Alternative to Incarceration: Rehabilitation

Essential Questions:

• Should all inmates serving time for drug-related crimes receive treatment for drug addictions?
• What are the benefits and disadvantages (to individuals and to society) of rehabilitating criminals?
• Which crimes can be defined as "drug crimes?"

Drug offenders make up roughly 49% of inmates who are incarcerated in the United States. This means that there are millions of people who are currently serving time for issues related to drug possession, the sale of drugs, and violent drug-driven incidents. As prison overcrowding is a huge issue in our country, it is vital that we find a way to reduce the number of people who serve time in jail.

There is substantial evidence that treatment for drug and alcohol addictions reduces recidivism rates drastically. Research conducted by the U.S. Justice Department showed that 53% of drug users who were on probation but received no treatment recidivated within four years of being released from prison. Probationers who completed treatment had a recidivism rate of 37% within four years of their release from prison. Many argue that other factors such as gender, age, income, and education level are much more influential to an inmate's life after release. Regardless, research strongly suggests that those who are successful in completing long-term treatment after prison are much less likely to become incarcerated again.

 

Not only are fewer prison sentences generally less traumatizing for prisoners, they are much more cost effective for the public. It is estimated that if non-violent drug offenders were kept out of prison, Americans would pay only 1/6 of the money (in taxes) that currently goes toward keeping prisoners who committed drug crimes in jail.

The problem with determining who "deserves" time in jail comes from difficulty in determining how much of a crime was drug-related. For example, many prisoners convicted of violent crimes confess that they felt driven to engage in fights and violent behavior because they desired money for drugs. It is difficult to determine where a line can be drawn between crime and sickness from substance dependency. 

Blog post response:

What are the societal benefits to treating criminals instead of incarcerating them? What are the drawbacks?

Related readings:

A New York Times argument for treatment and against incarceration:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-works

"Rehabilitate or Punish" 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx

A long read with research by the Justice Policy Institute:

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04-01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf

Nepal Celebrates a Year of Zero Poaching

 

With the end of 2014, Nepal was happy to announce that no animals were poached within the country's boarders the whole year. Nepal has made efforts to cut down on poaching since the 1960's, when the first rhinoceros protection sites were set up and the country joined the WWF.


The one-horned rhino population in Nepal grew to 524 in 2011 from 425 in 2008, and the country's tiger population in Nepal increased from 121 to 198 from 2009 to 2013. This is promising as both species are threatened globally.

An interesting video about drone technology

and anti-poaching efforts

Why Poaching Is A Problem

The greatest threat to biodiversity is unregulated hunting. This is evident in Africa, where the poaching of rhinos has had a huge impact on the balance of plant and animal species in grasslands. In Nepal, the poaching of elephants and rhinos posed a threat to tigers and other carnivores that look to larger mammals for food.

 A poached elephant found missing its tusks

in Zimbawe

Over 100,000 elephants have been killed over the past three years in Africa because of the demand for ivory. South Africa reported 1,116 poached rhinos in 2014. In 2013, 39 illegal tiger skins were seized in India. Poachers use methods such as steel traps, poison, and electrocution to kill animals, which are very painful. Often times, poachers will only cut off the horns of animals, leaving them to either heal in pain or bleed out and die.

A rhino stripped of its horn

Why People Turn to Poaching

It's hard for me to imagine how anybody can turn to harming animals. But it is important to acknowledge that citizens of poor countries often feel forced into the practice of poaching. Ivory from elephant tusks are worth more than gold, and tiger skins are sold at extremely high prices. Animal coats and horns are smuggled across boarders every day because there is a global demand for animal products that are considered to be luxurious. Thousands of people worldwide have felt forced into poaching as the only way to support their families.

Nepal's Anti-Poaching Efforts

Nepal serves as a global model to end poaching because of the cooperation between national and international organizations, the Nepali police and army forces, and national parks. Jail sentences for poaching are very severe, and the country has a zero-tolerance policy for wildlife-related crimes. Wildlife organizations have addressed the fact that poaching is often done by people who were forced into poverty. To reduce the pressure to poach, organizations such as Chitwan National Park have adapted policies to devote large percentages of their income to community development. In addition to to all of these measures, there has been a huge effort to educate Nepal's citizens about its unique natural landscape. Programs funded by national parks put a lot of focus on having pride in the animals of the country.


Outlook for Poaching Worldwide

I feel like I should acknowledge the fact that Nepal is an extraordinary success story in the global poaching pandemic, but other countries have not seen such positive outcomes. Illegal animal slaughtering is still a huge problem across African and Asian countries. I can only hope that other countries are able to meet such success in addressing the needs of wildlife as well as the needs of people.

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/world/africa/rhino-poaching-kruger-national-park/index.html

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/biodiversity/biodiversity.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140312-nepal-chitwan-national-park-wildlife-poaching-world/

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2305463/nepals_year_of_zero_poaching.html 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Tiger-poaching-in-India-highest-in-seven-years/articleshow/27554070.cms

http://wwf.panda.org/?207619/Elephant-crisis-what-poaching-does-to-animals-environments-and-people

https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/issues/winter-2014/articles/small-country-big-impact

Polygomy: Who Decides if a Marriage is Unconstitutional?

Sister Wives. Mormons. Utah. I hear jokes about polygamy fairly often. But honestly, I feel like the concept of multiple spouses is a civil rights issue that does not get examined by the public often. Polygamy is certainly atypical in the United States, but I don't think that should be enough to stop us from questioning whether it should be legalized.

Polygamy was outlawed in the United States in the late nineteenth century. During this period, the Mormon church was gaining prominence in Utah and most members of the government saw its practices as outdated and disturbing. Still, many Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing they should be protected by the constitution’s establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Polygamy is still outlawed in all 50 states.

Current bigamy laws in the United States. The colors indicate

the level of crime bigamy is considered with yellow meaning

misdemeanor, red meaning felony, and maroon meaning that

all forms of cohabitation are outlawed.

A recent court case involving Kody Brown and his four wives (better known as the stars of the reality TV show Sister Wives,) brought an important concept into the public eye. Their trial pointed out the difference between acquiring several marriage licenses and simply cohabitating. The Browns felt pressured to leave their home in Utah in 2010, after their local police started an investigation into their lifestyle. Federal judge Clark Waddoups ruled that Utah’s ban on cohabitation for polygamist relationships is indeed unconstitutional. This serves as a precedent for future cases, as it points out that having multiple partners is not technically illegal.

I have never seen Sister Wives, but from what I have read of the Brown family, I think the show presents a lifestyle different from that which we, too often, associate with polygamy. A lot of polygamy’s bad rap comes from unfortunate historical scenarios in which women were oppressed and forced marriages were very common. It is important to acknowledge that there are still closed-off towns in the United States in which women and girls are given little freedom because of the religious beliefs of their communities. But the Browns seem to represent a more healthy (though I guess healthy can’t really be measured, it’s more of an opinion) and respectful type of marriage. The Browns are devoted members of a Christian church and are simply trying to embrace their religion.

The issue of polygamist marriage is often compared to that of gay marriage. While more and more people are starting to believe (well, realize­) that being homosexual isn’t really a choice, the idea of one naturally being a polygamist doesn’t seem to be as widely accepted. Considering polygamy forces us to try and figure out where it becomes a government’s place to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens.

Personally, I feel that polygamy should be legalized. Our government doesn’t tell us who we can and cannot have relationships with, and I don’t think that marriage should be any different. I think it’s kind of lame that people who are legally in relationships that aren’t considered normal do not have the right to be recognized as legal partners. I don’t see any negative side effects brought on by polygamy itself, as there are healthy and unhealthy cases in all types of relationships. I think if we truly upheld freedom of religion, there wouldn’t be restrictions on who is allowed to marry.

 Sources:

 http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/historyofpolygamy.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/are-polygamy-bans-unconst_b_4454076.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court

Graphics:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162689/record-high-say-gay-lesbian-relations-morally.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#mediaviewer/File:Polygamy_laws_usa.png

Volcanic Geothermal Energy

In 2009, scientists who were part of the Icelandic Deep Drilling Project (or IDDP) set out to determine whether supercritical water (water that is too hot to be called a liquid or a gas.) They intended to use this extremely hot water as a source of energy. But while drilling, the engineers struck magma under the Earth's surface. At first, the public thought that this ended the IDDP. But in January of this year, Geothermics magazine announced how engineers had instead developed a geothermal energy system around the hole that they had accidentally struck magma in. Instead of discovering supercritical water, they had let water from the area flow over the hole they had drilled and create a reservoir of super hot water, and were able to draw energy from it. While this original drilling site was cemented over, a door had been opened to developing a powerful source of geothermal energy.

Volcanic energy basically works by pumping water into a channel in which its molecules are constantly forced to bang up against each other. This motion spins a turbine, which can generate electric power.  It is a clean source as well, with virtually no carbon emissions aside, perhaps, from the production of extraction materials. Generally, there is little room for explosions in the operation as the hole through which magma is pumped is small and well-controlled. Nevertheless, engineers are generally uncomfortable with the idea of installing a volcanic energy plant near towns and cities.

It will take a considerable amount of funding to bring volcanic geothermal energy into the realm of public consumption. Over the past few years, the Icelandic government has put $22 million into the project.

Scientists have not yet figured out how to build a geothermic station atop of a volcanic well. But once they do, the energy will be able to be transported through a grid to peoples' homes. It's difficult to say how the new energy source will fit into existing grids, but I don't think it will be very hard to incorporate volcanic energy in a place like Iceland, in which one third of the citizens already get their power from some sort of geothermic source. Once volcanic energy can be marketed, it will definitely help cut down carbon emissions from transportation if partnered with electric and hybrid cars.

The scientific community, it seems, remains generally optimistic in thinking that volcanic energy will soon be developed to its full potential. In fact, engineers are making great progress in Nicaragua, the nation that is considered to have the highest potential for geothermal energy. Obviously, volcanic geothermal energy is not an option for every nation. But in nations that have potential for a volcanic energy grid, it is a very important development.

 

Icelandic Deep Drilling Project website: http://iddp.is/

Sources:

http://www.ibtimes.com/nicaraguas-volcanoes-fuel-green-energy-drive-1467202

http://qz.com/172642/why-volcanoes-are-the-energy-source-of-the-future/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/icelandic-drilling-project-opens-door-to-volcano-powered-electricity/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/can-volcanic-magma-power-future-180949789/?no-ist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jARDdWuFpK8