Prison essay
So I'm bored and procrastinating on the work I have to do for Mom... and am in the midst of a discussion of US prison conditions with bk635, which reminded me of the essay I wrote last term on US prison conditions... so, thought I'd post the essay for anyone interested. :) The assignment was to choose 3 media artefacts (from different mediums) that related to a certain theme, and write about each of them (and draw connections, etc). I blathered about it quite a bit back in spring, as I recall. :) I ended up using news media, The Shawshank Redemption, and, of course, Oz. It turned out pretty well, I think, and I got a good mark on it. Read if you're interested, and let me know what you think. :) Might go post it and my other Oz essay on some of the Oz comms later... don't really know why I never got around to it before. ^^;
Spoilers for The Shawshank Redemption and season 1 of Oz.
Introduction
The 1990s and the 2000s have seen a steady increase of incarceration rates in the United States. Statistics show that as of 2003 there were over two million people in prison, making the United States the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world (Cortese 131). This increase can largely be traced back to the government’s tough-on-crime policies of the 1990s and a general willingness in American society to incarcerate. Tough-on-crime policies became popular in the 1990s as a result of the government’s desire to crack down on crime by instituting new and harsher sentencing laws such as mandatory-minimum sentences and the controversial ‘three strikes’ law. In spite of these laws, however, and in spite of the ever increasing numbers of people in prison, there has been no noticeable decrease in the rate of violent crime in the United States (Cortese 133).
Considering the seeming lack of success of these policies, then, why does a majority of Americans continue to support them? One important area that has not been the subject of much research is the impact of the media on public opinion about prisons and incarceration. Given the extent to which the media has saturated American society today, there can be little doubt that people’s opinions have been influenced to at least some degree by media representations of prison. Mainstream media in general continues to support the tough-on-crime ideology. At the very least, it does not present a significant challenge to the belief that incarceration is the best way to deal with crime. Increasingly, however, alternative media sources have begun to question the place of prison in our society and have challenged the assumption that building more and bigger prisons is the answer.
This essay will examine three forms of media and the different ways in which they negotiate the debate between the belief in tough-on-crime and incarceration and the belief in rehabilitation and alternatives to prison. I will look first at a collection of news articles taken from popular news sources online, which generally support tough-on-crime policies. I will then analyze the popular film The Shawshank Redemption (Darabont, 1994) and consider the ways in which it perpetuates but also potentially challenges stereotypes about prison and inmates. Finally, I will turn to television and discuss the HBO series Oz (HBO 1997-2003), a critically acclaimed series that lacks the widespread appeal of The Shawshank Redemption but which successfully challenges common beliefs and opinions about prison.
Representing Tough-on-Crime Policies and Prisons in the News
For the past fifteen or so years, there has been a general trend in the United States towards viewing incarceration as the most effective means of controlling crime. Politicians frequently reassure the public that they are getting tough on crime and that the public’s interests are being served by policies such as the three-strikes law, which “mandates twenty-five-years-to-life sentences for criminals convicted of three felonies” (Cortese 135). News reporting of crime tends to support this view, and often fails to account for the full complexities of the issues involved. Prison-related news articles included on such popular American news Web sites as FOX News and USA Today generally suggest that the only real answer to crime is incarceration: building more, bigger, and better prisons. For example, a story on FOX News entitled “Judge: Calif. Prison Transfers Illegal” (February 20, 2007) describes California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response to overcrowding in prisons. To combat the problem of overcrowding, Schwarzenegger initially opted to transfer inmates to prisons in other states, an attempt which was ruled illegal by the courts. Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying that he “will not release dangerous criminals to relieve overcrowding” (Thompson, 2007), and he has therefore turned to what he sees as the only alternative. He “has asked lawmakers to review sentencing laws and consider an $11 billion prison and jail building program” (Thompson, 2007). The first part of this quote is intriguing, yet undeveloped. Problematic sentencing laws which incarcerate thousands of low-level drug dealers in the place of real violent criminals certainly do warrant reconsideration. However, the article does not say anything about this situation. The article indicates that there are few if any alternatives to building more prisons or transferring inmates, and as a result Schwarzenegger’s decision to increase spending on building prisons must be the only logical response. Another article from FOX News, entitled “Gonzales Says Supermax Prison Safe” (February 21, 2007) further perpetuates the belief that building better prisons is the only way to go. The article describes the potential security problems at a maximum security prison in Colorado, and indicates that the only response is to increase spending on security. While certainly the maintenance of adequate security at a prison is important, the article does not suggest any alternatives to simply increasing security and does not discuss the social ramifications of incarceration.
These articles emphasize incarceration while failing to address the root causes for crime or the problems with tough-on-crime policies. When these policies are reconsidered, it is mainly for economic reasons. For example, the USA Today article “States Revisit ‘Get-Tough’ Policies as Revenue Slows, Prisons Overflow” (August 10, 2003) discusses alternatives to tough-on-crime policies, including a revision of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws and a movement towards treatment rather than jail time for drug offenders. However, the article states that the reason for these changes is purely economic. The article states that “[state] lawmakers haven’t gone soft on crime” and quotes Connecticut state Rep. Michael Lawler as saying “[i]t’s not like the liberals are taking over” (McMahon, 2003). Although the results of reconsidering get-tough policies are positive, the ideology at work is still one of tough-on-crime.
Furthermore, these articles generally do not take into account the wider social issues at stake. Cortese comments that “[our] social policies emphasize personal responsibility but do not recognize the structural constraints of a capitalistic system that prevents a sizable portion of the population from attaining even a minimal level of economic stability” (133). This statement can also be applied to media reporting of crime. News articles emphasize the criminal actions of the individual but do not look deeply into the social inequalities which potentially played a part in the crime. Criminals are often made out to be monsters who deserve life behind bars. While this is certainly true in some cases, due consideration should still be given to any social reasons behind their actions. For example, an article on FOX News entitled “New York City Police Launches Manhunt for Thug Who Attacked 101-Year-Old Woman” (March 14, 2007) emphasizes the degeneracy of the attacker without giving any mention of the wider social perspective. The man, who punched the victim repeatedly and then stole her purse, is described as black and in his 30s. Although such a crime does deserve some sort of punishment, the article goes so far as to suggest that life imprisonment is suitable: “Meanwhile, New Yorkers struggled for the right words to describe the attacker because expletives just don’t seem adequate. In interviews and letters to newspapers, some suggested he deserves life imprisonment - or perhaps until he’s 101” (2007). The article then describes someone as saying “the mugger must have been on drugs, because no rational person would do such a thing” (2007). The implication is that he’s black and committed a crime, and therefore of course he must have been on drugs. No mention is made of this man’s probable lack of money, nor does it give any indication that the inequality he likely faces every day for his race and social status could have played a part in his actions.
Given the omnipresence of the media in the lives of Americans, articles such as these undoubtedly influence people’s opinions about the validity of incarceration. More balanced reporting is needed to communicate the true complexities of crime and incarceration, and to downplay the sensationalism in favour of the realities of these issues.
Prisons as Entertainment: The Shawshank Redemption
The influence that popular film exerts over most Americans has long been noted. Like the news media, popular films are seen by millions of Americans and can have an important impact on the values and beliefs of audiences. Prison films have existed for almost as long as the medium itself has, with escape stories being especially popular. The representation of incarceration in these films can be problematic, however. Referring to the television news, Mathiesen remarks that “the entertainment industry of television has transformed crime and prison to entertainment objects, thus corroding our doubts and worries about the prison solution” (qtd. in O’Sullivan 318). This statement can be applied equally well to many films about prison, which often use the prison setting as a backdrop for an action-adventure story. The popular and critically acclaimed film The Shawhshank Redemption reproduces this structure to some extent, although it does offer some potential challenges in its representation of prison. The film tells the story of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who is sent to prison after allegedly killing his wife and her lover. The Shawshank Redemption paints a dreary picture of prison life, but ultimately it tells a story of hope and redemption in the face of great odds. The film functions primarily as entertainment and, like most other films in the genre, “[offers] viewers escape from the miseries of daily life through adventure and heroism” (Rafter 163). The characters in the film are divided by a fairly rigid good/evil dichotomy. On the one side there are the two main characters, Andy and Red (Morgan Freeman), who are presented as essentially good people. Andy is revealed to be innocent of his crime, and Red’s criminal actions remain far in the past and generally unexplored. The audience is meant to sympathize and identify with both men, and as such they must be represented as fairly traditional heroic figures. On the other side are the corrupt warden and cruel guards, and a variety of inmates who are represented as irredeemably bad men who routinely beat and rape the other prisoners. The rest of the inmates remain in the background for the most part, and little attention is paid to their crimes, although several of them enjoy a friendly relationship with Andy and Red and are therefore marked as basically good. Rafter argues that films such as The Shawshank Redemption “[present] tales in which justice is miraculously restored after long periods of harsh oppression, [and] enable us to believe, if only briefly, in a world where long-suffering virtue is rewarded” (163). After facing trials and tribulations throughout the film, Andy eventually is able to escape to Mexico to live out the rest of his life in peace with the paroled Red - but not before exposing the criminal activities of the warden and one of the guards. The villains are defeated, the heroes win and live happily ever after, and “the
moral order is restored” (Rafter 166).
Although this traditional structure makes for a compelling film, it does little to address the real issues surrounding incarceration and justice in the United States. The film does perhaps make viewers consider the conditions in prison, but little is said in the film about the wider social implications of these conditions. Andy’s story is represented as an individual struggle for justice, hope, and redemption: these things are assumed to exist if one has the strength to find them. While this ideology makes for a powerful story of personal achievement and strength, it leaves little room for understanding the social forces at work. For example, although Red is African-American, the film does not address the problems that he likely faced in society as a result of his race. Considering the time frame of the movie (1940s-60s), and the fact that Red was incarcerated in the 1920s, one would expect to see the racism and oppression of blacks during these times given some consideration. Overall, the film presents a fairly simplistic view of morality and justice in which the justice system continues to be held up as essentially good, with the criminal actions of the warden and guards being symptomatic of individual failings rather than systemic corruption.
The film does address wider issues of rehabilitation and the validity of prisons as a form of punishment to some degree, however. Through the actions of Andy and the other inmates, a library is set up and educational opportunities are introduced to the prison. O’Sullivan comments that “[rather] than being shown as being beyond redemption the prisoners organize their own rehabilitation” (325). These inmates are shown to be capable and therefore deserving of rehabilitation. The film shows the difficulties that they face in facilitating their rehabilitation. It takes Andy several years before he is able to convince the government to provide funding for the library and educational programs. Although the film does not consider possible alternatives to prison, it does effectively show that rehabilitation should be the goal of incarceration. The film also effectively shows the long-term effects that prison has on inmates, such as with the character Brookes (James Whitmore) who, upon being paroled after fifty years in prison, kills himself because he no longer knows how to live in the outside world. Nevertheless, the film does not necessarily suggest that there are better alternatives to prison. In spite of the potential challenges the film poses to ideologies of incarceration, The Shawshank Redemption ultimately tends to shy away from dealing outright with the realities and problems of incarceration in American society.
Oz
Oz debuted in 1997 as HBO’s first one-hour drama and quickly gained critical acclaim. Violent, hard-edged, and realistic, Oz is set within the fictional Oswald Maximum Security Penitentiary and purports to tell the unheard stories of those behind the walls -inmates and staff alike. Unlike the news media and films such as The Shawshank Redemption, Oz tackles problems of justice and incarceration head on. Oz challenges popular beliefs and opinions about prison and forces viewers to reconsider the debate between get-tough incarceration policies and alternative rehabilitation methods. Oz does not suggest a solution to the problem of prisons and crime; rather, it recognizes the complexities of these issues and negotiates multiple viewpoints. Oz is interested in the gray areas of these issues and does not set up the fairly rigid moral stance that The Shawshank Redemption does. There are no clear-cut heroes and villains in Oz, nor is there a feel-good story about overcoming great odds and restoring justice. The inmates of Oz are not white-washed like Andy and Red. Instead, they are violent and dangerous criminals who have committed numerous crimes both in the outside world and inside the walls. On one level, then, Oz does recognize that these men do deserve punishment and are not necessarily capable of rehabilitation. This simple conclusion is insufficient, however. For all their crimes, the prisoners inside Oz are not portrayed as purely evil. They are simply humans who, though they may have done terrible things, also generally have some redeeming points. Audiences are invited to sympathize with and even identify with the problems and experiences of the inmates, while being denied the comfort of moral absolutism. In particular, audience sympathy is consistently invoked for characters such as Tobias Beecher (Lee Tergesen), Ryan O’Reily (Dean Winters), and Miguel Alvarez (Kirk Acevedo). All three characters -particularly O’Reily - do terrible things while in Oz, but they are also interesting and compelling characters who defy simplistic moral categories. Beecher in particular is made into a sympathetic character in the first season. A wealthy lawyer, Beecher was imprisoned for accidentally killing a young girl while drinking and driving. He is initially portrayed as a relatively normal guy in prison for doing something very stupid - albeit tragic - and who, due to his lack of street smarts, immediately becomes a target. Over the course of the first season, Beecher becomes the ‘prag’ of Aryan Brotherhood leader Vern Schillinger (J.K. Simmons), who repeatedly humiliates and rapes him. Although audiences are made to feel sorry for Beecher, he is not presented as a simple victim or heroic character who must overcome hardship. Indeed, when he finally rebels against Schillinger, the ensuing scenes are quite violent and disturbing, and later in the series he is responsible for several murders. In order to sympathize with these characters, therefore, viewers must relinquish their desire to root for heroes and blame villains. Indeed, there are few real villains on the show. The closest, perhaps, is Governor Devlin who seeks to strip away the prisoners’ rights and reinstates the death penalty. Yet, unlike the warden in The Shawshank Redemption¸ Devlin is not necessarily represented as corrupt. He is simply a politician with a conservative viewpoint who believes strongly in get-tough policies and incarceration as a means of punishment. Inside the walls, the staff and guards are mostly represented as average people doing their jobs. A number of the guards certainly are corrupt, but in general they are shown to be normal people who, like everyone else, are far from perfect.
Oz also deals explicitly with the wider social issues surrounding prison and the debate over incarceration versus rehabilitation. These issues are personified by several main characters, particularly Tim McManus (Terry Kinney) and Kareem Said (Eamonn Walker). McManus is the founder of an experimental unit in Oz known as Emerald City, which is geared towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. The representations of Emerald City are conflicting, and therefore serve to raise further questions about the debate. On the one hand, in theory the idea is a good one: give prisoners more freedoms and rights while also providing them with the education and skills they need to survive when they are paroled. In practice, however, the unit falls apart at the seams. At the end of the first season a riot breaks out, and throughout the series there is a great deal of violence and tension within the unit. The failure of Emerald City may be seen by some as indicative of the futility of rehabilitation. However, the series does not suggest that harsh punishment is a suitable alternative. Rather, Emerald City fails because McManus’s idealistic liberal visions do not take into account the realities of the inmates’ lives, nor do they recognize the inherent hypocrisy in ostensibly giving prisoners more freedom even while locking them up securely and punishing them whenever they disagree with McManus’s beliefs. This fact is recognized by Kareem Said, the African-American leader of the Muslims in Oz. Said strongly believes that the entire justice and prison system in the United States is corrupt, and that simply trying to rehabilitate prisoners is not enough. Said believes that the wider social problems that cause crime must be addressed, and that building more prisons - even ‘better’ prisons - is misguided. The following passage, spoken to McManus during the riot in the season one finale, describes Said’s problems with the justice system:
SAID: […] Because even the best prison wouldn't be good enough! I'm gonna try one more time with you, McManus. Now, I am not saying that the men in Oz are innocent. I am saying they are not here because of the crimes that they committed, but because of the color of their skin, the lack of education, the fact that they are poor. You see, this riot is not about getting smoking back, conjugal rights, it's not even about life in prison. It's about society taking responsibility. It's about the whole horrid judicial system. And we don't need more prisons, bigger prisons, better prisons. We need better justice. Now what can you do about that?
(1.08 “A Game of Checkers”)
This statement hits upon one of the main problems that is not addressed in The Shawshank Redemption or by the news media: the significance of social status and race in incarceration. Said argues that black men are over-represented in American prisons because of the difficulties they face being poor and black in a society that devalues and represses people for their race and class. According to Said, then, simply trying to improve the justice system is insufficient; rather, the system must be rethought from the ground up.
Ultimately, Oz does not come to any concrete conclusion as to which is ‘better’, incarceration or rehabilitation. The series simply negotiates the problems with both beliefs and leaves the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions. To some extent, incarceration is shown to be necessary. Men like Schillinger and Homeboy leader Simon Adebisi (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) probably do need to be locked away forever. At the same time, however, Oz questions the validity of prisons as a form of punishment by pointing out that, first off, they don’t particularly work, and second, they only serve to drive inmates even further into crime. Furthermore, the series suggests that society must take a closer look at the justice and prison systems and deal with the realities of crime and incarceration.
Conclusion
The ever-increasing rate of incarceration in the United States is a reality that American society needs to stand up and face. The tough-on-crime ideology has been proven not to work; indeed, it only serves to overfill prisons with low-level offenders in place of truly violent criminals. Although society is not being served by this ideology, politicians and the daily news continue to promote it as the best way to deal with crime. Films such as The Shawshank Redemption, meanwhile, simply avoid the matter altogether and so do little to question this ideology. Alternative forms of media and news are becoming increasingly prevalent, however, and are helping to challenge mainstream views. Web sites such as The Prison Activist Resource Center and the Sentencing Law and Policy blog are available for people interested in alternate news sources. In addition, realistic media portrayals of prison in shows such as Oz help to bring issues of justice and incarceration to light. The media is an important source of information for many people, and can have a crucial influence on their beliefs and values. Increased coverage of the realities of these issues in the mainstream media would help to educate people and, hopefully, start to enact change in American society.
Damn, I write long paragraphs. Didn't really notice in Word when it's double spaced, but it's quite obvious here. Should work on that...
Spoilers for The Shawshank Redemption and season 1 of Oz.
Introduction
The 1990s and the 2000s have seen a steady increase of incarceration rates in the United States. Statistics show that as of 2003 there were over two million people in prison, making the United States the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world (Cortese 131). This increase can largely be traced back to the government’s tough-on-crime policies of the 1990s and a general willingness in American society to incarcerate. Tough-on-crime policies became popular in the 1990s as a result of the government’s desire to crack down on crime by instituting new and harsher sentencing laws such as mandatory-minimum sentences and the controversial ‘three strikes’ law. In spite of these laws, however, and in spite of the ever increasing numbers of people in prison, there has been no noticeable decrease in the rate of violent crime in the United States (Cortese 133).
Considering the seeming lack of success of these policies, then, why does a majority of Americans continue to support them? One important area that has not been the subject of much research is the impact of the media on public opinion about prisons and incarceration. Given the extent to which the media has saturated American society today, there can be little doubt that people’s opinions have been influenced to at least some degree by media representations of prison. Mainstream media in general continues to support the tough-on-crime ideology. At the very least, it does not present a significant challenge to the belief that incarceration is the best way to deal with crime. Increasingly, however, alternative media sources have begun to question the place of prison in our society and have challenged the assumption that building more and bigger prisons is the answer.
This essay will examine three forms of media and the different ways in which they negotiate the debate between the belief in tough-on-crime and incarceration and the belief in rehabilitation and alternatives to prison. I will look first at a collection of news articles taken from popular news sources online, which generally support tough-on-crime policies. I will then analyze the popular film The Shawshank Redemption (Darabont, 1994) and consider the ways in which it perpetuates but also potentially challenges stereotypes about prison and inmates. Finally, I will turn to television and discuss the HBO series Oz (HBO 1997-2003), a critically acclaimed series that lacks the widespread appeal of The Shawshank Redemption but which successfully challenges common beliefs and opinions about prison.
Representing Tough-on-Crime Policies and Prisons in the News
For the past fifteen or so years, there has been a general trend in the United States towards viewing incarceration as the most effective means of controlling crime. Politicians frequently reassure the public that they are getting tough on crime and that the public’s interests are being served by policies such as the three-strikes law, which “mandates twenty-five-years-to-life sentences for criminals convicted of three felonies” (Cortese 135). News reporting of crime tends to support this view, and often fails to account for the full complexities of the issues involved. Prison-related news articles included on such popular American news Web sites as FOX News and USA Today generally suggest that the only real answer to crime is incarceration: building more, bigger, and better prisons. For example, a story on FOX News entitled “Judge: Calif. Prison Transfers Illegal” (February 20, 2007) describes California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response to overcrowding in prisons. To combat the problem of overcrowding, Schwarzenegger initially opted to transfer inmates to prisons in other states, an attempt which was ruled illegal by the courts. Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying that he “will not release dangerous criminals to relieve overcrowding” (Thompson, 2007), and he has therefore turned to what he sees as the only alternative. He “has asked lawmakers to review sentencing laws and consider an $11 billion prison and jail building program” (Thompson, 2007). The first part of this quote is intriguing, yet undeveloped. Problematic sentencing laws which incarcerate thousands of low-level drug dealers in the place of real violent criminals certainly do warrant reconsideration. However, the article does not say anything about this situation. The article indicates that there are few if any alternatives to building more prisons or transferring inmates, and as a result Schwarzenegger’s decision to increase spending on building prisons must be the only logical response. Another article from FOX News, entitled “Gonzales Says Supermax Prison Safe” (February 21, 2007) further perpetuates the belief that building better prisons is the only way to go. The article describes the potential security problems at a maximum security prison in Colorado, and indicates that the only response is to increase spending on security. While certainly the maintenance of adequate security at a prison is important, the article does not suggest any alternatives to simply increasing security and does not discuss the social ramifications of incarceration.
These articles emphasize incarceration while failing to address the root causes for crime or the problems with tough-on-crime policies. When these policies are reconsidered, it is mainly for economic reasons. For example, the USA Today article “States Revisit ‘Get-Tough’ Policies as Revenue Slows, Prisons Overflow” (August 10, 2003) discusses alternatives to tough-on-crime policies, including a revision of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws and a movement towards treatment rather than jail time for drug offenders. However, the article states that the reason for these changes is purely economic. The article states that “[state] lawmakers haven’t gone soft on crime” and quotes Connecticut state Rep. Michael Lawler as saying “[i]t’s not like the liberals are taking over” (McMahon, 2003). Although the results of reconsidering get-tough policies are positive, the ideology at work is still one of tough-on-crime.
Furthermore, these articles generally do not take into account the wider social issues at stake. Cortese comments that “[our] social policies emphasize personal responsibility but do not recognize the structural constraints of a capitalistic system that prevents a sizable portion of the population from attaining even a minimal level of economic stability” (133). This statement can also be applied to media reporting of crime. News articles emphasize the criminal actions of the individual but do not look deeply into the social inequalities which potentially played a part in the crime. Criminals are often made out to be monsters who deserve life behind bars. While this is certainly true in some cases, due consideration should still be given to any social reasons behind their actions. For example, an article on FOX News entitled “New York City Police Launches Manhunt for Thug Who Attacked 101-Year-Old Woman” (March 14, 2007) emphasizes the degeneracy of the attacker without giving any mention of the wider social perspective. The man, who punched the victim repeatedly and then stole her purse, is described as black and in his 30s. Although such a crime does deserve some sort of punishment, the article goes so far as to suggest that life imprisonment is suitable: “Meanwhile, New Yorkers struggled for the right words to describe the attacker because expletives just don’t seem adequate. In interviews and letters to newspapers, some suggested he deserves life imprisonment - or perhaps until he’s 101” (2007). The article then describes someone as saying “the mugger must have been on drugs, because no rational person would do such a thing” (2007). The implication is that he’s black and committed a crime, and therefore of course he must have been on drugs. No mention is made of this man’s probable lack of money, nor does it give any indication that the inequality he likely faces every day for his race and social status could have played a part in his actions.
Given the omnipresence of the media in the lives of Americans, articles such as these undoubtedly influence people’s opinions about the validity of incarceration. More balanced reporting is needed to communicate the true complexities of crime and incarceration, and to downplay the sensationalism in favour of the realities of these issues.
Prisons as Entertainment: The Shawshank Redemption
The influence that popular film exerts over most Americans has long been noted. Like the news media, popular films are seen by millions of Americans and can have an important impact on the values and beliefs of audiences. Prison films have existed for almost as long as the medium itself has, with escape stories being especially popular. The representation of incarceration in these films can be problematic, however. Referring to the television news, Mathiesen remarks that “the entertainment industry of television has transformed crime and prison to entertainment objects, thus corroding our doubts and worries about the prison solution” (qtd. in O’Sullivan 318). This statement can be applied equally well to many films about prison, which often use the prison setting as a backdrop for an action-adventure story. The popular and critically acclaimed film The Shawhshank Redemption reproduces this structure to some extent, although it does offer some potential challenges in its representation of prison. The film tells the story of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who is sent to prison after allegedly killing his wife and her lover. The Shawshank Redemption paints a dreary picture of prison life, but ultimately it tells a story of hope and redemption in the face of great odds. The film functions primarily as entertainment and, like most other films in the genre, “[offers] viewers escape from the miseries of daily life through adventure and heroism” (Rafter 163). The characters in the film are divided by a fairly rigid good/evil dichotomy. On the one side there are the two main characters, Andy and Red (Morgan Freeman), who are presented as essentially good people. Andy is revealed to be innocent of his crime, and Red’s criminal actions remain far in the past and generally unexplored. The audience is meant to sympathize and identify with both men, and as such they must be represented as fairly traditional heroic figures. On the other side are the corrupt warden and cruel guards, and a variety of inmates who are represented as irredeemably bad men who routinely beat and rape the other prisoners. The rest of the inmates remain in the background for the most part, and little attention is paid to their crimes, although several of them enjoy a friendly relationship with Andy and Red and are therefore marked as basically good. Rafter argues that films such as The Shawshank Redemption “[present] tales in which justice is miraculously restored after long periods of harsh oppression, [and] enable us to believe, if only briefly, in a world where long-suffering virtue is rewarded” (163). After facing trials and tribulations throughout the film, Andy eventually is able to escape to Mexico to live out the rest of his life in peace with the paroled Red - but not before exposing the criminal activities of the warden and one of the guards. The villains are defeated, the heroes win and live happily ever after, and “the
moral order is restored” (Rafter 166).
Although this traditional structure makes for a compelling film, it does little to address the real issues surrounding incarceration and justice in the United States. The film does perhaps make viewers consider the conditions in prison, but little is said in the film about the wider social implications of these conditions. Andy’s story is represented as an individual struggle for justice, hope, and redemption: these things are assumed to exist if one has the strength to find them. While this ideology makes for a powerful story of personal achievement and strength, it leaves little room for understanding the social forces at work. For example, although Red is African-American, the film does not address the problems that he likely faced in society as a result of his race. Considering the time frame of the movie (1940s-60s), and the fact that Red was incarcerated in the 1920s, one would expect to see the racism and oppression of blacks during these times given some consideration. Overall, the film presents a fairly simplistic view of morality and justice in which the justice system continues to be held up as essentially good, with the criminal actions of the warden and guards being symptomatic of individual failings rather than systemic corruption.
The film does address wider issues of rehabilitation and the validity of prisons as a form of punishment to some degree, however. Through the actions of Andy and the other inmates, a library is set up and educational opportunities are introduced to the prison. O’Sullivan comments that “[rather] than being shown as being beyond redemption the prisoners organize their own rehabilitation” (325). These inmates are shown to be capable and therefore deserving of rehabilitation. The film shows the difficulties that they face in facilitating their rehabilitation. It takes Andy several years before he is able to convince the government to provide funding for the library and educational programs. Although the film does not consider possible alternatives to prison, it does effectively show that rehabilitation should be the goal of incarceration. The film also effectively shows the long-term effects that prison has on inmates, such as with the character Brookes (James Whitmore) who, upon being paroled after fifty years in prison, kills himself because he no longer knows how to live in the outside world. Nevertheless, the film does not necessarily suggest that there are better alternatives to prison. In spite of the potential challenges the film poses to ideologies of incarceration, The Shawshank Redemption ultimately tends to shy away from dealing outright with the realities and problems of incarceration in American society.
Oz
Oz debuted in 1997 as HBO’s first one-hour drama and quickly gained critical acclaim. Violent, hard-edged, and realistic, Oz is set within the fictional Oswald Maximum Security Penitentiary and purports to tell the unheard stories of those behind the walls -inmates and staff alike. Unlike the news media and films such as The Shawshank Redemption, Oz tackles problems of justice and incarceration head on. Oz challenges popular beliefs and opinions about prison and forces viewers to reconsider the debate between get-tough incarceration policies and alternative rehabilitation methods. Oz does not suggest a solution to the problem of prisons and crime; rather, it recognizes the complexities of these issues and negotiates multiple viewpoints. Oz is interested in the gray areas of these issues and does not set up the fairly rigid moral stance that The Shawshank Redemption does. There are no clear-cut heroes and villains in Oz, nor is there a feel-good story about overcoming great odds and restoring justice. The inmates of Oz are not white-washed like Andy and Red. Instead, they are violent and dangerous criminals who have committed numerous crimes both in the outside world and inside the walls. On one level, then, Oz does recognize that these men do deserve punishment and are not necessarily capable of rehabilitation. This simple conclusion is insufficient, however. For all their crimes, the prisoners inside Oz are not portrayed as purely evil. They are simply humans who, though they may have done terrible things, also generally have some redeeming points. Audiences are invited to sympathize with and even identify with the problems and experiences of the inmates, while being denied the comfort of moral absolutism. In particular, audience sympathy is consistently invoked for characters such as Tobias Beecher (Lee Tergesen), Ryan O’Reily (Dean Winters), and Miguel Alvarez (Kirk Acevedo). All three characters -particularly O’Reily - do terrible things while in Oz, but they are also interesting and compelling characters who defy simplistic moral categories. Beecher in particular is made into a sympathetic character in the first season. A wealthy lawyer, Beecher was imprisoned for accidentally killing a young girl while drinking and driving. He is initially portrayed as a relatively normal guy in prison for doing something very stupid - albeit tragic - and who, due to his lack of street smarts, immediately becomes a target. Over the course of the first season, Beecher becomes the ‘prag’ of Aryan Brotherhood leader Vern Schillinger (J.K. Simmons), who repeatedly humiliates and rapes him. Although audiences are made to feel sorry for Beecher, he is not presented as a simple victim or heroic character who must overcome hardship. Indeed, when he finally rebels against Schillinger, the ensuing scenes are quite violent and disturbing, and later in the series he is responsible for several murders. In order to sympathize with these characters, therefore, viewers must relinquish their desire to root for heroes and blame villains. Indeed, there are few real villains on the show. The closest, perhaps, is Governor Devlin who seeks to strip away the prisoners’ rights and reinstates the death penalty. Yet, unlike the warden in The Shawshank Redemption¸ Devlin is not necessarily represented as corrupt. He is simply a politician with a conservative viewpoint who believes strongly in get-tough policies and incarceration as a means of punishment. Inside the walls, the staff and guards are mostly represented as average people doing their jobs. A number of the guards certainly are corrupt, but in general they are shown to be normal people who, like everyone else, are far from perfect.
Oz also deals explicitly with the wider social issues surrounding prison and the debate over incarceration versus rehabilitation. These issues are personified by several main characters, particularly Tim McManus (Terry Kinney) and Kareem Said (Eamonn Walker). McManus is the founder of an experimental unit in Oz known as Emerald City, which is geared towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. The representations of Emerald City are conflicting, and therefore serve to raise further questions about the debate. On the one hand, in theory the idea is a good one: give prisoners more freedoms and rights while also providing them with the education and skills they need to survive when they are paroled. In practice, however, the unit falls apart at the seams. At the end of the first season a riot breaks out, and throughout the series there is a great deal of violence and tension within the unit. The failure of Emerald City may be seen by some as indicative of the futility of rehabilitation. However, the series does not suggest that harsh punishment is a suitable alternative. Rather, Emerald City fails because McManus’s idealistic liberal visions do not take into account the realities of the inmates’ lives, nor do they recognize the inherent hypocrisy in ostensibly giving prisoners more freedom even while locking them up securely and punishing them whenever they disagree with McManus’s beliefs. This fact is recognized by Kareem Said, the African-American leader of the Muslims in Oz. Said strongly believes that the entire justice and prison system in the United States is corrupt, and that simply trying to rehabilitate prisoners is not enough. Said believes that the wider social problems that cause crime must be addressed, and that building more prisons - even ‘better’ prisons - is misguided. The following passage, spoken to McManus during the riot in the season one finale, describes Said’s problems with the justice system:
SAID: […] Because even the best prison wouldn't be good enough! I'm gonna try one more time with you, McManus. Now, I am not saying that the men in Oz are innocent. I am saying they are not here because of the crimes that they committed, but because of the color of their skin, the lack of education, the fact that they are poor. You see, this riot is not about getting smoking back, conjugal rights, it's not even about life in prison. It's about society taking responsibility. It's about the whole horrid judicial system. And we don't need more prisons, bigger prisons, better prisons. We need better justice. Now what can you do about that?
(1.08 “A Game of Checkers”)
This statement hits upon one of the main problems that is not addressed in The Shawshank Redemption or by the news media: the significance of social status and race in incarceration. Said argues that black men are over-represented in American prisons because of the difficulties they face being poor and black in a society that devalues and represses people for their race and class. According to Said, then, simply trying to improve the justice system is insufficient; rather, the system must be rethought from the ground up.
Ultimately, Oz does not come to any concrete conclusion as to which is ‘better’, incarceration or rehabilitation. The series simply negotiates the problems with both beliefs and leaves the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions. To some extent, incarceration is shown to be necessary. Men like Schillinger and Homeboy leader Simon Adebisi (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) probably do need to be locked away forever. At the same time, however, Oz questions the validity of prisons as a form of punishment by pointing out that, first off, they don’t particularly work, and second, they only serve to drive inmates even further into crime. Furthermore, the series suggests that society must take a closer look at the justice and prison systems and deal with the realities of crime and incarceration.
Conclusion
The ever-increasing rate of incarceration in the United States is a reality that American society needs to stand up and face. The tough-on-crime ideology has been proven not to work; indeed, it only serves to overfill prisons with low-level offenders in place of truly violent criminals. Although society is not being served by this ideology, politicians and the daily news continue to promote it as the best way to deal with crime. Films such as The Shawshank Redemption, meanwhile, simply avoid the matter altogether and so do little to question this ideology. Alternative forms of media and news are becoming increasingly prevalent, however, and are helping to challenge mainstream views. Web sites such as The Prison Activist Resource Center and the Sentencing Law and Policy blog are available for people interested in alternate news sources. In addition, realistic media portrayals of prison in shows such as Oz help to bring issues of justice and incarceration to light. The media is an important source of information for many people, and can have a crucial influence on their beliefs and values. Increased coverage of the realities of these issues in the mainstream media would help to educate people and, hopefully, start to enact change in American society.
Damn, I write long paragraphs. Didn't really notice in Word when it's double spaced, but it's quite obvious here. Should work on that...