Marc My Words… 23 June 2006
Political comment
By
Marc Alexander
Not everyone who can be a parent should be one
The loss of some rights used to be part of the penalty for breaking the law. We saw it as fair and a just price for
wrongdoing. But we such ideas are not in vogue anymore. We shun the idea of shame and eschew blame as reasonable 'costs'
for making the wrong choices. Instead we now look for 'underlying' causes' to treat - as if crime were an illness.
We dredge up seemingly any and every excuse we can think of to humanize criminals. Worse, we normalize the consequences
of crime, including the prison experience, as much as possible. It is why young thugs can burn down a school gym only to
be sent to a facility that has a better one; or a criminal too lazy to bother working to pay his own way (but not
bothered enough to stop burglaring to satisfy his demands), can get his requirements met in prison with minimum
contribution. We've had debates on everything from open prisons, day passes for so-called family events, car driving
tests and even sporting occasions, buckets of KFC provided as treats, and front-end home detentions for a wide range of
criminals including, of all things, wife beaters who are returned, not only to the scene of the crime, but often where
their victims reside. And now, courtesy of Greens Sue Bradford, a private members Bill that would give women criminals a
closer longer bond with their babies.
Its no coincidence that Bradfords Bill is being advanced at a time when we have a massive 75% increase in women inmates
just in five years. While still a long way behind men, the so-called fairer sex is catching up fast. Ms Bradford offers
a couple of reasons for her proposal. Firstly that "securing a mother's right to breastfeed irrespective of disciplinary
measures by prison authorities will be a major achievement," and "secondly, so long as mothers and babies have
conditions provided that are suitable to their development it will enable children to be accommodated with their mothers
for up to two years. In some prisons, that will mean we will need to take action to make suitable mother and baby units
available." (15 June 2006)
Sue Bradford is rightly concerned about the health of the baby. No baby should be penalized as a consequence of the
criminal activities of the parent, but I doubt whether it can ever be in the interests of an infant to be cared by a
criminal serving their sentence.
As the law currently stands, children can be removed from their mothers from six months. If breast feeding is an issue,
then there is no reason why these criminal mothers could not express their milk and have other caregivers bottle feed
(after being tested for drugs which could be passed on of course). But if it's about bonding, then I question whether an
infant should be encouraged to form an emotional attachment with a woman only to be broken after two years, leaving an
emotional difficulty, that no infant could comprehend or deserve. And where is the father in all of this? I don't see a
reciprocal bonding policy being advocated for by Ms Bradford, but then that might be too hard for the public to accept.
Unfortunately we still have rose-tinted ideas about female criminals despite the overwhelming evidence of their
complicity in crimes like infanticide.
The overseas experience is worth taking a look at. With support from the Columbia University Institute for Child and
Family Policy and the New York State Department of Health, Dr. Byrne conducted a preliminary study in 2000 and a much
larger project in 2003 to track about 100 prison nursery babies from birth, throughout their stay in the nursery, and
through their first year outside of prison. Unfortunately she has not included recidivism in her study despite the
obvious fact that recidivism is an important factor in the child’s well-being because if the mother returns to prison,
her baby is separated from her yet again. Other studies do point to a lowering of recidivism but with an overall
explosion in the female prison population as a countervailing factor. What we do know however, is that such steps to
normalize life behind bars to that outside has led to the number of children with a mother in prison nearly doubling (up
98%) from 1991 to 1999.(U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Statistics 2000).
Worse, there has been a huge cost paid out by taxes on creating prison nurseries - which is the next logical step if the
Bradford Bill becomes law. Earlier this year prison authorities in California (following on from the experience in other
states like Nevada) opened the state's first prison nursery to cope with more than 300 babies this year alone.
What next? A supply of cribs, breast pumps, lullaby mobiles, and nursery rhyme books? It's all very well to shed a tear
for these mothers but we are in a danger of forgetting why they are in prison in the first place. Research shows that
having a parent in prison makes a child four times more likely to end up in prison someday. It's a vicious cycle that
won't be helped by making it easier by normalizing the opportunity to have those children in prison. Many who want such
changes, foreshadowed by the likes of Bradford, don't seem to understand that they are co-dependants of crime; they
inadvertently support more of the behaviors they try to change. Consider the real life experience of criminals like
Oleta Simmons, who is serving her fourth prison sentence having given birth to six children; three while being
incarcerated. She said that after each parole, "I did what I normally did on the outside…the babies aren't going to get
us clean," she said. "I have six kids and that didn't cure me."
The emphasis on prison family bonding and reunification to curb recidivism is overly optimistic. It’s a policy direction
that risks placing the desires and needs of mothers who are often unfit to assume that responsibility ahead of their
children's interests. It may be unpalatable for some but what may be good for incarcerated criminal moms is not
necessarily best for their babies.
There are some tough questions that demand to be asked and answered before we start passing fluffy feel good legislation
that will end up being counterproductive. For example, how is a practice of making prison life more like that outside
amongst the general population (minus the inconvenient need to work for a living), going to make society safer?
Frankly I'm sick to death of hearing the hue and cry of those who claim that some criminal - despite beating the
daylights out of someone during a bungled burglary - is still a good parent! No they're actually not a good parent any
more than they are a good citizen.
As a parent, I can only imagine how hard it must be to unwillingly part with your child but let's get real here: the
mothers Sue Bradford wants to help with her Bill chose to commit crimes for which they are now in prison. They have
no-one but themselves to blame. Some are violent, some are murderers; and they will get but a small taste of the pain
which their offending may have placed on their unwilling victims. What of them?
If this Bill passes into law it will be a cruel irony that a murdering criminal will get the opportunity to nurse and
bond with her child while having been put in prison for denying another mother and family the same joys of parenting.
That would be no justice at all. None for the victim or their family. Certainly none for the innocent baby who would be
better off being raised by a family who can care and love the child without the baggage and heritage of a criminal
parent.
Prison is where we send criminals. It is no place for babies.
ENDS