In the wake of the tragic murder of Linda Gay Carroll, Portsmouth officials are requesting permission to keep persons formerly incarcerated for murder and other violent offenses out of public housing.

The suspected killer is a 55- year-old man previously convicted of murder who also lived in the ‘Effingham Plaza’ neighborhood, a public housing complex. To many it seems perfectly reasonable to block the housing applications of individuals with a violent criminal history, but in trying to safeguard some citizens Portsmouth may be throwing up yet one more hurdle for one of our most vulnerable demographics: our prison population.

Effingham Plaza.

We have long struggled with the incongruity between crime and consequence in our nation. Much of the disconnect stems from the absurd approach of severely disadvantaging someone in hopes they will somehow become a more congenial member of society on the other end. However, let’s pretend for the sake of today’s discussion that you can actually punish your way to a better community.

Chronic employment discrimination of former felons after release–and the fact that 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before jail–already puts our population of formerly incarcerated persons up against significant odds. Given the rampant poverty and lack of social safety net for those coming out of prison, it is no surprise that the rate of recidivism in the United States is 60%. One of the major reasons cited for our depressingly high percentage of repeat offenders is the fact that those coming out of prison have extreme difficulties finding employment and housing.

Our prison system also disproportionately affects our poor and minority groups, which is something the city of Portsmouth–with an African American population of 53.3%–should be especially sensitive to. In major cities across the country, 80% of young African Americans now have criminal records.

Intentions in the right place, but will results follow?

Despite all of this, many of us maintain the mindset that those who break the law are merely reaping the consequences of their actions. But is it actually justice? When you go to court you are given a sentence that the state (the only body legally permitted to delve out justice) has deemed appropriate for your crime. At the completion of your time in jail you have settled your debt to society as it were, yet a criminal record, as so many of us were told as children, will follow you your entire life, despite having already served your time. The result being that the likelihood of successfully rejoining society after time in jail is significantly lowered. But if the state’s punishment has already been meted out then why should there be residual consequences?

Our states pay lip service to the barriers that face an individual who has served time, but much of the job training, counseling, and post-release aid programs promoted are tragically underfunded or simply not available to many in prison for violent crimes. When released from penitentiary many people have no choice other than to turn to the social safety net of our government in the form of subsidized food and housing. Most have lost prime years of productivity, lack the education or job training needed to be competitive, and will face steep discrimination due to their criminal background. Now Portsmouth would deprive these men and women one of the only leg ups provided to those with so little.

Indian Creek Correctional Center in Chesapeake.

Many people read about prison statistics and demographics and refuse to read the writing on the wall. They stare at the facts, and despite the obvious nature of the cyclical relation between poverty, education, and crime, they will continue to maintain that those who went to jail deserve all that they get. Fine, I won’t melt your callous heart today and perhaps no one ever will, but in your black and white world I ask you to consider what the consequences are for blocking these persons from public housing? Will you make things a little safer in public housing? Maybe, but where do you think these persons will end up? Do you think they will say, “Well I might as well move out of Hampton Roads since I am obviously not welcome?”

I seriously doubt it.

The far more likely outcome is that without having the option of stable, reliable housing that works with their financial situation, these men and women will look for ways to make fast money that can support them in a private market…. by which I mean turn to crime. Additionally, if public housing is not an option it increases the likelihood of homelessness for these formerly incarcerated persons. The penalties of further limiting the options for men and women getting out of prison will be more men and women going back into prison and less people successfully reintegrating back into the community.

Our public housing system is designed to be a safety net for those who most need assistance. As offensive as it may be to the sensibilities of many, formerly incarcerated persons are some of the most vulnerable among us. Even if you think that poverty, upbringing, and education have nothing to do with what drives people to crime, fine, but we cannot deny that without some support these individuals are far more likely to return to deviant behaviors.

Do the right thing, Portsmouth, and retract your request to block these men and women from public housing.

Want to make a difference? Contact PRHA and let them know how you feel.