On Monday, October 5, 2015, the Austin American Statesman published a commentaey written by Greg Glod titled "How solitary confinement makes our streets less safe" Glod's commentary argues that solitary confinement in prison increases crime and is a great cost to taxpayers, which can be easily fixed and improved by federal and state corrections systems.
Glod's credibility comes from his title of policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a research institute committed to educating and affecting policymakers. He currently holds a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law, and primarily analyzes civil and criminal justice, and law enforcement. His ideals may be conservative due to the fact he directly works for Right on Crime, which is a source for conservative ideas on criminal justice. The Austin American Statesman is also a credible source for local news and opinions, which directly effects the credibility of the author.
Glod's argument is directed towards federal and state corrections systems, whom have direct control over the issue, and to the general public whom the issue affects. He proposes different solutions and programs in which corrections systems can implement to improve the issue, while informing the general public of the issue as motivation for public involvement in promoting these solutions. Glod's overall argument is a proposition that policies can be implemented in order to minimize the chances of solitary inmates committing another crime and allow them to be self-sufficient without burdening the resources of taxpayers and corrections systems.
Glod posed this argument in response to California's announcement that it will move approximately 2,000 of their 6,600 prisoners in solitary confinement to general population. He argues that their reforms should be implemented across the country and provides various reasons for why he believes so. He first explains the effects of keeping a lot of inmates in solitary confinement, and then suggests policies that corrections systems can implement to alleviate those effects. Glod claims that most inmates sentenced to solitary confinement cannot properly assimilate in society after release, due to the effects of spending substantial amounts of time in isolation, and consequently tend to commit subsequent violent crimes. He uses statistics and numerical data as evidence to support his claim. He presents evidence that almost 68 percent of all ex-inmates are arrested within three years of release, many of which were released directly from solitary confinement. Here Glod shows that recidivism rates for inmates directly released from solitary confinement were much higher than for those in general population. In Washington state offenders released directly from solitary confinement were 35 percent most likely to commit a crime when compared to those in general population. In Texas, recidivism rates went up by over 12 percent for offenders directly released from solitary. These are only a few examples of Glod's statistical evidence regarding the tendencies of ex-inmates directly released from solitary confinement to commit subsequent crimes. He then goes on to briefly explain why recidivism rates for inmates directly released from solitary are so high by pointing out the psychological effect that being confined to isolation for prolonged periods of time can have on an individual. Many become helpless or hostile once they re-enter society due to this isolation, according to Glod. He also claims that keeping inmates in solitary confinement comes with a price to the taxpayers, who pay much more for inmates housed in solitary confinement than inmates housed in general population. He also uses statistics as evidence to support this claim. He shows that in Texas, it costs $61.63 per day to house each inmate in solitary confinement, while it only costs $42.46 per day to house each inmate in general population.
Glod's argument has merit due to the fact that he is able to support all his claims through evidence backed by statistical data. His argument would not be as effective without doing so. The argument is also based on something that affects people's every day lives, which he uses to his advantage in attempting to persuade the reader. He presents his data in a way that allows the reader to become concerned for the issue even without being directly involved (hence, referencing taxpayers and public safety), because it affects the public in more than one way. Glod's ease to sway opinion on an issue may be due to his credibility as it is his job to do so. Although the argument he presents is purely logical and based on factual data, it is evident that Glod's language poses a sense of urgency that works very effectively in persuading the reader. He uses language such as "critical," "unacceptably high," "California's reforms should be applauded," etc. Overall, Glod's argument is effective in its purpose and carries merit through statistical evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment