The Logic Behind Reevaluating Natural Life Sentences
Jennifer Lackey’s engrossing article, The Irrationality of Natural Life Sentences, is a philosophical critique of the existing judicial policy to incarcerate a convicted offender indefinitely, in light of the fact many prisoners in the United States are facing natural life sentences. A natural life sentence, while typically reserved for individuals convicted of serious crimes, is a conviction requiring the offender to spend the remainder of his or her life as a warden of the state, without any hope for parole. Within the article, Lackey tactfully argues that these types of sentences are an illogical and unnecessarily cruel form of punishment. From an epistemological standpoint, it is impossible to justify that an offender should spend the rest of his or her natural life in prison as a result of one verdict, regardless of the gravity of the crime.
Lackey begins deconstructing the logic behind natural life sentences by revealing the reality that crime is typically indulged in by the young. On page 2 of the article, she presents statistical evidence elaborating on how very few people past the point of middle age are accused or convicted of serious crimes. Juveniles and young adults face a much higher risk of receiving a felony conviction. Lackey attributes these statistics to the existing knowledge that young people are still developing the portion of their brain that governs impulse control. Youths, especially those under the age of eighteen, are much more likely to make reckless and even dangerous decisions without properly considering the imminent consequences of such behavior. Older individuals are known to show more reserve in regards to decision making as can be seen with the low rate of recidivism amongst convicted offenders over the age of sixty. Ironically, prisons are filled with countless elderly inmates who were issued natural life sentences for foolish decisions made during the follies of their youth. Lackey pinpoints the illogic of continually punishing an elderly person for a crime he or she committed as a hotheaded adolescent. There is no logical way to prove a particular offender will remain a consistent threat to society for the rest of his or her life. Lackey insists even the most brutal offenders are capable of constructive change. In the last paragraph of her article, she lists numerous achievements made by the inmates she had worked with in one of Chicago’s maximum-security prisons. Many of these prisoners were serving natural life sentences, but these men were also talented writers, mentors to younger inmates, and advocates of education. Nevertheless, aside from uncovering new evidence to grant official appeal, there are few efforts these inmates could undertake that could eventually earn them a release from prison. Lackey sees natural life sentences as an obviously irrational proviso within the prison system, especially considering most prisons are affiliated with the concept of rehabilitation. All incentive encouraging an offender to reform his or herself is destroyed by removing that individual’s root hope of ever being reintegrated into free society.
Lackey sees efforts toward rehabilitation as evidence that some natural life sentence convictions could be reconsidered within the scrutiny of the law in light of an individual inmate’s progress. On pages 3 and 4 of the article, she draws attention to the illogic of denying any possibility of parole to inmates who actively make an effort to better themselves while incarcerated. As a philosophy professor, Lackey cites her experiences teaching at both universities and maximum-security prisons. She was not surprised to encounter intelligent and dedicated students at both institutions. Convicted murderers and gang members at the Statesville Correction Center were just as capable and eager to participate in class discussions as the students enrolled in Lackey’s classes at Northwestern University, though many of these men would never be released from prison. Lackey’s fruitful involvement with the inmates at Statesville prison acts as a logical indication that any human being, including a felon facing the direst of circumstances, has the potential to make the conscience choice to better one’s self. The philosophy behind the very notion of a natural life sentence fundamentally debunks any progress an inmate makes while serving their term as incidental and unworthy of official consideration. Even the actual time the inmate serves behind bars, often decades of confinement, is overlooked as suitable recompense for certain crimes. Lackey argues it is unreasonable to punish an individual indefinitely for an offense committed during a specific period in that person’s life, especially the person’s adolescence. Judicial officials need to consider that some convictions may be the result of unique circumstances, young people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of the natural life sentence prisoners at Statesville were convicted as juveniles. These inmates have grown older and wiser, but remain forever isolated from society for wrongdoings they committed as angry, insubordinate youths.
In addition to siting these experiences, Lackey strengthens her position further by drawing focus to the utter absurdity of allowing one isolated judgment to determine the definitive fate of an individual’s life. On pages 4 and 5 of the article, she draws her argument to a convincing close by revealing the illogic of perceiving one bad decision as justification of permanent culpability, explicitly imprisonment. Lackey makes a solid comparison with the institution of marriage. Divorce is recognized and legal to accommodate the fact that many married couples, though once faithful and devoted to one another, often have an unfortunate change of heart. Society does not see it as justifiable to forcibly bind a man to his ex-wife just because the couple enthusiastically exchanged wedding vows when they were young and impulsive. It would be cruel and unusual to force a man and a woman who have grown to despise one another to continue to go through the motions of married life. Logically, certain events can transpire during the course of a marriage that justify a separation. Society allows certain life-binding decisions to be reexamined out of sheer dignity for the individuals involved. Like marriage, incarceration is an experience that changes an individual’s life, for better or worse. It is erroneous to presume a veteran convict is in any way comparable to his or her younger self after serving several years in a maximum-security prison. If an inmate has used his or her time in prison wisely, it cannot be seen as logical to continue to punish them.
Philosophy professor Jennifer Lackey’s article, The Irrationality of Natural Life Sentences, dismantles the justification of issuing life sentences to extreme lawbreakers considering the current prison system is filled with inmates who have displayed a clear desire and ability to change for the better. The sheer lack of criminal offenses committed by people past a certain age as well as existing knowledge about brain development and impulse control illustrate the world of crime as a young man’s game. Lackey’s direct interaction with numerous inmates facing natural life sentences showed her firsthand that a conviction does not accurately define the sum of a person’s individual potential. Legal severances of lifelong binding agreements, such as divorce, prove human beings are subject to making serious choices on impulse, and can eventually come to regret these commitments. As she reiterates on page 3 of the article, human beings, including judges, are currently unable to see the future. Accordingly, no human being should be in a position to hold another human being permanently culpable for any criminality. In logic, everything should eventually be open to reinvestigation.
Work Cited
Lackey, Jennifer. “The Irrationality of Natural Life Sentences.” New York Times 01 Feb
2016 late ed.: A1. Print.
