(Editor's Note: The following article was written by John A. Gray, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta. It was submitted to The Bulletin by Father Timothy J. Ondahl, Catholic Chaplain at the penitentiary.)

Is there really a dividing line between the first and the multiple offender? Among offenders themselves? We can't see any, except age in most cases. Yet, all programs and emphasis seem to place the needs and welfare of the first offender first. Is the multiple offender to be an outcast, a pariah? Are we no longer our brothers' keeper? Who can say why or when a man will decide to change, to no longer return to prison?

We all realize that "rehabilitation" is both an over-used and abused term. What the system needs is less "rehabilitation" and more "motivation." This would be a much more realistic approach, in the true sense of what is needed. A program of "motivation" would do away with the apathetic and despondent feelings that are caused by long prison terms. It would also be more economically feasible.

As an example, take the man who comes to prison with no formal education, no type of vocational or academic training, he is already ill-equipped to function in society. Instead of allowing him to lie dormant, waiting for his initial appearance before the Board of Parole (which may take a number of years), "motivate" him; give him that tool necessary to all mankind - hope!

When he first enters prison, have him psychologically and physiologically tested and evaluated. Then allow him to appear before a board, give him requirements he must meet in order to obtain his release and the goals he must attain in order to be again accepted as a useful and productive member of society. Gear the goals to the mental and physical abilities shown by the test results, making him know that the amount of time to be served is dependent on this.

All prison programs are implemented and administered by well-meaning individuals, who have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of what prison conditions, environment, or society really are. How can you explain prison to one who has never experienced it? The same way that you can explain seeing or colors to someone who was blind at birth -- you can’t!!

The point at which a person entering prison needs help and outside interest most, is when he enters prison, before the feelings of hopelessness, abandonment, and rejection takes its strongest hold; before the feeling of acceptance arises to blot reality. This is the time he needs to know that society has not completely cast him adrift and rejected him, that it does want him to return, ready to be a producing member.

The majority of outside programs are set up to help those who have already, or are about to make parole. This takes the form of housing, work, financial, or whatever help is needed. There is no denying the usefulness of these steps, as they also fill a need. The ones that are needed most are those that go into gear the day prison is first entered. Programs that will give a person home, not hopelessness, make them feel useful and not useless, and above all, desirous of being free, and remaining so.

Norman Carlson, Director of the Bureau of Prisons for the Federal Government, has been quoted as saying that "'rehabilitation,' as such, has failed, and that the word should be dropped from the Bureau terminology," has in fact made it policy. It has taken 30 years to have this become evident. The viable solution as put forth by Mr. Carlson, who does have a knowledge of prison functions, and an eminent Harvard professor of law, who has none, offer the alternative of definite sentences; meaning, with no good time, or time off, for any reason. This has the effect of placing the burden of responsibility on the courts. It is also a wonderful excuse to pass the blame and not have to explain why it took 30 years to find out that "rehabilitation programs" failed. Naturally, the other alternative they offer is, "build more prisons.” That was a proven a failure before "rehabilitation" was. Is this Murphy's Law, or the Peter Principle? Looking at this system of regression the next logical steps would be the dungeon, the rack, and hot irons, applied in a constructive manner, naturally.

Isn't it fantastic how far we've progressed? Police want to use armored vehicles, and dum-dum bullets in their guns, against the citizenry.

Instead of putting the funds in the hands of those who could put it to use constructively and realistically, it continues to be wasted. A recent article brought out the fact that there is practically no competent psychiatric or psychological help in the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the reason being the disparity of salaries between the Bureau and private practice or other agencies. If this be the case, put some of those funds allocated for dum-dum bullets, and armored vehicles into helping and building instead of destroying. State and local municipalities would have less need for enforcement grants if this were done.

The punishment of prison is the removal from home, family, and society; anything more is redundant. It is time for society as a whole to take a step back and take an objective view of the whole prison system, and those in charge of its administration, who can do no more than say that all that has been spent in over thirty years has been a waste, and offer no viable solution, except that of despots through history, harsher and crueler punishment.

The day that the only answer offered is no parole, no good time, who will step forward to assume responsibility for the resultant chaos? A person with nothing to look forward to is a person with nothing to lose. The earning of good time is in itself a deterrent. To take away the chance for a person to earn it would in itself be cruel, and inhumane, punishment. The system as it now stands is fraught with inadequacies, and inconsistencies, so how can you subtract form less than nothing?

Spend money realistically, to help and save, not to shoot and shun. Contrary to what the Bureau of Prisons thinks or professes, we are our brothers' keeper, and that does not mean keeper as meant in the Bureau policy, especially a policy that it took 30 years to find out it doesn’t work. A Bureau that in essence says, "There is no future, so let's return to the past." I believe in nostalgia, but that, I feel, is carrying it to the extreme. God help us if this is the most progressive and qualified leadership available.