Chapter 4 expounded on the nature of the obstacles to fixing our prison problem – the problem being: way too many prisoners, and limited rehabilitation opportunity. The obstacles are hard to navigate because they are imbedded deeply in law, and while the laws reflect real concerns, they are tangled and contradictory enough to make it nearly impossible for any ex-felons, even non-violent ones, to re-enter society. This is institutional discrimination in operation – people are considering the laws at face value, and not in the context of other existing laws. They are paying less attention to the potentially problematic situations that can arise for ex-convicts, in part because ex-convicts are a looked-down upon minority.

Michelle Alexander lays out a convincing argument for the hopelessness of an ex-convict’s situation– “Those released from prison on parole can be stopped and searched by the police for any reason— or no reason at all— and returned to prison for the most minor of infractions…”

(Alexander 141).

It seems that we are intensely creating a dependent and potentially bitter segment of the population, most of which have no hope of ever entering the labor force again, despite being in debt and desirous of work. This population is often homeless, as housing is hard to get for some one with a criminal record. Its completely current and relevant: In 2011 San Francisco implement a prison realignment, designed to alleviate prison crowding, but an article in a local SanFran paper highlights a problem with the plan, “With only a handful of city programs specifically designed for people on parole or probation, more than 47 percent of ex-offenders released into San Francisco under the state’s new AB109 prison realignment effort don’t have permanent housing…. The city doesn’t give priority to ex-offenders when it comes to finding affordable housing, even though many of them are required by law to live in San Francisco while they are on probation or parole”. Yet another one of the problematic juxtapositions of law that ex-convicts have to deal with!
Alexander quote’s Jerry Travis succinct summation, “In this brave new world, punishment for the original offense is no longer enough; one’s debt to society is never paid” (Michelle 142). But punishment by jail-time, which I doubt will go away ever, if only for victims’ and their families, already costs the government money. How do we attempt to rehabilitate criminals tactfully, wisely, and not too expensively? And how do we determine who is not safe for society and who gets help? I was looking in Alexander’s writing for some kind of a rationale. The one I felt resounded the most was kind of that it’s unreasonable to punish some one for their whole life, especially considering her argument that the “War on Drugs” has punished people unfairly and unnecessarily.