In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Praying for Mom’s Freedom

An excerpt from what looks to be a tremendous book about children of incarcerated parents is featured in the San Francisco Chronicle. The story details the struggles of a young man whose mother is in prison; he’s just one of the 2.4 million American children who have an incarcerated parents.

Friday visits were Carl’s favorite. The prison held a “family day” in the yard and he could beat his mother at basketball, and show her his back flips. Sundays “hurt more than fire — knowing I had to leave at a certain time, and she’s not coming with me.” As the visiting hours drew to a close, Carl’s neck would begin to twitch, or he would find himself falling asleep, as if his body wanted to spare him the imminent parting. Often, Gleneisha would have to physically lead her older brother from the visiting room.

Christmas at FCI Dublin was particularly grueling. Each year there was a tree with presents below it, but beneath the bright paper, the boxes were empty. Carl remembers lining up to sit on the lap of the jailhouse Santa, who would ask each child what he wanted for Christmas. Carl would repeat the same answer he’d heard the children in front of him offer — he wanted his mother home. “You shoulda already knew that,” he would scoff as Santa handed him a candy cane, silently adding Santa Claus to the list of authorities who could no longer be trusted.

The United States has one of the highest incarcerations rates in the world, with few rehabilitative options and sentencing guidelines that often limit judges from imposing modified punishments. The “War on Drugs” and archaic drug laws in particular have packed prisons with often nonviolent criminals serving absurdly long sentences. New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws are a prime example of the racism and overzealousness that permeates the drug war; in other parts of the country, this can be seen pretty clearly in drug laws which require tougher penalties for crack cocaine than the powder version, despite the two being the same drug (the racism being that inner-city blacks tend to have higher crack cocaine usage, while more well-to-do whites are more likely to use powder cocaine).

Our incarceration culture has been hurting families for generations, and it’s not getting any better. Throwing drug users and small-time drug deals in jail isn’t helping anyone.

Thanks to Dad for sending me this story.

UPDATE: Sentencing Law and Policy, a great blog that my dad told me about (he’s really on top of it this week, huh?), has more from a recent AP story:

Women are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. prison population, a trend fueled by their growing involvement in drug crimes and by longer sentences in general. But once behind bars, their needs are often overlooked because of tight budgets and the attention given to sex offenders and death-row inmates, advocates say.

Prison and jail officials from around the country are to gather this weekend in Bloomington, Minnesota, to address the rising number of incarcerated women — more than 180,000 in prisons and jails nationwide, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics….

Since 1995, the number of women in state and federal prisons has swelled more than 50 percent, outstripping an increase of about 32 percent for men. Female jail populations are growing even faster.

Most are mothers. Between 66 and 90 percent have children, depending on the type of institution. When a mother is locked up, her children usually end up in foster care or living with a relative other than their father. By contrast, most children with imprisoned fathers stay with their mothers.


33 thoughts on Praying for Mom’s Freedom

  1. Pretty horrible to live in a culture where you can go to jail for life for doing drugs, but torturing prisoners only gets you three to ten years.

  2. The article also leaves out the part where Metz was part of a gang that distributed a metric ton of cocaine in New Orleans over nearly a decade. Oh, the humanity, that huge drug barons can get nailed by the Man. (From the appellate court’s review of her appeal: “Overwhelming evidence clearly demonstrated that appellant Danielle Metz was a prime force, and not just a passive presence, in the acquisition and distribution of large quantities of cocaine by the Metz organization”, followed by many citations of such. (Appellate document, which appears to be quite evenhanded, vacating many aspects of the convictions but upholding all but one of Danielle Metz’s, can be found here.)

    It is horrible that her kids have to go through this fire, but Metz is still pretending that she was a complete non-player in a minor drug bust. Her choices, her consequences.

  3. What’s also tragic is that the number of women incarcerated is increasing a an even higher rate than it is for men. Since we are the primary care givers for children, this is only going to exacerbate the problem.

    One thing I would like to see is prisoners being paid more for their labor, and if they have children, their earnings should be directed to the children and their caregivers. These corporations are making a killing hiring prisoners. I understand some of the money coulds be funneled into the room and board costs, but at least 3 or 4 dollars (at least) and hour should go to their children on the outside. That could keep from created a second generation of prisoners.

  4. Robert: I believe the whole point of this is that the consequences are not hers and hers alone.

    And 1 ton of coke over 10 years really doesn’t seem that much for a major metropolitan area. Even if it is, a triple life sentence just seems ridiculous to me – but then I’m very much a libertarian on this issue. It’s not like you need to force people to buy drugs. The demand is there, therefore it will be satisfied – that’s market forces for ya.

  5. I’m not a fan of the drug war, but here’s a novel idea: if parents don’t want to end up with lengthy prison terms and children that are de facto orphans, maybe they shouldn’t commit major felonies.

  6. The gang that Danielle was allegedly helping run also trafficked in firearms and committed murders. Her defense seems to be that she didn’t know what her husband did for a living, was targeted by the DEA for refusing to give up information that she didn’t have, and that she got framed at trial by shady witnesses bought off by the prosecution. One of them testified that Danielle gave him $350,000-$400,000 in cash.

    Witnesses do lie and I can see how an innocent young mother could get caught up in this sort of mess. But the question here is really one of guilt or innocence, not whether she’s been disproportionately sentenced for some trivial, non-violent offense. If she was making huge cash payoffs and directing drug deliveries over a period of years, there’s a strong argument that she shouldn’t be raising children, even if rehabilitation rather than prison is the answer.

  7. Hey, you left out the most important part where God flew in and brought peace and justice to Carl.

    Heh.

    Is this your problem, RA? You’ve never advanced spiritually beyond the level of a three-year-old?

    There are lots of different answers to that famous question, “Why does [the Great Pumpkin] allow bad things to happen?”

    My favorite theologians answer it with a question themselves:
    “Why do we allow bad things to happen?”

  8. I’m not a fan of the drug war, but here’s a novel idea: if parents don’t want to end up with lengthy prison terms and children that are de facto orphans, maybe they shouldn’t commit major felonies.

    Would they not be miserable enough if their children were allowed more contact with them? If I were an eight-year-old, I’d have some trouble respecting the generous authority of any state that took my Mommy away.

  9. this your problem, RA? You’ve never advanced spiritually beyond the level of a three-year-old?

    Why, no, Piny, I was just surprised that she left out the very point of the story: Carl’s “deepening relationship with a complex God,” a God that took away all of his pain and will bring justice in the end. Perhaps children of incarcerated children should start a church where they celebrate the imprisonment and the sort of rewards it brings.

  10. The United States has one of the highest incarcerations rates in the world, with few rehabilitative options and sentencing guidelines that often limit judges from imposing modified punishments.

    I worked for California DC in a medical capacity for 10 years. While no fan of ridiculous sentencing for small-timers, this is still the exception to the rule of hardened criminals with unbelievably lengthy rap sheets. Also, “rehabilitation options” are a farce as I probably met a handful of inmates over the years who had any inkling toward “normal productive citizen”. This is more tripe to make the public feel guilty about the kids who have miserably irresponsible parents. A tragedy to be sure, but not a reason to release “Mommy” (a misnomer in my opinion).

  11. It is ashamed that even in this age a human being cannot do with their own bodies what they choose to do, and it is an even bigger shame that the government punishes those with the same punishment given to dangerous felons

  12. Laws are a prime example of the racism and overzealousness that permeates the drug war; in other parts of the country, this can be seen pretty clearly in drug laws which require tougher penalties for crack cocaine than the powder version, despite the two being the same drug (the racism being that inner-city blacks tend to have higher crack cocaine usage, while more well-to-do whites are more likely to use powder cocaine).

    This isn’t racism. Crack cocaine is more addictive and harmful than powder cocaine, thus the penalties for possessing and selling it are higher.

    What’s also tragic is that the number of women incarcerated is increasing a an even higher rate than it is for men. Since we are the primary care givers for children, this is only going to exacerbate the problem.

    How do you think this problem should be solved? Should mothers be given more lenient sentances?

    Would they not be miserable enough if their children were allowed more contact with them? If I were an eight-year-old, I’d have some trouble respecting the generous authority of any state that took my Mommy away.

    Perhaps if Mommy really cared about her children, she wouldn’t be selling drugs. Even after she gets out of prison, she shouldn’t be raising children.

  13. Perhaps if Mommy really cared about her children, she wouldn’t be selling drugs. Even after she gets out of prison, she shouldn’t be raising children.

    For better or for worse, she is their mother. They know her as their mother. They want and miss contact with her, and their emotional wellbeing is adversely affected by a lack of contact with her. There are no late-season replacements in this scenario; there won’t be. They either have her, or they are motherless.

  14. “This isn’t racism. Crack cocaine is more addictive and harmful than powder cocaine, thus the penalties for possessing and selling it are higher.”

    Oh, that’s must be why the penalty for having an ounce of sticky-icky is higher than if you get caught with an ounce of dirt weed.

  15. Hey Andrew,
    I suggested at least one thing that I think should be done to these women (and men) who are locked up. Let them funnel the money they make while engaging in prison labor to their children. Right now it’s the companies that clean up from this. What you’re missing is that these children are suffering thrugh no fault of their own, which is going to make them muh more likely to end up in the same place as their parents. I don’t know about you, but I would like less crime, not more.

    And your point about crack vs powder cocaine is way off. That’s like saying water and ice are not the same thing. Crack and powder cocaine are essentially the same thing in two differnt forms. Don’t let the media fool you.

  16. I see the book banners preparing their arguments for keeping this volume off school and library shelves.

    Jon C: If the War on Drugs is a bad thing, why are you supporting this or any other nonviolent prosecution in its name? You sound like a shingle blowing in the wind, wanting to go both ways.

    Street drugs are a social problem which cannot be fixed by draconian measures. For the individual, it is a health problem. Speaking as one who is bipolar and who knows bipolars who have been “misdiagnosed” by the police as meth addicts, I would prefer that we end the War on Drugs because innocent people get beat up. (“Ah, sorry Ms. Hamster. We thought you were on crack, so we beat you up.” That happens more than you realize.)

    I don’t want law enforcement getting involved in medical issues. That is my reason for opposing the War on Drugs. We’re losing it for the same reasons we’re losing Iraq: the government shouldn’t be there and the military/police have no real clue how to treat it. The high school graduates should ~step aside~ and let the doctors and nurses do ~their~ jobs.

  17. Joel: Like I said, I’m more or less with you on the wisdom of the drug war. Believe it when I say no one was rooting harder against the government’s case in Gonzales v. Raich than me. (For the record, it was the court’s liberal wing in that case, plus Scalia to his discredit, which gave the okay to the prosecution of two dying women who used home-grown marijuana for medical purposes.)

    My point is this: do we have a flawed system? Yes, we do. But there comes a point when no matter how flawed the system is, you have to take personal responsibility. It was this woman’s choice to peddle a ton of coke (literally) and to hang with gun-runners and killers. I don’t see that as a “medical” issue, and unlike some others in this thread, it gives me some pause as to whether that’s the kind of person who should be allowed to influence the lives of her young, impressionable children.

  18. For better or for worse, she is their mother. They know her as their mother. They want and miss contact with her, and their emotional wellbeing is adversely affected by a lack of contact with her. There are no late-season replacements in this scenario; there won’t be. They either have her, or they are motherless.

    So are you suggesting that mothers should be given lenient sentances?

    And your point about crack vs powder cocaine is way off. That’s like saying water and ice are not the same thing. Crack and powder cocaine are essentially the same thing in two differnt forms. Don’t let the media fool you.

    No, they aren’t the same thing. Crack cocaine is more addictive and is connected to more violent crime than powder cocaine. These are the reasons why Congress chose to penalize crack cocaine possession heavier than powder cocaine possession. Congress didn’t do this to be “racist.”

    And I didn’t let the media fool me. The media doesn’t point out why crack cocaine is heavily penalized. Instead it spouts out PC garbage about how drug laws are “racist” because they affect a disproportionate amount of black people.

  19. Oh, that’s must be why the penalty for having an ounce of sticky-icky is higher than if you get caught with an ounce of dirt weed.

    Really? I didn’t think prosecutors could tell sticky-icky from Mexican commercial. I figured they just charged you with “marijunana possession” and that was it.

    Maybe I better hurry and finish this zone of Northern Lights x9 from Sagarmatha. But…I just don’t feel like doing anything too fast right now.

    Hehehe.

  20. Jon C: First, there’s doubt about the facts of the case as others have pointed out.

    Second, given the state of the foster children program, can the kids be seen as so much better off with this “horrible” mother than with foster parents?

    Third, why are we men discussing it? I don’t even have children!

  21. Third, why are we men discussing it? I don’t even have children!

    What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that your opinions on this topic, or your right to express them, would somehow be different if we were talking about a man and not a woman? The plaintiffs in Raich were women too. Am I allowed to have an opinion on that case?

  22. So are you suggesting that mothers should be given lenient sentances?

    No, I’m suggesting that it’s just a wee bit callous and beside the point to complain about her being a better mother. She’s the only one they’ve got, and she’s not replaceable. They’ve formed a specific attachment to the women who gave birth to them and raised them, and only contact with those women will begin to help with the feelings of loss.

    As far as lenient, I’m not sure, but I don’t see any overwhelming interest on the part of the state that would keep these children from having more, and more stable, contact with their mothers. It’s not as if the lengthy prison sentence would be less of a deterrent in any meaningful way.

  23. They’ve formed a specific attachment to the women who gave birth to them and raised them, and only contact with those women will begin to help with the feelings of loss.

    Let’s explore where this reasoning goes, if taken to its logical conclusion. Are you in favor, Piny, of allowing the children of an Andrea Yates-type murderer extensive access to their mother, on the theory that she’s the only mom they’ve got? If no, then you recognize that there are times that exposure to a convicted felon mother can cause more harm than good, and your argument is only so much touchy-feely liberal pap. If yes, then I’d say you’re just being unrealistic and naive, to put it mildly.

  24. Are you in favor, Piny, of allowing the children of an Andrea Yates-type murderer extensive access to their mother, on the theory that she’s the only mom they’ve got? If no, then you recognize that there are times that exposure to a convicted felon mother can cause more harm than good, and your argument is only so much touchy-feely liberal pap.

    You’re not taking my argument to its conclusion. You’re introducing an extreme scenario without much in common with this one. You seem to think that mothers like this should not have more contact with their children, but I haven’t accused you of wanting moms with speeding tickets apprehended by child protective services.

    In cases like Andrea Yates, absolutely. But first of all, the children in the article and most children in this situation have some contact with her now, just not enough to make them feel as though their mother is part of their lives. Second of all, she’s neither a murderer nor someone who’s had a psychotic break; no one is arguing that she poses physical harm to her children, or that they would be exposed to emotional harm merely by supervised contact with her.

    Third, that’s not what Andrew was arguing, and it doesn’t seem to be the position of the state. She hasn’t been removed to protect them, but to punish her, and, indirectly, her children. Andrew’s “she should have thought of that before she went to prison/we should take her kids away even when she’s released” does absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand: a bunch of kids who see their mothers just often enough to feel like orphans.

  25. You’re introducing an extreme scenario without much in common with this one.

    That’s right; it’s called reductio ad absurdum, and I’m glad it got you to partially concede the point I was trying to make.

    As to the rest of your argument, I guess we just we have to agree to disagree about whether this woman should be expected to bear any sort of personal responsibility and whether it’s her actions or the state’s that have done the most harm to her children.

  26. That’s right; it’s called reductio ad absurdum, and I’m glad it got you to partially concede the point I was trying to make.

    I know what a reductio ad absurdum is, thanks. It works much better when your opponent initially disagrees with the point you’re attempting to make. On the contrary, I never argued that every mother should have access to her children, or that every child is better off in contact with his or her mother. I argued that these children have these mothers, and that it’s pointless to wish them into better mothers now. Again, Andrew was refusing to engage with the situation as it stands.

    As to the rest of your argument, I guess we just we have to agree to disagree about whether this woman should be expected to bear any sort of personal responsibility and whether it’s her actions or the state’s that have done the most harm to her children.

    For fuck’s sake. This is absurd. Of course I don’t disagree that she bears responsibility for not being a drug dealer. Of course I don’t disagree that it’s harmful to one’s children to become a drug dealer, or to engage in illegal activities that cause one to be thrown in prison. I disagree with the idea that it is just or constructive for the state to make a prison sentence that is already lengthy and onerous even more punitive when the price is the misery of this woman’s children.

  27. No, I’m suggesting that it’s just a wee bit callous and beside the point to complain about her being a better mother. She’s the only one they’ve got, and she’s not replaceable. They’ve formed a specific attachment to the women who gave birth to them and raised them, and only contact with those women will begin to help with the feelings of loss.

    The woman profiled in this article, Danielle Metz, is currently serving three life sentances. Do you really think she’d be a good mother? So what if her children formed a specific attachment to her, she’s still a criminal who, while maybe shouldn’t be locked up for three life sentances, should be locked up for a very long time and should not be in contact with children. The article says that Metz’s son wants to be a rapper and appear on BET. It seems that his mother has influenced him pretty badly – he’s probably going to end up serving three life sentances himself.

    As far as lenient, I’m not sure, but I don’t see any overwhelming interest on the part of the state that would keep these children from having more, and more stable, contact with their mothers. It’s not as if the lengthy prison sentence would be less of a deterrent in any meaningful way.

    The meaningful interest on the part of the state is that incarcerated mothers are criminals. Just because they have children doesn’t mean they should be treated lightly. And maybe we should keep these kids away from their criminal mothers so they don’t follow their mothers’ bad examples. Also, if lengthy prison sentances aren’t deterrants, then shouldn’t we just sentance all criminals to just a year in jail? And do you think that fathers should be treated leniently as well or just mothers?

    Piny, you (and the author of this article) seem to think that these mothers in prison are victims. Do you know any police officers, parole officers, or others involved in the criminal justice system? Because if bleeding hearts like you and the author of this article did and talked to them, you would find out that the people they deal with are not nice people and definitely are not victims.

  28. The woman profiled in this article, Danielle Metz, is currently serving three life sentances. Do you really think she’d be a good mother? So what if her children formed a specific attachment to her, she’s still a criminal who, while maybe shouldn’t be locked up for three life sentances, should be locked up for a very long time and should not be in contact with children. The article says that Metz’s son wants to be a rapper and appear on BET. It seems that his mother has influenced him pretty badly – he’s probably going to end up serving three life sentances himself.

    Oh, no! Not…a rapper! Not BET! He clearly wants to deal drugs just like his mom!

    They are already in some contact with their mothers–just enough to feel abandoned. Given that the only contact they would have with them would be in the prison where they are serving their sentences for the crimes they’ve committed, I doubt very much that these kids will fail to get the message that committing crimes has real consequences. These incarcerated mothers will not be responsible for their care or for their moral upbringing; they will merely be providing them with contact with the only parents they’ve ever known–parents they miss very much.

    The meaningful interest on the part of the state is that incarcerated mothers are criminals. Just because they have children doesn’t mean they should be treated lightly. And maybe we should keep these kids away from their criminal mothers so they don’t follow their mothers’ bad examples. Also, if lengthy prison sentances aren’t deterrants, then shouldn’t we just sentance all criminals to just a year in jail? And do you think that fathers should be treated leniently as well or just mothers?

    You misread what I wrote. I did not say that lengthy prison sentences were not deterrents. Precisely the opposite: I said that a lengthy prison sentence is enough of a deterrent that the state has no interest in adding the additional penalty of less contact with one’s children than is in their interests. A woman serving three life sentences is not being treated lightly. Extra supervised contact with children during a lengthy and onerous prison term will not cause drug dealers to fear the law less. And of course fathers should also have additional supervised contact with their children–why should the same rules not apply to them?

    Piny, you (and the author of this article) seem to think that these mothers in prison are victims. Do you know any police officers, parole officers, or others involved in the criminal justice system? Because if bleeding hearts like you and the author of this article did and talked to them, you would find out that the people they deal with are not nice people and definitely are not victims.

    Bleeding heart, blue-state elitist….You never tire of putting moral positions in my mouth, do you?

    Where in anything I’ve written have you seen any implication that these mothers are victims, or indeed much active interest in their wellbeing? I care about the children involved. It is wrong to hurt them when there is no reason on the part of the state to do so. They suffer because of the unstable, infrequent contact with their parents.

  29. Carl attributed this change to his deepening relationship with a complex God — one who could be counted on ultimately to provide justice, but also, in the interim, to make injustice tolerable. Ever since he came to understand Danielle’s sentence, Carl said, he had been praying not only for his mother’s liberation but also for his own; for God to lift the pain that kept him locked inside his room. Soon after his eighteenth birthday, that latter prayer was answered. He was watching BET when it occurred to him that he had allowed himself to become so absorbed in the videos that he forgot, for a moment, about the absence of his mother.

    “God is real,” he told me. “I know God so real, ’cause everything I be asking for, I get it. I used to ask Him to take it off my mind a little bit, and He took it off my mind a lot, where I could focus on what I had to do, and it didn’t really hurt as bad. I don’t cry no more. I just know what I gotta do.”

    Carl’s voice took on the same rhapsodic tone his mother’s had when he spoke of his conviction that he would win her freedom. “Just keep rapping. That’s the key. I know that’s what’s going to bring her home. I been feeling strongly about it, but now I’m feeling stronger than ever.”

    …Yeah, he’s a thug, all right.

Comments are currently closed.