Tantalus the suffering immortal

I have sat through meetings at two different facilities in which the men discussed the way parole effects them. These are men who are trying to change who they are, trying to learn how to function healthily both inside the facility and on the streets when they get out. The fact that they are giving up their time to sit in our meetings is proof enough of their efforts to convince me they are sincere.
But they are being "hit" at parole because of "the seriousness of their crime." There had been a lot of hope that the new wording under NYS 529(i) and the introduction of risk assessment meant that the parole process would focus on the person being interviewed, not the person sentenced. You cannot change the past. If parole is going to be based on who these people were, and not who they are now, then parole is impossible.
In the minds of these men, there are only two explanations: either the State is still operating in the mindset of 50 years ago when PAROLE did the sentencing, and they don't trust the judiciary to know what they are doing; or the State is cynically keeping them in to preserve their jobs and keep the DOCCS budget inflated.
But this is torture of a particular sort. Tantalus had it no worse. Men come to our meetings in pain. "I did everything they told me to do. I stayed out of gangs, I stayed out of trouble. I took pains to do well in all their mandated courses, I took college and trade school courses, I joined AA and go to church, I made myself into a new man. What more do they want from me?"

Contracts

What is parole? I want to be pedantic for a moment. Parole is a transferred concept from the prisoner of war lexicon. A prisoner of war is asked to give his parole, or acknowledgement of his status as a prisoner and his promise to abide by rules for a certain period or purpose. So while a prisoner is obligated to try to escape, he may give his parole in order to work in a hospital or to work to build a levee during a flood, or to stay with civilians and care for them as the battle rages around. today, we have twisted that to say that a prisoner is given parole by the Corrections bureaucracy, and he must report to a parole officer. This is a modern concept, not a chivalrous one. Knights sold their captives into slavery. The Western Europeans began considering parole after the turn of the twentieth century. But it was a trade off. I give you my parole, and I get the freedom or some of it, that I want. I can even be repatriated if I promise not to re engage against you.

Let's get back to prisoners in and of NYS. A prisoner is offered early release if the parole board believes his promises to obey the laws he did not obey before and if he agrees to supervision by the parole officer. But because NYDOCs has institutionalized this process (if you have custody of 70,000 prisoners, you end up institutionalizing as much as possible) that concept of promising has been obscured. The prisoners focus on convincing the parole board to "let me go," and the DOCs employees concentrate on keeping the parolees in their control. Both forget that there is a promise in there, and that the prisoner is honor bound to comply. The parole officer doesn't trust and the parolee resists control. Lose/lose.

In New York's efforts to reduce cost (and other states too, I am sure) the principles of bringing the prisoners into a state of education and a state of honor  have been dropped, if ever they were in play. programs such as Cephas and Spiritus Christie, along with activities such as Veteran's dorms and programs, and Crusaders, and even religious programs, all try to offer the prisoner opportunity to grow, to mature, to change from criminal to citizen, each program in its own way, using its own perspective on citizenship. but the prison system does not, in my opinion have any of that on its actual agenda, regardless of Mission and Vision statements. The one point of contact, the parole hearing, is a dance of preconceived notions; it may never be able to truly judge whether the promise of good behavior is real. And out on the streets, the prole office is the enemy, looking to violate the prisoner, not help him live up to his promise.

For whom do prison ministers pray?

This morning at morning report, we read all the prayers left in the intentions basket in the chapel, and then added our own prayers. I asked for prayers for F____, who had just been found guilty of assault with intent. I told about his terrible childhood and that he is not eating or coming out of his cell while awaiting sentencing in 3 weeks. I asked for prayers for strength and grace for him in his hour of darkness. Afterwards, one of the members of the group took me aside and told me that it was all well and good to pray for him, but that we need to put criminals away, and that I should remember that he was not the victim in his case. That he was the perpetrator of a vicious act. I still am not quite sure how to deal with it, but here is what I sent after some thought...

Bill, your cautionary comments this morning are still rattling around in my
brain. I want to make sure that you know that I do not and have never disagreed
with the spirit of your statement that the young man is still a perpetrator and
we need to have him incarcerated. It is not that he should be freed. It is not
that he should not be repentant of his offense. He has done what he has done,
and New York must act consistent with how we treat criminals.

My sorrow and my pain on his behalf (and ours) is that as a refugee, he was
un-cared-for,as a disturbed student, not helped and as an orphan, unloved. He is
too guileless to be making this up. I asked him once if he remembered his father
or either of his uncles holding him, or putting an arm around him, or even
looking at him fondly, and he said "no." I cannot imagine the brokenness that
must create.

Now I wonder how small my corner is. I can't fix Irani or Iraqi or Afghan
society. I can't even get involved in fixing the  schools, or public mental
health. I can't fix the courts. I can only pray for him as both a perpetrator
and as a victim. I pray that he come to see his actions as unjustifiable, and I
pray that he someday forgive those who stood by or even made his horrible life
worse.

Later I decided to add ....

All I can do is offer him an atom of the love that is God, and love him despite of his crime, cry for him because of his pain and hope for him despite his bleak future.

Repentance

It seems strange how sometimes my mental meanderings seem to preview the upcoming Gospel readings. Sunday 2/13 we will read from Matthew 5:21and on. Two weeks ago I was wondering about the difference between the commandments and rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which resulted in the cult of cleanliness and expiation I read about in commentaries and the underlying wish for any parent for their child to be " a good kid." The difference between obeying rules out of fear of punishment and obeying rules because they describe the only way to live healthily. The difference between obeying God's commandments and Jesus fulfilling them?

I went back to my textbooks and looked up "metanoia," the Greek word that the translators make out to be  "repentance." To me being repentant means to be sorry for one's sins/crimes. It means to know what one did was wrong and to wish it undone and to vow never to re-commit it and if possible to atone for it. Metanoia means to become the person who cannot even conceive of doing the sin/crime again. In terms of the Parole Board, I believe we expect them to grant parole only to those who have metanoia, for how can we trust someone who merely repents? What happens if the triggers or bad choosing recur? We would then have a repentant recidivist.

I personally feel this doubt about myself and I transfer it to the prisoner. I am constantly struggling against the sinful desires of my heart: I want power; I am jealous; I desire things I do not need; I judge others and have no respect for them; I hold resentments. And in my arrogance, I believe that if I, who am saved and blessed must fight moment by moment these temptations, how can someone with a criminal history do any better?

I have witnessed what I thought to be conversions, people having a metanoia, but after months or even hours, when I talk to them, there is no difference in the basic person I am talking to. The man who answers an altar call on Saturday night, on Monday still resents the woman on Food stamps ahead of him in the grocery store line. The woman who approaches me on the street asking if I have been saved, snarling that "Jesus will be ashamed of you on Judgement Day" at me when I thank her for her concern and tell her I don't feel comfortable discussing the state of my soul with her.Public media are full of other examples. The pastor on TV caught messing with a teenager who came to him for guidance and the politician who campaigns on a Christian platform and then leaves his wife for another woman. And I look within and see shadows, too.

So how can I trust the claims for metanoia by prisoners? How do I become a Christin, not an Old Testament follower who has read the New? How does one hope for the best?

TESTIMONY

What is a miracle? It is God suspending natural law for God’s purposes. The Hebrew, Christian and Muslim faiths abound with miracle stories. Sarah bearing children in her old age, Elijah being taken up into heaven, Isaiah bringing a child back to life, the conception of Jesus, splitting the moon, the sun standing still, and of course for Christians, the Resurrection. The other world faiths also have miracle stories.

But what do we see as miracles now? Pope John Paul II has just had the healing of a French Nun of her Parkinson’s disease listed so he has been beatified. This is a medical miracle and can be measured, judged and verified. Many miracles pertaining to Christian saints pertain to medical cures. That spontaneous remission is considered a miracle is the source of many debates among us.

For me, in the hospital and nursing home and prison setting, I see miracles in how God changes individuals in their outlooks, their hopes, and their world views. God changes people much more often than God changes weather or microbes or cancer cells. It has become my honor, not to be the preacher who heals the lame on TV nor the prophet who touches a child and cures her cleft palate. I have been blessed to see an angry old woman, hurting those around her out of her own pain, realize that her daughter needs her love, and decide to send her a Christmas card apologizing for being spiteful. It is a holy moment when the dementia patient who has struck out in frustration and terror has a flash of peace, and looks for a chair to sit in and look out the window. It is beautiful when a son comes to sit by his mother’s ICU bed and feels safe and strong enough to tell her he is sorry and ask for her forgiveness.

These are what I call miracles of the soul; miracles where God has given us a moment of “the Peace that passes understanding.” These moments give us an awareness of God’s loving presence in our lives, in our distress and pain. I often pray that the person I am with can feel God’s arm around her shoulder, hear God’s whispered “I love you” in his ear.

When I am called to testify to God’s power and presence, that is where my heart goes. It goes to those little miracles of God overcoming pain, fearfulness, pride, resentment and anger to let us feel God’s love and let us love one another when we need it most.

What makes a criminal?

One of the men was explaining that he had gotten out and found a job and rented an apartment, and gotten credit cards, and bought a car, and had a new TV, and cell 'phone and video player, and then the floor fell out. He injured his shoulder at work, and the Worker's Comp Board gave him a hard time, and his employer did not have any other work to give him, so he quit; everything started being taken away. So he got frantic, and decided to rob a store to pay his bills, got caught convicted and sentenced. He turned to me and said, "I don't understand you, Bob. Why would you, when you were caught in just as much financial trouble as me, why would you NOT think of committing a crime?" It sort of knocked me back to be asked that. I thought about it before I answered. "I think I DO consider it, but just long enough to realize that it just isn't who I am. The difference between us is that you consider it as a real possibility. For you it is something that would not be life changing. You have accepted that you can do it under the right circumstances, I cannot."
       We then talked about what they can do to reduce the likelihood that they would choose to risk incarceration. They talked about not wanting to let their family down, not being willing to give up living with their kids/wife/parents, not being willing to come back to live in prison again, understanding that they could be considered persistent felons, and the risk of being shot or killed in the process. But they (and I ) avoided the question of morals, of just not doing something because it is wrong to do it.
      What is wrong with talking and teaching the difference between right and wrong? The men and I all know what acts are right and what are wrong. Why do we need deterrence to avoid criminal behavior? Why do we need to threaten and reward ourselves and each other to prevent crime? Both statistics and "talk studies" show that capital punishment doesn't effect the murder rate. The Rockefeller drug laws, which pushed drug possession into the same punishment level as murder did nothing to diminish or even slow the growth of the drug trade and consumption in New York. But we always fall back on punishment and loss as the way to convince ourselves not to commit  a crime. I turned the session into an attempt at answering that. We got lost in the effort.
     Back at home, I went to bed and dreamed about the movie where the artificial intelligence in charge of the US military system asks the men running it, "Shall we play a game?" and runs through all the Mutual Assured Destruction scenarios. The next few days, I tried to chew on it, and then fell into a Bible study group. What does "the fulfillment of the Law" mean? The purity laws of the Torah give people rules of behavior, and ways and means to atone and to clean themselves when they fail. The other parts of the Law prescribe punishments of various kinds, including execution. We humans are used to that. And we are pretty well accepting of the caste concept, the poor becoming criminally suspect, and punishments being unevenly meted out. But we stay with punishment and/ as deterrent.  How does someone live into the fulfillment of the Law not just the following of it?
     What can we do differently? I want to lead the group next time to explore not doing something because and ONLY because it is wrong. I want to talk about doing something because and ONLY because it is right. I want to talk about refusing to accept that having a car and credit cards and a cell phone is so important that someone, anyone might be pulled into doing wrong to get or keep them.
   I'll let you know how it goes......

Freedom

We discussed in the prison group the difference between inmates and "civilians." We compared impulses and behaviors. One inmate said solemnly, "The difference between us and a lot of people on the street is that we got convicted and sentenced." They also made comparisons between a policeman who speeds in his black and white without the lights or siren (denoting official business) and a CO who won't let inmates smoke in a non-smoking area, while he himself is smoking; or a CO who gives an inmate a ticket for taking a carton of milk from the mess to his dorm, but who throws a dozen carton in his duffel to take home. But after agreeing that the difference is in frequency and immediacy, not in degree, we then talked of behaviors on the inside versus the outside. I recounted a story of a confrontation I had with a police officer in which I acted the role of disgruntled and almost harassed citizen, risking arrest and continuing hostility. The inmates compared that with confronting a guard who refused to do one of his duties (inspecting a letter before it was sealed), thereby making the letter late.

The inmates' point was that I could weigh the options (arrest, fine, further harassment) and decide whether to continue standing up against a bully in uniform. Freedom for me was having the option to decide. They have no easy choice. Any and every incident can lead to a "ticket" or even being put in isolation, depending on the bully himself. In effect, an inmate must learn to maintain his own self-respect and the respect of any onlookers, without the choices I have as a civilian.

Then they talked about what will happen if they get parole. A parolee cannot afford to have any kind of dialogue with any police officer, or he will be violated. Any confrontation which might result in the police being called, he has to back down and get away. I can choose to speed on the highway. My choice is based on the knowledge that one ticket will only raise my insurance, two I might lose my license. A parolee, if he is allowed to drive at all, if he speeds, it is a violation. A rolling stop may result in a return to prison. His choices are much much harsher than mine.

Now I am not rendering this conversation well, but I think it is clear that they almost fear parole, as it is so restrictive and their choices are so damaging to the ego. We managed to talk some about "managing" the way people construct their ego. We didn't use the word, but I believe Macho plays a large part in the conflicts that they faced and still face inside and on parole. The idea of maintaining self respect from the inside instead of needing reinforcement or confirmation from outside is something I myself have trouble with, and I do not face the problems they will. I asked myself as I drove home, "What made you need to confront that officer? Why did you NEED to force the officer to comply with YOUR rules?" And worse, I wondered how long I would last on parole, dealing with a parole officer, unwelcoming neighbors and the hostility of a society which wants me locked away forever?