Locked Away

By the time Jason Hernandez got out of prison, his son had become a stranger.

When Hernandez was found guilty of selling drugs in 1998, his son—also named Jason—was 6 months old. Though Hernandez’s crime was nonviolent, federal laws required a sentence of life in prison without parole, plus 320 years.

At first, Hernandez saw Jason on visits. But then Hernandez was sent to a prison hundreds of miles from where his son lived in McKinney, Texas. The visits, and all communication, stopped. 

In 2013, Hernandez got an extraordinary second chance. 

Then-President Barack Obama commuted, or shortened, his sentence. But his homecoming was not what he had imagined. Jason didn’t call him “Dad.” He didn’t respond when Hernandez said, “I love you.”

“I missed his first steps, his first words,” says Hernandez, 40, of Jason, now 19. “There’s just so much you can never get back.”

Hernandez and his son are hardly alone in dealing with the long-term effects of incarceration. Today, about 2.3 million people are behind bars in the United States, compared with 500,000 just 30 years ago. 

By the time Jason Hernandez got out of prison, his son had become a stranger.

Hernandez was found guilty of selling drugs in 1998. At the time, his son, also named Jason, was 6 months old. Hernandez’s crime was non­violent, but federal laws required a sentence of life in prison without parole, plus 320 years.

At first, Hernandez saw Jason on visits. But then Hernandez was sent to a prison hundreds of miles from where his son lived in McKinney, Texas. The visits, and all communication, stopped. 

In 2013, Hernandez got a very unusual second chance. Then-­President Barack Obama shortened his sentence. But returning home was not as Hernandez had imagined it would be. Jason didn’t call him “Dad.” He didn’t respond when Hernandez said, “I love you.”

“I missed his first steps, his first words,” says Hernandez, 40, of Jason, now 19. “There’s just so much you can never get back.”

Hernandez and his son are not alone in dealing with the long-term effects of incarceration. Today, about 2.3 million people are behind bars in the United States. Just 30 years ago, only 500,000 were.

This surge in the prison population, known as mass incarceration, occurred even as crime rates declined. It was fueled, experts say, by policies and laws that led to more arrests, higher conviction rates, and longer prison sentences. These changes have particularly affected people of color, who are locked up at much higher rates than whites.

Our prison system costs $80 billion annually. But the consequences go beyond dollar amounts, says Nazgol Ghandnoosh of the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit that advocates for reform. Sending so many people to prison for long periods “has such ripple effects for their families and communities,” she says.

Many experts, law enforcement officials, and politicians—both Democrats and Republicans—now agree that mass incarceration is a problem. Federal and state lawmakers have taken steps to lower the prison population, but achieving significant reform will not be easy.

This surge in the prison population is known as mass incarceration. It occurred even as crime rates were going down. Expert say it was fueled by policies and laws that led to more arrests, higher conviction rates, and longer prison sentences. Those changes have particularly affected people of color, who are locked up at much higher rates than whites.

Our prison system costs $80 ­billion a year. But the effects go beyond dollar amounts, says Nazgol Ghandnoosh of the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit that supports reforms. Sending so many people to prison for long periods “has such ripple effects for their families and communities,” she says.

Many experts, law enforcement officials, and politicians—both Democrats and Republicans—now agree that mass incarceration is a problem. Federal and state law­makers have taken steps to lower the prison population. But achieving major reform will not be easy.

America has 5 percent of the world’s population yet 25 percent of its prisoners. How did this happen? It’s because of “decades of systematic changes in laws,” says criminologist Todd Clear of Rutgers University in New Jersey.

The roots of mass incarceration go back to the mid-1960s, when crime began to rise in the U.S. Experts link this to factors such as the post-World War II baby boom. By the mid-1960s, there was a surge in the number of Americans in their late teens and early 20s—the age group that commits the most crimes.

Lawmakers responded by shifting the focus of criminal justice to punishing, rather than rehabilitating, criminals. The use and severity of prison sentences increased. Arrests and convictions for drug offenses shot up. This trend continued into the 1980s and early ’90s as the use of the drug crack cocaine turned into an epidemic.

As politicians vowed to “get tough” on crime, Congress and most states passed what are known as mandatory minimum sentencing laws. These laws require lengthy prison terms for certain offenses, mostly drug crimes. Many states also passed “three strikes and you’re out” laws that automatically give most third-time offenders 25-years-to-life sentences for their convictions.

The strict policies were meant to discourage potential criminals. But research now suggests that criminals are deterred more by the risk of being caught than by the severity of the possible punishment.

The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population yet 25 percent of its prisoners. How did this happen? It’s because of “decades of systematic changes in laws,” says Todd Clear of Rutgers University in New Jersey. He is a criminologist (someone who studies crime and law enforcement).

The roots of mass incarceration go back to the mid-1960s. That is when crime began to rise in the U.S. One of the things experts link this rise to is the baby boom following World War II. By the mid-1960s, there was a surge in the number of Americans in their late teens and early 20s—the age group that commits the most crimes.

Lawmakers responded by shifting the focus of criminal justice from rehabilitating criminals to punishing them. The use and severity of prison sentences increased. Arrests and convictions for drug offenses shot up. This trend continued into the 1980s and early 1990s as the use of crack cocaine (an illegal drug) turned into an epidemic.

Politicians vowed to “get tough” on crime, and Congress and most states passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Such laws require lengthy prison terms for certain offenses, mostly drug crimes. Many states also passed “three strikes and you’re out” laws. They require that most third-time offenders be sentenced to 25-years-to-life.

These strict policies were meant to discourage people from committing crimes. But research now suggests that criminals are held back more by the risk of getting caught than by the severity of the possible punishment.

Who’s locked up in America today? Prisoners are typically poorly educated minority men under age 40, according to a 2014 report by the National Research Council, a nonprofit that serves as an adviser to the federal government. Many suffer from mental illness or addiction.

Though African-Americans and Hispanics make up about 30 percent of the general population, they account for 60 percent of prisoners. Part of that imbalance is due to differences in crime rates. For example, blacks commit certain violent crimes at higher rates than other groups.

But racial bias also plays a role. “We use the criminal justice system very unevenly,” says Ghandnoosh. Research has found that, for similar offenses, blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be stopped and searched, arrested, convicted, and given longer sentences.

Who is locked up in America today? Prisoners tend to be poorly educated minority men under age 40, according to a 2014 report by the National Research Council, a nonprofit that serves as an adviser to the federal government. Many inmates suffer from mental illness or addiction.

African-Americans and Hispanics make up about 30 percent of the general population. However, they account for 60 percent of prisoners. Part of that imbalance is due to differences in crime rates. For example, blacks commit certain violent crimes at higher rates than other groups.

But racial prejudice also plays a role. “We use the criminal justice system very unevenly,” says Ghandnoosh. Research has found that, for similar offenses, blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, and given longer sentences.

For people behind bars, the consequences last well beyond their sentences. Studies show that former prisoners have a harder time finding jobs and housing, and earn less than their counterparts without a criminal record. These obstacles can lead some people to relapse into criminal behavior after their release.

The families of inmates suffer too. (See “My Dad Is in Prison.”) For children, having a parent in prison is a “stressful, traumatic experience,” according to a 2016 report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a child welfare organization.

Kids with incarcerated parents are more likely to grow up in poverty. The costs of court-related fees, collect phone calls from prison, and travel to visit their loved ones leave many families in debt. 

For people behind bars, the effects last well beyond their sentences. Studies show that former prisoners have a harder time finding jobs and housing. They also earn less than people without a criminal record. These obstacles can lead some ­people to fall back into criminal behavior after their release.

The families of inmates suffer too. (See “My Dad Is in Prison.”) For children, having a parent in prison is a “stressful, traumatic experience,” according to a 2016 report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a child welfare organization.

Kids with incarcerated parents are more likely to grow up in ­poverty. The costs of court-related fees, collect phone calls from prison, and travel to visit their loved ones leave many families in debt.

Has mass incarceration made us safer? Overall, crime has fallen to near-historic lows in the past two decades. (The murder rate rose 11 percent between 2014 and 2015, but it is still far below the 1990s rate.)

Yet some experts say that the increase in incarceration is unlikely to have played a large role in crime reduction. Instead, they credit the decline to factors such as new policing techniques and an aging population. (The risk of criminal behavior tends to decline with age.)

A growing feeling that mass incarceration is costly and ineffective has led some people to seek alternatives.

Ronal Serpas, a former police chief in New Orleans, heads a group of law enforcement leaders who support criminal justice reform. “We believe that you can reduce crime and incarceration at the same time,” he says. “We just need to focus on arresting the right people, the dangerous people.”

To that end, the group has called for changing laws that require police to arrest and jail the mentally ill and low-level drug offenders.

Rethinking the way we deal with nonviolent offenders is a start, reform advocates say. But to significantly reduce the prison population, the U.S. would need to go further. Advocates push for electing reform-minded prosecutors, making it easier for prisoners to gain parole, and shortening sentences for some violent criminals.

Has mass incarceration made us safer? Overall, crime has fallen to near-historic lows in the past two decades. (The murder rate rose 11 percent between 2014 and 2015, but it is still far below the 1990s rate.)

Yet some experts say it is unlikely that the increase in incarceration played a large role in reducing crime. Instead, they credit the lower crime rate to new policing techniques and an aging population, among other things. (The risk of criminal ­behavior tends to go down with age.)

A growing feeling that mass ­incarceration is costly and ineffective has led some people to seek other ways of handling crime and punishment.

Ronal Serpas is a former police chief in New Orleans. He heads a group of law enforcement leaders who support criminal justice reform. “We believe that you can reduce crime and incarceration at the same time,” he says. “We just need to focus on arresting the right people, the dangerous people.”

That is why the group has called for changing laws that now require police to arrest and jail the mentally ill and low-level drug offenders.

Rethinking the way we deal with nonviolent offenders is a start, say people who support reform. But to significantly reduce the prison population, the U.S. would need to go further. Proposals include electing reform-minded prosecutors, ­making it easier for prisoners to gain parole, and shortening sentences for some violent criminals.

Faced with overcrowded prisons, a majority of states have now passed measures aimed at lowering incarceration rates. In the past decade, 27 states have managed to decrease both crime and imprisonment.

Reform has gained less momentum on the federal level. Last year, a bipartisan bill to reduce mandatory minimums stalled in Congress. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama—who President Donald Trump has nominated to be attorney general—was one of the legislation’s most vocal critics. 

“The wise approach is to slow down and evaluate the trends before accelerating prison population decline,” Sessions said, citing the recent rise in murders. (Trump has pledged to create a violent crime task force to examine the rise.)

Others also see potential problems in releasing prisoners. Ronald E. Teachman, a former police chief in Indiana, says inmates rarely receive the job skills training they need to succeed upon release. 

“People come out of prison hardened and angry and more likely to offend [again],” he told The New York Times.

Jason Hernandez can attest that starting over isn’t easy. He is now working and mending his relationship with his son. But the years he spent in a cell, and all the people still serving time, are never far from his mind. 

“There are some bad people in prison,” he says. “But I know there’s some people in there who deserve a second chance.” 

Faced with overcrowded prisons, a majority of states have now passed measures aimed at lowering incarceration rates. In the past decade, 27 states have managed to decrease both crime and imprisonment.

Reform has gained less momentum on the federal level. Last year, a bipartisan bill to reduce mandatory minimums stalled in Congress. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was one of the legislation’s most vocal critics. President Donald Trump has nominated Sessions to be the U.S. ­attorney general.

“The wise approach is to slow down and evaluate the trends before accelerating prison population decline,” Sessions said, pointing to the recent rise in murders. (Trump has pledged to create a violent crime task force to examine the rise.)

Others also see potential problems in releasing prisoners. Ronald E. Teachman, a former police chief in Indiana, says inmates rarely receive training in the job skills they need to succeed upon release. 

“People come out of prison hardened and angry and more likely to offend [again],” he told The New York Times.

Jason Hernandez knows that start­ing over isn’t easy. He is now working and mending his relationship with his son. But the years he spent in a cell, and all the people still serving time, are never far from his mind.

“There are some bad people in prison,” he says. “But I know there’s some people in there who deserve a second chance.”