6/27/08: If there's a chance of bias, let's root it out

Prison reform is a tough nut to crack, and frankly, I’m surprised I even brought it up.

I wouldn’t have, in fact, if it hadn’t been for one of my GED students in Washington, D.C.

He came into my office every evening after class to make a phone call. I got to know him as a polite, unassuming gentleman, soft-spoken and genuine.

I was mildly surprised, then, when I found he had spent time in prison. I was surprised because he was such an upstanding student and parent; my surprise was mild because he was undereducated, male and black. Statistically speaking, he was a member of the key inmate demographic.

In the early 1990s, black men between 25 and 29 were more likely to be in prison than in college.

Those convicted of violent felonies in 2000 served an average of 63 months in jail. Those convicted of drug felonies served an average of 75, a year longer.

Again, African-Americans are far more likely to serve time in prison for drug-related convictions than white Americans.

It’s an old refrain, the claim that our system is systemically racist, but it’s been getting more press time in Connecticut lately.

Superior Court Judge Stanley T. Fuger Jr. ruled in March that a challenge brought by seven Connecticut death-row inmates — a challenge claiming the state’s application of the death penalty is racially and geographically biased — should be allowed.

He ruled this even though the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that systemwide bias was not an acceptable defense against the death penalty.

In his comments on his decision, Fuger cited the "extraordinarily high" stakes for the prisoners who brought the challenge, saying the charge would "merit the closest of scrutiny." He pointed out "that the Connecticut Constitution affords defendants greater legal rights than the U.S. Constitution, and as a result, they have the right to present the kind of systemwide bias evidence that the 1987 ruling barred."

This is a good start. Whether or not you agree states should wield the power of life and death, scrutinizing our practices in terms of whom we’re willing to put to death can’t hurt. If there’s even a chance of bias, we need to root it out.

Let’s go a step further and do the same thing with life-in-prison sentencing, I say.

In all other cases, where we expect those we convict to re-enter society after serving their sentences, we need to focus on reform.

Those who claim prison time is not playtime — that prisoners should be denied access to self-improvement programs such as GED classes, library access or even health care — should consider the effect on society of the "you’re in timeout" mentality.

If we truly expect former inmates to return from prison reformed and ready to make positive contributions in their neighborhoods, we need to equip them to succeed.

Many prisoners are just looking for a chance, and we owe it to ourselves to give it to them.

I was frustrated watching my student, a hard worker with on-the-job experience, get turned down for jobs — probably because of his felony conviction — for which he was eminently qualified.

Thanks to his dedication to family, community and values, and to some help from staff at our school — the sort of minor personal attention that would benefit all former inmates if it could be applied federally — he found a job.

And three weeks ago, after years of steady work toward his goal, he graduated.

I’m proud to be his compatriot.

You should be, too.