Inequalities in Prison Terms in the U.S.

I was excited to read about the 25th anniversary of Friday Night Lights in the 8/3/15 issue of Sports Illustrated.  The book, movie and TV series are all held up as some of the best of all time.  But, almost as a side note, the article highlighted the inequalities of he criminal justice system.  Either the author didn't notice it or didn't want to turn his nostalgic article into a political article. Sports Illustrated missed a key opportunity to address an issue that society is struggling with right now. 

Person A- Abused by relatives.  Spent time in foster care.  High school football star.  School helped him cheat in high school so he could stay eligible to play football.  The help stopped once he was injured and couldn't play.  Flunked out of college. Charged with aggravated assault after hitting someone with a beer bottle during a fight.  No prior felony record.  Misdemeanors for driving without a license and failure to pay child support.  Given 10 years probation.  Stopped making regular visits to his parole officer.  Sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Person B- Family law firm.  High school football star.  Attended Harvard.  Joined family law firm.  Admitted starting a fight with his girlfriend and her ex-husband that escalated into a brawl.  B and two friends entered the ex-husband's house uninvited and continued fighting with the 8 people inside.  Charged with burglary with intent to commit assault- a serious felony.  Placed on 5 years probation and had his law license suspended for 5 years.

There is big difference here.  Why was one given 10 years probation and the other 5 years?  Was person A told that if he violated his parole he would then have an equal amount of jail time?  Did person A ever receive therapy to deal with his childhood hardships?  Person A didn't have the family support or resources that person B had.  Person B not only had a family of lawyers supporting him but the personal knowledge of the law to know what would happen if he didn't follow the rules.   

I am not advocating violating parole but there are too many people spending years in prison for non-violent offenses.  And more often than not, they aren't given therapy or skills in prison to cope with the real world once they get out so a lot of them end up coming back. 

It is hard to believe that race and economic status didn't play a role in the unequal treatment of the two men.  Person A is black and poor.  When he was injured and could no longer play for the football team, he was subjected to racism from the football staff and community.  The football team provided him with the support that he never had from his family.  Once that was gone, he was on his own again.

Person B is Hispanic and comes from a family that is prominent in the community.  I'd like to believe that person B would have been sentenced to prison if he violated his parole but it seems unlikely.  And if he was sentenced it probably wouldn't have been for 10 years. 

No matter what your background, there should be a set list of rules for offenses so that judges don't sentence poor, black people to longer sentences.  A good lawyer or a bad judge shouldn't decide someone's fate.  At some point the criminal justice system needs to stop solving everything with a trip to prison.  Rehabilitation will have to be a key part of  treatment.  The reason we have more people in prison than any other developed country is because people are in jail for non-violent offenses.  We put all of our money into building new prisons and very little on programs to prevent people from going into prison in the first place. 

Jason Collins

The back page of Sports Illustrated used to be my favorite part of the magazine.  Rick Reilly would write editorials that made you cry, think or laugh (sometimes all at the same time).  Since Reilly left for ESPN the back page has been largely unforgettable.  Various sportswriters take turns at the back page now with varying levels of success. Sometimes there is a Reilly-esque piece but just as often there is a piece that doesn't hold my interest.  I'm happy to say that this week was one of the better ones.  

In the September 16 issue of Sports Illustrated Phil Taylor wrote about Jason Collins, the first openly gay NBA player.  His argument is that people said they supported Collins in May when he first came out don't really support him because no one has added them to their team.  My first instinct was to disagree with him. If Collins wasn't talented enough or didn't fit a vital role on a team why would a GM waste the $1.4M veteran minimum on him?  Collins is not a superstar.  He is an average player that will come off the bench and score a few points a game.  Not exactly someone to build your team around.  

But then Phil Taylor brings up other average players that have been given contracts, specifically Juwan Howard and Marcus Camby, despite their lack of production.  These players were given contracts because they were chasing a ring, because people liked them or because of the leadership that they could provide off the court.  Every year some veteran retires after the NBA finals that I didn't even realize was still in the league. This veteran has finally made it to the finals and is ready to hang it up.  The player didn't play a significant roll in the team's success.  This player is way past his prime or his prime wasn't good enough to turn him into a household name.  Yet this player's resume is now complete and he can ride off into the sunset feeling like a champion.

So why not Jason Collins?  Why not spend $1.4M to prove gay men and straight men can co-exist in a locker room and on the court?  Why not show young gay kids that there are no obstacles to their dreams? Why not show some closeted homophobic players that there is nothing to be afraid of?  That Collins isn't going to hit on them or turn them gay just by being there.  That Collins is a man and an athlete before anything else and that his sexuality doesn't make him less of either.  

I hope that Taylor's piece makes one GM go for it.  It would be a step in the right direction for the sports world and for society as a whole.  No matter what Collins or other gay athletes do on the court there will always be people who assume they are softer, weaker, less than non-gay athletes.  But, much like the black quarterback argument, at least they will be in the conversation and given a chance to prove people wrong. 

Still Not Getting It

I was excited when I saw an article about running in last week's Sports Illustrated.  Mud, Sweat and Beers by Austin Murphy started with promise but quickly fizzled.  It is further proof that this author and many others just don't get it. 

The article indicates that there is a big running boom going on right now.  The gimmicky races like the Mud Runs and Color Runs have encouraged a lot of people who never thought about running to come out and party.  Not to mention runs that benefit specific charities.  I don't disagree with any of this.  A lot of my friends and co-workers were lured to running by these races that promise a unique experience.  Personally, these races don't appeal to me because of all the hoopla.  But anything that gets people off their asses is a good thing. 

Throughout the article the author differentiates between serious runners or competitors and the rest of the pack.  He considers serious runners to be people who are fast and thin.  Anyone who isn't in competition for a medal isn't a serious runner.  The author also makes several references to the rest of the pack being overweight, out of shape, just there for a t-shirt, not serious. 

Murphy implies that the standards of the running community have been lowered to encourage non-serious runners to compete; road races generate a lot of money and more people equals more money.  Yes, there are more people running now than before but there have always been people of all shapes, sizes and paces participating in road races.  The change is in the attitude of the running community at large.  

In the past when I went to be fitted for running shoes, the running shoe specialist immediately assumed I was a walker.  When I went out to participate in training runs with the local running club they had pace groups up to 8 or 9 minute miles and the rest of us had to fend for ourselves.  My self esteem was already low and this sort of snobbery only made me feel worse about myself.  

During the past couple of years, running community has become more inclusive.  When I go to a training run no one is left behind.  I don't know why this has changed.  Maybe reality shows like Made, Extreme Weight Loss and The Biggest Loser have pumped us up to root for the underdog and to not judge people based on their appearance if they are trying to be better.  

I have been a serious runner for 25 years.  I run 2-4 days a week and compete in several road races every year.  I have never been fast or thin but I don't waddle or have my gut hanging over my shorts as Murphy would have you believe.  A lot of thin people finish after me and lot of heavy people finish before me.  The average race awards the top three people in each age group.  That's maybe 60 people at a large race.  So outside of those 60 people no one else is a serious runner?   Maybe 5% of the field is in competition for a medal.  The other 95% is comprised of people going for personal records, running for the love of it, running for their health, and yes, maybe for a t-shirt and a stale bagel afterward.  

It is always disappointing when a large publication like Sports Illustrated takes a fringe athletic event and completely misses the opportunity to properly represent it.  This article will validate what running snobs think and make average runners feel invisible and judged.  Way to go SI.