offense which triggered their 25-years-to-life in prison was a non-violent offense.¹

If prison sentances are designed to help criminals understand the error of their ways, surely the current prison program reforms those who serve time? If longer terms of incarceration are legislated to deter repeat offenders, surely such severe sentencing must reduce our recidivism rate significantly? According to the California Department of Corrections, our number of Felon Parolees returned to California prisons has not dropped below 60% since 1985.²

When we watch prison budgets rise and school budgets fall, one is liable to get the idea that the two are related. What does this mean? Some would say that it means only that the prison guard lobby is more powerful than the PTA. Perhaps. But when we recall that it costs 4 times more for a year served in a juvenile detention center than for a year spent in public school, it is clear that simple math will not explain this budgetary emphasis. It is more expensive to imprison than educate, but still we choose our prison system as the best investment. This choice implies that we have lost hope not only for all those who have ever been incarcerated, but it also says that we have so little faith in the children of this country, that we believe jail is a better bet than school. We create our future assuming that America will continue to imprison more of its citizens than any other country in the world. More than any other country in the world. A sobering thought. We incarcerate 2 million people each year, which is 25% more than China. That's not per capita, but in absolute numbers.³

And incarceration effects more than just the person who commits the crime. Think of all the families who have lost one or even both parents to the prison system. Who is calculating the cost to our children? As things are now, there is no point in the process where any official body is responsible for even asking if prisoners have children⁴. As may as 90 percent of children in long-term care have a parent who has been arrested or incarcerated. Why is the cost to the children not being considered? This blindness denies not only the humanity of the prisoner, but the rights of the child, any ultimate benefit to society that might come from having a child raised by his own parents, as a price of retributive justice even for low-level criminals who are parents. I am sure that a balance between the need for incarceration and the best interest of children varies from case to case, from family to family. But currently the question is not even being asked.

And what about the cost to our society, our humanity? What is the price of having such a larger percentage of our citizens imprisoned? What does it cost our own humanity when we realize that persons are sentenced unevenly across racial and class lines? We sigh and shake our heads when we say that justice can be had for a price. Must we assume that our society will always be this way, that the rich can buy their freedom, while the poor and persons of color receive the harshest sentences? We currently lock up 8.4 times more black men (per 100,000) than South Africa did at the height of apartheid. Is it easier for the American power structures to abide the disproportionate incarceration of black and Hispanic Americans because of the abiding racism in our system? Is it easier to take away the humanity of those who systemic racism suggest are less-fully human?

What about the cost to the communities most heavily impacted by the unbalanced way these laws are applied, those with the least access to education, capitol and the structures of political power? In prison right now are 1.3 percent of all males in this country, 4.8 percent of all black males -- and a shocking 11.8 percent of black men between the ages of 20 and 34. What does this do to a community, a neighborhood if one in ten young men are taken away?

I believe that the cost of this current Prison-Industrial system is too high. I believe that retribution is too expensive. When Archbishop Desmond Tutu gave the Longford Lecture this year, he talked about an alternative called "restorative justice."⁶ You will recall that after generations of Apartheid in South Africa, and the horror of war, the new South African government, worked with each perpetrator and their victims to have the truth made public, and to create reconciliation, so that the community would be healed. A basic assumption was that the commission of even violent crimes in the past did not prove a person irredeemable. Tutu's words on this:

"A criminal offence has caused a breach in relationship and the purpose of the penal process is to heal the breach, to restore good relationships and to redress the balance. ... There may be sanctions such as fines or short exile but the fundamental purpose of the entire exercise is to heal. In the retributive justice process the victim is forgotten in what can be a very cold and impersonal way of doing things. In restorative justice both the victim and the offender play central roles. Restorative justice is singularly hopeful. it does not believe that an offence necessarily denies the perpetrator completely as when we imply that once a thief then always a thief."

Imagine for a moment if our penal system had that goal: "to heal the breach, to restore good relationships and to redress the balance." Can you even imagine a prison system that believes in the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, including those who have been convicted of a felony? What if we committed ourselves to a justice system that really was blind to race and class, that served the powerless the same as the powerful? I don't think we can afford to let our cynicism stand between us and such a vision. Maybe the vision I describe is not your vision, but now is most certainly the time for us to engage this conversation, to consider whether or not we are comfortable having the largest prison population in the world. To consider whether the prison system is accountable to the needs of our society.

The cause of prison reform is not new to our faith tradition. One of the most distinguished proponents, Charles Spear (1803-1863), was a Universalist who began his political work speaking against the death penalty. In 1845 he began publishing a journal called "Hangman" which was later renamed "The Prisoner's Friend." Charles and his wife Catherine Swan Brown labored tirelessly, living on what small donations were contributed to their cause, working for legislative reform, visiting prisoners, and finally opening a half-way house.⁷ Today many of our churches work to end the death penalty. Several Unitarian Universalist Community ministers work as prison chaplains. Our Church of the Larger Fellowship has, as part of its ministry team, a Prison Ministry Coordinator, and a Prison Chaplain.

For all these reasons, I was so proud that our association of congregations voted to study the issue of Prison Reform over these two years, to plot a course of action, and to craft a statement of conscience witnessing to our Unitarian Universalist values in the world. This is the moment for us as individuals to open our eyes to a part of our society that needs our justice and our compassion. Though the problem is serious, each of us can make a difference. As individuals we can participate in the Church of the Larger Fellowship's Prison Pen Pal Program. We can attend this year's General Assembly in long beach where there will be workshops designed to help us deepen our understanding of these complex issues, and where we can be part of the national dialogue on the subject. As a congregation, we can focus our consistent dedication to justice work on learning together, and ultimately begin to expand our awareness into this local community. As a denomination we have a powerful voice when we choose to speak.

As Unitarian Universalists, it falls organically to us to support the worth and dignity of prisoners, to believe that growth and change are possible. If we understand the inescapable interconnection of each person in our society and our world, how can we help but ponder the implications for these structures to the fabric of our communities? It is time for us to apply our reason, our intellect, and our caring hearts. Let our conscience speak what we know to be true. How can we afford to do otherwise?

1. Scott Ehlers, Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg “Still Striking Out: Ten Years of California’s Three Strikes” Justice Policy Institute, March 5, 2004. http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?list=type&type=76
2. Department of Corrections Data Analysis Unit “Rate of Felon Parolees Returned to California Prisons Calendar Year 2002” Sacrament, California May 2003
3. Jesse L. Jackson “Liberty and Justice for Some:” MotherJones.com July 10, 2001.
4. Nell Bernstein “Left Behind” MotherJones.com July 10, 2001.
5. http://www.prisonsucks.com/ “Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment”
6. Archbishop Desmond Tutu “The Third Longford Lecture: The truth and reconciliation process- restorative justice” February 16, 2004.
7. John Buescher. “Charles Spears” http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/charlesspear.html