In the following TedTalk, Nalini Nadkarni discusses how we have to stop viewing prisoners as inherently defunct, naturally born deviants and assailants and instead view them as individual biological entities that are constantly in flux. (Lombroso’s work still seems to have heavy influences on our criminal correctional approach today!)
http://www.ted.com/talks/nalini_nadkarni_life_science_in_prison.html
At the beginning of this short lecture, Nalini explains a metaphor that she uses as the fundamental basis for her argument. She explains that when most people look at a tree, they see a solid, stagnant object with a massive wooden trunk and some peripheral branches, etc. But the common assumption is that a tree once rooted is stationary, motionless and essentially unchanging. However, she shows how when we instead look at the twigs and branches of the tree instead of the main trunk, we can actually find a lot of flux, motion, change and essential adaptibility.
Nalini uses this metaphor to argue that our approach to treating prison inmates has been the same. Instead of assuming (like most of us do with the idea of a tree) that criminals are inherently deficient, we should instead understand that they can be changed, influenced and educated to live more productive and less detrimental lives. She brings up an important statistic: 60% of released in mates return to prison on criminal charges at some point in their life time. Thus, clearly the current “correctional” system is not working, and needs change.
With her emphasis on educating the prisoners on life sciences, raising their awareness on more academic and socially productive issues, Nalini argues that this is the way forward for the correctional system in America. Instead of just treating criminals like bestial animals and locking them up in bland, boring and frustrating holding cells, they should instead be placed in stimulating enviornments, where they can change their personalities, enhance their understand of social responsibility and eventually go on to lead more productive, and socially beneficial lives.
I found this lecture particularly interesting after reading the short Becker piece on Outsiders. Becker argues that this idea of treating people as “Outsiders” is a two way street. The rules of a group are broken by an individual and he/she is thus labeled an “outsider” but at the same time, the rule makers and enforcers at time can be considered outsiders themselves. Becker therefore argues that deviance is “not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application of the rules and sanctions to an ‘offender'”.
Thus, both Becker and Nalini in a sense are arguing something similar. Both analysts are implying that the deviant is not solely to blame for their behavior. Rather, their behavior was in the past molded by an exogenous group attempting to deal with society, and their treatment was similar in its detached approach as well. Becker & Nalini are suggesting that we need more of an interventionist approach to dealing with criminal and deviants, with a better understanding of 1) What caused them to act in this way and 2) How we as policy makers can change our approach to help each one over come their criminal habits to form better and more socially responsible ones.
-Nikhil Wagh.
