In the 1980s and 90s the concept of sustainable development reached a crescendo built on the notion that poverty was both cause and effect of environmental degradation: poor people do more damage to their surroundings, and a poor environment further impoverishes the humans in it. The precautionary principle emerged out of the theory of sustainable development, and was predicated on the assumption that if we prevented harm to the commons it was wiser than trying to address either environmental damage or poverty.
Recent news suggests a new nexus – prisons are both cause and effect of environmental destruction. The Associated Press reported earlier in March that the massive influx of prisoners in Alabama had overwhelmed the prisons sewage treatment plants. The prisons are now holding 28,000 prisoners, double the prison capacity. Alabama’s rivers have taken the brunt of raw sewage. This sewage carries with it infectious bacteria, viruses, parasites and toxic chemicals.
Consider the implications of just the toxic chemicals. Toxicants cause a range of human illnesses from cancer to reproductive disorders to developmental disabilities. (For further information on environmental links to disease see protectingourhealth.org)
It is not surprising that developmental disabilities and learning problems affect a disproportionate number of prisoners.
A legal memorandum from New York examining the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act states that “about one-third of prisoners are unable to perform such simple job-related tasks as locating an intersection on a street map, or identifying and entering basic information on an application. Another one-third is unable to perform slightly more difficult tasks such as writing an explanation of a billing error or entering information on an automobile maintenance form. Only about one in twenty can do things such as use a schedule to determine which bus to take. Young prisoners with disabilities are among the least likely to have the skills they need to hold a job.”
A Utah survey found approximately 24% of male inmates to have ADD/ADHD with classical clinical findings. A physician within the Utah system said “other studies and our own experience have led us to believe that upwards of 40% of our residents in a medium security prison have the findings along the Tourette/ADD spectrum. If you separate out the nonviolent, impulsive criminals ([whom he terms] “my basic, charming and even lovable car thieves and traffic offenders”), the percentage is much greater.
If 3-6% population at large has ADHD but 24% of the male prison inmates have ADHD, then it suggests that people with developmental disabilities are more likely than those without developmental disabilities to be incarcerated.
So our use of toxic chemicals increases the chance that a child will suffer from a developmental disability. This increases the chance that they will end up in prison, that the prison will increase its pollution and it will harm a child who will end up in its prison and on and on and on.
The precautionary principle stands for the proposition that it is an ethical imperative to prevent harms like developmental disabilities, and poverty and prisons if it is within our power to do so.
One organization working at the intersection of prisons and the environment is the extraordinary Ella Baker Center in Oakland. Their slogan is “Green Jobs Not Jails” which neatly explains the premises of restorative economics and restorative justice. They “call on modern society to move away from a spirit-crushing “gulag economy” and a planet-killing “grey economy” toward an earth and human-honoring “green economy.” Green Jobs Not Jails stands for the principle that zero pollution, living wage jobs provide the most logical, humane and cost-effective pathway to safe, healthy and peaceful cities.”
If we could prevent children from being damaged by toxic chemicals it is likely that we could reduce the prison population and that in turn would reduce pollution. The commonwealth and health can only be increased by a policy of precaution.