Overall, I thought our deliberation about rehumanizing the prison system was productive and enlightening. I was pleased to see that we had a large student turn out because I had not expected so many people who know of people/have family members affected by the prison system. I liked how our deliberation was just that, a discussion about different approaches we could take to improve current practices. I felt comfortable speaking, and I believe I gained new perspectives from the deliberation.  

Create a Solid Information Base 

I had attended Living in a Barbie World: Addressing the Issue of Single-Use Plastics, and I felt they did a good job establishing pertinent information from the start. Their overview team began speaking broadly about the topic, then revealed that 1 million plastic bottles had been bought since they started talking. They established many startling statistics which really opened my eyes, and they also made sure to define key terms such as single-use plastic and recycling to ensure everyone was on the same page.  

For our deliberation, many of the approaches began similarly with startling statistics and figures such as that 700,000 prisoners are released every year in the United States or that 93% of prison classes are taught by fellow inmates. I think this was useful in orienting our participants and getting them to think about the issues we’d address. One thing I would’ve changed on my part is maybe introducing some more hard stats at the beginning with my intro.  

Prioritize Key Values at Stake 

I think our deliberation did a great job of doing this by asking everyone what their personal stake was. By doing this, I think it served as an ice breaker to get people more comfortable with each other through understanding why others were there. Additionally, the idea of values really came into play with the second approach where we discussed how voting rights coincide with “traditional American values” such as freedom, equality, and fairness. We also addressed things such as the social contract and humanizing incarcerated individuals, which are also indicative of values.  

The deliberation I went to did not have everyone state their personal stake, and I feel they didn’t connect how our values as citizens and individuals interact with why we want to decrease our usage of single-use plastics/why this was important to us. There was some talk about values concerning corporations, what their values were, and how these values (profits mostly) act as obstacles to sustainability initiatives.  

Identify a Broad Range of Solutions 

Our deliberation was, in my opinion, comprehensive in covering the different types of rehabilitation that could be afforded to prisoners. However, in career skills and training, perhaps we could’ve addressed things such as professional development (like career fair related workshops we have at PSU), which exist beyond what we discussed with trade school and higher education. I also feel we could’ve talked more broadly about learning for its own sake and self–development as well, as these rehumanizing activities are rehabilitative in nature. Something that really opened my mind was discussion about community-based skill-building and rehabilitation. I never thought about ways we could work on a broader level to destigmatize inmates and lower the strain on government resources by creating community connections that have a multi-pronged approach in rehabilitating prisoners.  

The deliberation I attended did a great job of identifying a broad range of solutions as well. They kind of went from a microscopic to macroscopic view, starting with how individuals could create impact on how corporations could, and finally, to how the government could implement change to lessen the use of single-use plastics. Additionally, I like how they tied all the solutions together, which I felt was very appropriate for their topic especially. They emphasized the importance of all these approaches working in tandem to achieve a change in consumer behavior towards plastic and create legislative means that may serve as incentives.  

Adequately Distribute Speaking Opportunities 

One side of the room was particularly quiet (as they were kind of secluded away on the side opposite to me), so I loved how the moderators really tried to encourage participation. Notably, approach 2 gave priority to people on that side of the room who wanted to answer the first question before opening the floor to others. Additionally, approach 2 had to cut off someone who was talking for a while to give others a chance to input their views. Still, there were particular people who didn’t speak, and I think it could’ve been beneficial to directly ask them a question to encourage their participation.  

Ensure Mutual Comprehension 

I felt that our deliberation created an open environment where people felt comfortable asking clarifying questions when they needed it. I liked how our moderators asked for clarity during some responses and summarized points to ensure we all understood what was being said, but it was also great to see people not on our Super Team who were asking questions to the moderators and each other. I think once we got the ball rolling with the first few questions, participants felt it was acceptable to speak up and ask for clarity when needed.  

Respect Other Participants 

Our deliberation stayed a discussion, which I was honestly impressed by. Everyone was very personable and willing to listen to other people. Often, disagreements were qualified by saying, “I agree with your point about x, but I disagree that y”. I think this simple qualifier helped create connections between people and what they were saying while still allowing people to respectfully disagree or contribute a different perspective on a certain viewpoint.  

I think it also helped that we gave our personal stake at the beginning because participants could gauge where other people were coming from. For myself, I recognize that someone who has family members in the prison system may have a vastly different view from those who aren’t affected at all. Understanding that our life experiences inform our values and views on different issues is essential in any civil discussion, and I felt our super team, as well as the outside participants, did a phenomenal job at espousing respect for each other.