In the 2020 Deliberation Nation event, I helped facilitate the “Sentenced to Rehabilitation: Rehumanizing the Prison System” deliberation which took place on March 1, 2020.
I also attended a deliberation entitled “How PSU Handles Sexual Assault” on Wednesday, February 26th. The sexual assault deliberation went through three different approaches.
Their focus was approaches surrounding sexual assaults reported at Penn State. They created a thorough (10-15 page) issue guide that participants could view and reference throughout the deliberation.
In addition to their guide, they provided a solid information base by giving short lectures on their approach and explaining the current policies at Penn State and other major universities.
They also cited specific cases, such as the Brock Turner case, where an approach was attempted in order to give participants a background about how the nuances of the approach worked.
Our deliberation also created a solid information base by giving a short history on the prison system and a brief explanation of historical paradigm shifts about rehabilitation methods in the American prison system.
In addition to providing participants with this information, other background information, statistics, and definitions such as recidivism rates, were explained.
In the beginning, we had the participants and moderators share their stake in the deliberation in order to gain an understanding of their viewpoints and their personal values.
For example, many participants mentioned relatives who are been in prison system or are educators in prisons. This opposition in experiences allowed people to consider the ideas and experiences of others.
Having everyone share their stake in the beginning allowed everyone a chance to speak with the group. This made them comfortable and enabled them to share later during the deliberation.
This helped adequately distribute speaking opportunities for all of the participants and facilitators and helped everyone understand each other’s perspectives,
By giving everyone a safe, uninterrupted chance to talk in the beginning, we assured each them that people would be respectful of other opinions and take them into consideration when forming their responses.
Our moderators also made sure to include them when they were quiet by suggesting how they could contribute. For example, one facilitator said, “I think you said that you know a prison psychologist, could you speak to that on this approach?”
This helped invite them back into the conversation and helped the group learn about their understanding of the approach.
During the main content portion of the deliberation, which were both broken up into three approaches, all participants were able to discuss the pro and cons of the suggested approach.
In the deliberation I attended, we discussed preventing sexual assault, consolidating resources, and educating people about sexual assault during orientation.
The sexual assault deliberation identified a broad range of solutions to helping prevent sexual assault and provide support to victims.
Many of their ideas where linked to the Penn State administrative practices, such as consolidating the phone numbers of resources and offices that support victims. They also had social ideas such as changing the way students communicate about the topic.
Our group also came up with a wide variety of solutions. We included common solutions to rehabilitation such as education and mental health and substance abuse support.
Even though these are common solutions, the pros and cons included discussions about redistributing tax money and the certifications of prison educators.
Our group also had the very unique solution of rehumanizing prisoners by reinstating their voting rights. This sparked a fascinating conversation about the social contract and where to draw the line on deserving the right to vote.
Many people believed that this could help prisoners have a say in their treatment, but others shared their views that they wouldn’t trust certain criminals.
This pros and cons developed into a deliberation about the right to vote as something that is vital to our democracy, but is also something that people with substance abuse or mental health issues and un-convicted criminals can exercise.
Both deliberations discussed realloctaing funds to finance their approaches. In the sexual assault deliberation, many people believed that it would be best to create and promote resources that teach people how to prevent sexual assault and recognize it.
Others valued providing support resources to the confidents of the victims. The “bystanders and supporters” also need support.
Both deliberations provided information about their topic and approaches in order to give their participants the information required to deliberate and made them comfortable enough to share their opinions.
Points:
Compare and contrast
- Solid information base
- Broad range of solutions
- Pros and cons
Others:
- Consider the ideas and experiences of others
- Values
- Adequately distributed speaking opportunities