Politicians and criminal justice students across this country have been asked about their philosophy regarding the criminal justice system.  Some advocate punishment through harsh sentences and no parole .  Keep in mind, no parole doesn't mean that the prisoner won't be released; rather, it means that the prisoner is AUTOMATICALLY released following their sentence minus time off for good behavior. Example: Prisoner X is sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole.  Great, however, if Prisoner X earns 12 months off for good behavior, s/he is sent out to the public in 24 years of less, depending on accrued time off earned.  However, if Prisoner X gets parole, s/he is evaluated prior to release then can be kept in prison if the committee feels it is best for the prison and society, even though the judgment indicates "freedom" from prison after a certain time period.

Some public policy movers and shakers may feel that rehabilitation is best suited for the individual.  After all, teach them a trade or marketable skill (sorry, non-athletic communication majors) and the recidivism rate is unlikely to increase.

These two camps are correct in their logic and treatment of the problem, though this author has given a brief glimpse into their views.  So, if both of these oppositional viewpoints are correct, why are we still plagued by criminals?  More importantly, why are we still talking about nature/nurture or punishment/rehabilitation if the problem has already been "solved?"

The conundrum involves the fact that this nation and its policy makers haven't been consistent on one side or the other.  Every four years or so politicians lose their seats or promise to be "tough on crime" in order to please their constituents.  Steady turnover benefits baseball pitching staffs, not an annual multi-billion dollar per year expenditure on the taxpayers incarcerating approximately 11% of America's population in a given year (all jails and prisons included).  To put it in perspective, that's like putting the entire gay and lesbian population in this nation in jail for at least one day.  I know it may be hard to believe, but neither the Department of Justice nor the Bureau of Prisons openly advertises this fact; but Census Data reports it!

So, if neither of these situations can be practiced with neither time nor diligence to achieve an end, then how can we attempt to solve the problem of overcrowded prisons, conflicting opinions on how best to serve those already incarcerated, and remove a current -and possibly future- problem to society?

This author suggests putting America's burgeoning prison population to work removing one of the world's biggest problems: landmines.

Estimates vary in the amount of landmines throughout the world from hundreds of million to around five million.  But that's still a lot of mines.  FARC, a militant organization in South America, is believed to annually  place thousands of anti-personnel mines in Colombia, Peru, and other South American nations in their stand-off with the governments of those nations.  Certainly, the proliferation of land mines will be a current and future problem.  The same holds true for the criminal population.  Codes of Conduct and rules to govern society have been written since human settlement, yet we are no closer to eliminating crime today than was Hammurabi.

However, if we were to take criminals with historic trends for recidivist or repeat offender status, send them to foreign lands under supervision (more on this later) and give them an incentive to find and remove landmines, we may find a formula for success in at least one of society's troubles.  For simplicity's sake, let's say that the prisoner receives one month off the sentence per landmine disarmed.  Now, that may seem too vague.  After all, how will we determine whether a prisoner can reason that a 50-year prison sentence can be shortened to 5 years with the removal of 540 landmines?  Does the prisoner understand how big a number 540 is? 

For the answer to those questions, please keep in mind that prisoners do prison labor for no more than $.15 per hour.  And working in a prison industry is a ticket out of potentially damaging boredom and mischief.  Besides, the odds that a prisoner will remove 25 landmines without injury is a pretty lofty goal.  Then again, one can argue that prisoners are people too, and shouldn't be subjected to mistreatment.

But so are the victims and their families.  And innocent people who've had the misfortune to come across landmines.  I've thought of this as well.  Certainly, it is not a foolproof plan, and may be unreachable.  However, the goal of this program is to simultaneously remove the offenders from prisons with a tenuous grasp of rehabilitation, and remove another threat to society - land mines.  The prospects for success is achievable and the aims are simple.  Prisoners selected for this program can be flown in to various land mine hot-spots around the world to reduce the problem.  So, which portion of the prison population should be selected?

This author selects sex offenders and other sexual predators as first on the list.  Psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists believe that power over another individual is one reason people commit crime.  Members of society who use sex to achieve power over their victims are exhibiting a deviant form of control over another person, making it unlikely that the sex offender will change their pattern of social interaction.  And, following release from prison, the criminal goes back to the same practice, yielding more victims.  Remember, the recent California kidnapping case was perpetuated by a man who was released from a Utah prison no more than five years before he committed this recent high-profile crime.

How many more victims did he have?  How many more individuals must suffer because society can't decide what to do with these people?

If people don't respond to this message with logic, let them understand basic truth: every year, thousands of animals are euthanized because there aren't enough prospective owners for these pets.  Yet the pet industry is in the top 10 of all industries Americans regularly support.  It just so happens that too many pets don't benefit the breeders and puppy mills who lose money every time one of their animals can't sell.  Simple Capitalism, unfortunately.  The pets have a value, as long as there is a demand for it.  Conversely, though, prisoners and prison labor benefits individuals who use prison labor as a cheap alternative to Union labor, or puts them to work in menial tasks.  Prisoners have a value: next to nothing.  However, Capitalism has risk/reward as a motivating factor.  Those who aim to succeed and work towards it may, the fable tells us, succeed.  Rugged Individualism, meet prison industry.  Another charm that this concept has to offer: no authority figure to attack.  Since success or failure of this venture rests solely on the prisoner's ability to find and disarm landmines before s/he reaches the quota or is killed, not on any arbitrary rule or regulation from prison staff.  Fate rules the day, not prison routine.  And Fate loves roulette.

As for supervision, guards could be military personnel (or U.N. personnel, which may improve worldwide support of American aid), prisoners loyal to the prison staff (and rewarded fittingly), or have the prisoners be fitted with electronic ankle bracelets to monitor their location (and, if needed, their ultimate annihilation should they attempt escape).  If the program works, the prisoner works towards their freedom, alleviates prison overcrowding, serves a greater societal good than sitting in a cell costing us $30,000 per year, removes land mines, and has the idea that to go back to prison could ultimately cost them their life.  Plus, everybody knows that employers love volunteer experience.