Dear World Leaders, Was Releasing Prison Inmates To Contain The Virus Your Best Move?
From enacting new laws to postponing important events & going into isolation, there’s no doubt that the recent pandemic instigated a lot of decision-making worldwide. Everyone has been on tiptoes for the fight against the COVID-19, and efforts seem to be gradually paying off.
One of the numerous decisions governing bodies made that took us by surprise was the one to release inmates from correctional facilities to contain the virus. When I heard it in the news at first, I can’t clearly remember how I felt. Whether it was sad, worried, or just mad, I knew it was far from being happy. It didn’t sound like the best option the government had at that time, but we all had to deal with it.
The decision was widely supported, and top countries in the world conformed to it one way or another. According to Aljazeera, Turkey planned to grant amnesty to thousands of inmates incarcerated in its prisons. HuffPost also reported that the UK government was going to release pregnant women from correctional facilities across the nation.
While the US government dictated the release of more federal inmates, the Nigerian government granted amnesty to over 2,500 prisoners, according to PulseNG.
It was a dream come true for a few, but undoubtedly worse than a nightmare for others. According to the New York Times, an example of the former is Mr Cromwell Sr., who got a call from his son he hadn’t heard from for a while. His son, Anthony Cromwell, was charged with leaving the scene of the accident after running over Meagen Hudson, which resulted in her death. This landed him in St. Louis jail, but fortunately for him, he was among the thousands of inmates freed across the US.
This was entirely different for Tracy Fehrenbacher, who was the mother of the deceased victim. She immediately became furious after being notified via a text message from the circuit court that Anthony Cromwell was released. And in an emotional speech, she said, “It’s a slap in the face.” “Just the fact that he’s out there living, doing whatever he wants to do, and yet my daughter is never going to be able to do that again.”
It should’ve really hurt Ms Tracy Fehrenbacher & her husband, Jeff Fehrenbacher, but there was nothing they could do about it.
There’ve been a lot of mixed feelings about the issue, and most people feel that the government didn’t wholly analyse everything possible before concluding.
Was it an error of judgement? What could’ve been the best decision? Are there any regrets now?
Before making final resolutions, let’s look at the positive & negative effects the decision possibly had.
The Upsides
At least there was always going to be some benefits, cause they couldn’t have just made a decision that totally sucked. It won’t be best to ignore them for cynical reasons we may ultimately have, as they deserve a due accolade for that.
The most significant reason for the action was to decongest prison facilities to reduce the spread of the virus.
From the onset of the pandemic, we learned that the virus thrived mostly in crowded areas, and this made correctional facilities the best target for breeding grounds.
The actual condition of these facilities is nothing like the way they are portrayed in movies, as some of them like Destin Cretton’s Just Mercy didn’t give the best impression of how congested they really are.
A report from Statistica showed that with 2.12 million incarcerated inmates behind bars in 2019, the US occupies the top spot in the list of countries with the highest number of jailed prisoners. Though these prisoners hold ‘only’ about 103.9% of the prison capacity, unlike Haiti, which is about 454%, the virus still poses a considerable risk to the lives of these confined inmates.
There’ve been cases before where the rapid spread of diseases such as Tuberculosis, Hepatitis C, and other STDs hit these facilities hard owning to limited access to medical personnel for their enormous population. Exposing these inmates to the novel coronavirus will undoubtedly be harmful, as it may have even infringed upon some of their remaining human rights.
Apart from the inmates, the virus could endanger not only the guards and other corrections workers but also the general public. People continuously enter and leave these facilities, especially visitors, attorneys, newly arrested/charged & sentenced victims, and this could put the whole community in peril.
Besides, it also allowed granting amnesty to inmates incarcerated due to minor issues.
Some inmates were imprisoned owing to the inability to pay fines, wrongful possession of drugs, or other misdemeanours. And the fear of the new virus devised an opportunity to commute their sentences.
In the past, prisoners have had their sentences commuted to reform the criminal justice system and reduce overcrowded prisons while helping low-level offenders build a life of self-sufficiency & this scheme has been widely acclaimed.
In developing countries with weak criminal handling system, some incarcerated inmates spend time in prison on remand longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crime.
According to Claire Wilmot for The Guardian, a Nigerian woman who had been stoical before the court pronouncement that set her free immediately collapsed to the ground sobbing afterwards. Tears of joy rolled down her cheek as she thanked God and the judge in equal measure while the inmates watching from their cells erupted into cheers.
She had spent three years after being charged for “issuing a dud cheque” waiting for the outcome of her trial for a crime that carries a maximum sentence of two years.
It was joyous news for other inmates like her, as it allowed resolving those issues. Keeping prison inmates safe during the pandemic was the utmost concern of governing bodies, and this was the best way they felt it could be done.
The Downsides
Aside from the fallacy that anything considered ‘good’ always comes with a form of disadvantage, it clearly seemed like the decision had more down than upsides from most perspectives. The idea wasn’t taken lightly by most law-abiding citizens, and most of them weren’t even interested in acknowledging any benefit it had.
The initial fear that gripped everyone was the feeling that the crime rate could increase during the pandemic. And shocking enough it did in some countries, particularly in Nigeria.
Just a few days after the government granted amnesty to about 2,600 prisoners in Nigeria to contain the virus, over 200 armed gangsters invaded Africa’s largest city and its contiguous state.
It was a nightmare for most citizens living in the raided communities as gory images circulated on social media were heartbreaking. Residents of the affected areas had to set up bonfires, forming vigilante groups who kept awake all night, securing their lives and properties.
It was so unfortunate for people residing in those communities cause the government had already ordered an emergency lockdown, and there was no safe place to be.
Though it wasn’t formally reported that the hoodlums were linked to the recently released inmates nationwide, it was too suspicious to be merely coincidental.
From a 2020 report by Prison Policy Initiative, in the US, at least 1 in every four people who go to jail will be arrested again within the same year — often those dealing with poverty, mental illness, and substance use disorders, whose problems only worsen with incarceration.
Releasing some of these inmates could’ve increased the crime rate one way or the other, and even if we aren’t haven’t noticed it yet, we hope it doesn’t manifest later.
Furthermore, some of the released inmates didn’t have a comprehensive health check before they were set free.
Before many correctional facilities began to set prisoners free, some of them already had some of its guards & prisoners test positive for COVID-19. The unexpected virus even took some correctional workers’ lives, and this was also a significant reason why the decision to release prisoners was made sooner than expected.
Notwithstanding the way the virus shook these facilities, some inmates weren’t double-checked for the virus before they were released. It was wrong to entirely rely on any test they might have initially had cause they also remained within their confined areas afterwards.
There wasn’t any general fumigation in some correctional facilities, and WHO reported that the virus could last on surfaces anywhere from several hours to days.
Three men released from the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater told WBUR in an exclusive report that they weren’t tested for the virus before they were eventually freed. Two of them tested positive to COVID-19 virus after their freedom and was cared for in a field hospital. The hospital was set up to care for homeless people who contracted the disease.
No one knows what these prisoners were exposed to, and it could’ve put everyone in jeopardy if they had made many contacts since their release. Much more lives would’ve been at stake outside the correctional facilities, which would’ve defeated the primary purpose.
Another downside we couldn’t also ignore was that the decision indirectly gave way for wrong prisoners to be released.
Due to haste, error, or corrupt nature, some prisoners ineligible to be released were set free. We saw this happen in the UK, where six prisoners were freed mistakenly because it too early. From reports, it was said to be due to ‘human error,’ so there were still likelihoods for it to happen again.
The virus pressured everyone to take quick actions, and this was one of the worst ways it negatively affected us.
The inability to be freed indicates that they may have been convicted of felonies. Releasing such offenders could make people feel insecure, as most may fear for their lives being at risk.
The thought of the government releasing 54,000 prisoners in Iran could just encourage any Iranian to amend that broken fence in their backyard. Or be a quick reminder to install their motion-activated lights for security.
In any way possible, it was going to inspire fear as there wasn’t any guarantee that the ex-inmates would be of good behaviour afterwards.
There were probably more downsides than we could list that affected people in various ways. And although the effects were subsided by releasing mostly low-risk criminals, it still had more negative than positive impressions.
What could have been the best decision?
Indeed, something needed to be done to combat the fatal viral disease. Many people got hospitalised for weeks, and it even took the lives of a lot more than we know. It won’t be wise to condemn their decision without a counter-suggestion as things were getting out of hand.
The virus was trivialized in most parts of the world, and this was the primary reason it had a catastrophic effect. Many world leaders had a slow response towards initial signs, and precautionary measures were taken much too late.
But just as the emergency lockdown was implemented on countries at the onset of the virus, this was also the best move to make on correctional facilities.
Over 600,000 people enter prison gates annually in the US, connoting that if things were equal about 1,600 people come in & out of these facilities each day. If we’ve learned anything about the virus, we’ll know how dangerous it can be with this enormous population trooping in and out of these prisons daily.
Limiting the number by going on lockdown much earlier would’ve been one of the easiest & most effective ways to contain the virus without releasing prisoners.
It happened in Italy, where convicts had to stay locked within their confined areas early enough. It made them one of the safest populations compared to other law-abiding Italians as the latter was severely affected by the virus.
However, if incarcerated inmates were also promptly tested for the COVID-19 following general fumigation of the facilities, there would have also been no need to consider releasing them.
It’s quite unfortunate to know that not every correctional facility have been adequately fumigated to control the spread COVID-19 despite being 23rd week since its onset. Many governing bodies failed to prioritize these facilities, which made the virus thrive mostly in those areas.
If the virus already got to surfaces such as doorknobs & countertops in these facilities fumigation was the only solution to get rid of it.
Besides, most incarcerated inmates more productive to help reduce the spread of the virus in their confined areas.
While many prison facilities thought releasing inmates was the best solution to control the spreading virus, inmates at Gatesville women prison went on emergency lockdown and were making cotton face masks. At the time of the report, they were expected to produce over 25,000 face masks which would be distributed freely to responders to alleviate a shortage of medical materials during the pandemic.
Although the masks were sewn from locally grown cotton, making it not of high quality, it still showed how prolific prisoners could be during the lockdown. If proper planning were done with the provision of adequate materials, the inmates would’ve provided an efficient workforce of high productivity.
Prison facilities were among the only few buildings that still contained a large number of people during the pandemic, and contributing to lessen the spread of the virus anyway they could was certainly better than doing nothing.
For my money, releasing prison inmates to control the spread of the virus wasn’t a great option. The escalating cases of the viral infection coerced governing bodies into quick decision-making, and this was one of them.
In Chicago and other parts of the world, the virus still thrived for long in incarceration facilities despite releasing hundreds of inmates. It was more or less a futile effort as things didn’t seem to get any better in those facilities.
It would’ve been preferable to decongest the prison facilities after the coronavirus pandemic as it would have given more time carefully release qualified inmates. It would also have allowed looking into issues of wrongly imprisoned inmates and been in prevention against similar cases in the future.
Although it undoubtedly had some benefits we can’t disregard, the disbenefits should’ve also been treated with utmost concern. There were more opportunities to explore & hastening to decide at such a critical time wasn’t the best.
