Behind the Bars: Exploring the U.S Incarceration System

Mike Destefano

ENGL 210

Ms. Rodwell

Due 10/14/25

Lights off- except for his purple wall lights and my lamp. Both of us felt comfortable that way. The real light was in our heads, thinking about the interview we were about to immerse ourselves in. After all, my informant, who goes by the name of Charlie, loves the world of politics and reform. Coming from a high income, African American cultural background, he’s witnessed financial privilege and racial oppression. While many people fall into party lines, like his family, Charlie, however, is an Independent- which allows him to see both Democratic and Republican views about the system, and based on his own research, come up with his own conclusions. In this interview, we explored the U.S. incarceration system, discussing his perspectives on its flaws and the adjustments he believes could improve it.

 When asking him about a big thing he wanted people to understand about the topic we discussed, the US Incarceration system, he thought for a second, but there was a simple way to put it: “It is not fair.” The system is less fair to the less fortunate, financially, and also unfair to the non-White populations in the system. If anything, he believes race plays more of a factor than politics. Black people are charged more harshly, and their bails are set higher, for pettier offenses. He sees the financial inequalities vividly, being from a high income family, but this hasn’t desensitized him from understanding racial discrimination he or others may face. He realizes that money, while it is a shield outside, race would more likely dictate outcome in prison. He, himself, gets looks outside when he hops into his Audi, as if financial prosperity is exclusive to white people, as if, as he says laughing, “black people can’t own nice cars”. That alone shows that even outside of prison, society imposes assumptions that simply leak into the incarceration system. 

We moved on to talking about punishment, and possible rehabilitation. This was something that was talked a lot about, not only because his ideas were specific, but also because he is in fact a firm believer of rehabilitation. Certain crimes warrant certain  punishments, and for murderers, he believed the death penalty should be utilized. I asked him if he was a fan of an “eye for an eye” theory, and without too much thought, he said yes. He then went into more detail, specifying certain crimes and what punishment he deemed were fit for those injustices. For people that commit rape, he deemed raping them in return was the acceptable punishment. In his eyes, them seeing and feeling the same crime they made someone else feel was the only acceptable form of retribution. Coming from an all republican household could be an influence to these ideas, though he actually denies it, seemingly wanting to not be associated with any party lines whatsoever, suggesting his ideas are strictly off the morals that he has shaped through his own research and experiences. But, when it came to rehabilitation, he wished for that to be more available, though once again, he gave no sympathy to those who committed rape or murder. He acknowledges that people come from communities where stealing and robbery and gang violence was “common” and not having the right environment really set some people the wrong way. He proceeded to talk about a family acquaintance, whose uncle served time, but after rehabilitation, upon release, he became a successful businessman, and lives well now. This is a rarity though, and to him, the negligence of awareness of mental health in prisons is a problem. He actually played out a scenario based on a case he reviewed when he interned at a law firm, where the court was trying to send a man with mental issues in prison. His main issue with that was that he had absolutely no belief that the prison would take care of that man adequately. In fact, it’d be a “spiral” to the man, where he’d “act out and then only get more time”.  In Charlie’s perspective, the system simply throws people in depending on what they did, and they fail to acknowledge or even take a thought to the person’s mental status, and he contributes that to issues that rise in prison, such as violence and overall unsafe conditions.

Charlie’s concern about mental health and rehabilitation led us to another part of the interview about the media, and how big news agencies, in his eyes, are paid to say what they say. The second they don’t go with the agenda, they lose the government’s funding, which is why he, and a majority of the public, don’t see or hear about the issues of the incarceration system often. Really, the only ones those new agencies talk about are big name cases, some including Luigi Mangione and Gypsy Rose. Surprisingly, he credits celebrities who use their platform, and who are independent of government money, like Kim Kardashian, as advocates for the wrongdoings inside prisons. He even jokes that we should “put celebrities in prison” so they could step outside the financial privilege and status and experience prison, and advocate afterwards. This lack of coverage otherwise is why Charlie believes the issue of the U.S Incarceration system isn’t spoken about enough. 

This interview gave me a diverse perspective into the life of someone well off financially, but also facing daily racial injustice, whether small or large. Though Charlie’s injustices he’s faced in his life are, as he admits, small, he still recognizes the problems inside the incarceration system. Our hope, as we both concluded with, was that the flaws of the incarceration system become more widespread, and for him, where it doesn’t take celebrities to advocate. Inside, he hopes for better reforms, and more equal treatment, where being a certain race isn’t a factor into how you’re charged, sentenced, or treated inside prison, and where mental health is taken seriously and evaluated properly, so prisoners can make it out of the system, and be equipped to succeed.

Reflection

 A rather surprising point he expressed was an “eye for an eye” kind of theory. I think I’d agree, but not when it came to how to address murderers. I think it’s an okay idea to just kill them, but I think that’s an easy way to get out of punishment. They, in my opinion, should be sentenced to life without parole. As for rapists, his idea of letting them get raped back is quite extreme, I think I’d give them life also, and just let the prisoners deal with that person. Prisoners usually deal with people who do things such as rape and crimes against children. Furthermore, I think those ideas are a factor of his family, even though he denied it. I understand he didn’t want to take a side, and identifies as an Independent, but that idea of death penalty, for starters, is a republican idea. But then again, he said in the beginning that he likes views from the Trump and Harris administrations. Rehabilitation is more democratic, but that’d make more sense that he came up with that through his own research. During the interview, I had to revisit some topics because I felt like they weren’t explained enough, but at that point I felt less awkward, so conversations flowed easier, and more was said.