Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Explore your curiosity - Interesting people with fascinating stories.
Life consists of three things:
-The stories we tell others
-The stories others tell us
-The stories we tell ourselves.
Meghan, welcome aboard to the show. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 2:Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1:So Meghan, you are sending you back to your past, 18, 20, you're like, oh, I'm gonna learn criminology. Why? What why do that to yourself?
Speaker 2:I know. I mean, the the real answer honestly is that I was that only child who stayed up late watching crime shows with my mom because we didn't watch, like, cartoons in the house. We watched LA law and other, you know, dramas, court shows, cop shows. And I mean, I fell in love with it at an early age. And it's funny because it it really did stick with me.
Speaker 2:I thought, like, in my world, I was gonna be a prosecutor, and that's kind of where my ambition began, but didn't it?
Speaker 1:When when you kind of had this okay. You went, you studied, you moved from, you know, LA law or CSI, whatever your your drug
Speaker 2:LA design law.
Speaker 1:And then you, you know, you study, you step into the real world. What are the the solutions or what are the things that you kind of all of us as, you know, CSI advocates believe which just ain't true?
Speaker 2:Oh gosh. Well, first of all, that CSI CSI agents or technicians are both police and CSI. Like, they both bust down doors and they run lab work and everything is done in this dramatic fashion, and all crimes are solved, all crimes involve forensics. Most of it is is pretty much a myth, and that all of it is perfect science. In fact, DNA is probably the only thing that is not so much fallible.
Speaker 2:Everything else is really subjective. So I think that's probably the biggest takeaway.
Speaker 1:What what are the I mean, I think we all right? We've all come to know about DNA, but what are the other, let's say, fallible techniques and tools that are in the toolkit? Okay.
Speaker 2:There's a bunch. So we call them junk sciences, most of them. And one of them, think that the biggest one might come to mind is bite mark analysis. So the idea that you can match someone's bite mark. It's like an identical replica and whatnot that is complete junk.
Speaker 2:It is just subjective. Hair comparison analysis was something that was done back in the day. And so people thought that was very oh, you know, you match the hair. Right? The way that was done was really like, I take a strand of your hair.
Speaker 2:I take a strand of my hair. I look at them. Oh, they look the same color. They look just about as thick. They look, you know, similar.
Speaker 2:So hair analysis used to be for fire or arson. There was investigations that were done and they called it science, but really it was just looking at, like, burn patterns and poor patterns, which is totally not scientific for fires. You have to replicate the conditions. So it's like experimental in order to really say something is done like that. Even fingerprint analysis, that's still subjective.
Speaker 2:That still requires
Speaker 1:Really?
Speaker 2:An analyst to match fingerprints on multiple levels. So we have like ridges and whirls, different parts of our fingerprints, but you have to match it on eight points, 10 points, 12 points. And some some examiners will go with a lower level point. Some will go with higher level. So it's not nothing really is an exact science pretty much except DNA.
Speaker 1:How much of this has been so fingerprints is interesting because you would think that, oh, this is now computerized, goes into computer, they say I mean, this is what we're seeing on CSI. Right? 98% match. Right? Is that are people still doing this manually?
Speaker 2:So there are computer programs that do the matches, but it is still ultimately up to a person, a human to determine if the match is true and how many points it matches on. So it's not an exact science. It's not like we all have a 100 points that match. It's it's really a little trickier than that, and I think people don't really realize that. And, also, I mean, like you see on TV, it's just not that exciting.
Speaker 2:Like, fingerprint analysts and other technicians, they're sitting in a lab. You know, they have microscopes and other things, and that's the way it's done. They they pass that information along to police who work on it. Sometimes there isn't any DNA. A lot of times there's not DNA.
Speaker 2:A lot of times there aren't fingerprints. And even if fingerprints are available, sometimes the crimes just don't warrant them. The crimes have to be very serious to warrant all this type of scientific evidence.
Speaker 1:Is this what is this? Is this a budgetary thing? Is this why what is the warrant aspect of it?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's budgetary for sure because there's a DNA backlog. Absolutely. That happens.
Speaker 2:It's really the severity of the crime. Look. If you have a homicide, if you have high level violent crimes, of course, they're going to do a full crime scene sweep. But if we're talking about, you know, a lower level theft, There are number of property crimes that are actually way more common than violent crimes that aren't going to warrant that type of scientific analysis because it's very costly and it takes time.
Speaker 1:Interesting. So again, this is the show of the art of going down rabbit holes. I appreciate that for a second. I wanna I wanna get back on track. So you're early in your career.
Speaker 1:You're now going through real world experiences. What is one of your, I don't know, maybe wins like your best win or maybe your worst horror story? Either way, up to you.
Speaker 2:Well, first, let me start. So you talk about early in my career. Let me just say, I got a degree in political science and thought that I was gonna be a prosecutor. And when I came out of my four year degree, I worked as a paralegal for a couple years and decided, oh, hell no. I'm not working with lawyers.
Speaker 2:I'm not gonna be a lawyer. Like, it was out for me. But I loved the criminal justice system.
Speaker 1:So all have our we all hate lawyers. But what was your personal pet peeve?
Speaker 2:Oh, I had awful I I worked in these very big litigation firms, and I worked for some of the worst attorneys in terms of temper tantrums, demands. I couldn't believe how many accomplished attorneys through temper tantrums and acted so infantile. I was so surprised. It really did blow my mind some of the things that they demanded. I worked sometimes as paralegal, like, a couple days in a row without going home.
Speaker 2:No shower. I was sick all the time. It was like it was rough. So it wasn't the hard part that I you know, hard is fine, but it wasn't rewarding. Nobody was ever grateful.
Speaker 2:I mean, it just was I worked in in just I did not have good experiences. Experiences. So but I also knew, frankly, working on litigation and briefs, things of that nature. It wasn't for me. But I loved the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2:So Yeah. I wound up going to an open house at a master's program at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, which is a great school for criminal justice. And I fell in love with the program. I got my master's. I had this professor, this older retired, I remember federal probation officer.
Speaker 2:I loved him. He was great. And he kept telling me, Sacks, you have to take the probation exam. You're gonna love it. So I actually did.
Speaker 2:I took the US pro I sat for US probation. At the same time, I had applied for an investigator position with the district attorney's office, office, which is a very prestigious job. And I was very surprised that I actually made it through and got offers from both. So this was a dream come true to get, like, offers from two amazing jobs.
Speaker 1:Nice.
Speaker 2:Ultimately, I chose the federal probation position. I don't know. I guess it was my professor who impacted me. And so that's where my real career began, and that was real that was in 2003. So it's about twenty two years ago is how I actually start.
Speaker 2:A lot's happened since then. So I just wanted to give you that background. But you asked me what, for a horror story?
Speaker 1:Is that what you're looking for? Let's let's go for well, could be a win. Right? But but horror stories are great too.
Speaker 2:I mean, I have a couple of, like, that's as a as a federal probation officer, I was dealing with, you know, some people who were convicted in very serious crimes. So, I mean, I've definitely be been in situations where executing a search warrant, let's say, and, you know, a dog tries to kill you, literally tries to maul you. And one of your colleagues maces a dog and that gets chased down the street and, you know, you think they're gonna get killed. I've been in situations where the lights have gone out in an apartment and you people are scuffling.
Speaker 1:You might wonder, are they why the probation officer is is on the warrant? Why is that?
Speaker 2:No. No. No. We are executing a search warrant as probation officers, but we had
Speaker 1:seen some to do that? Like, why is the probation officer executing search warrants?
Speaker 2:Because it was a violation of probation.
Speaker 1:Got it. Okay.
Speaker 2:So as probation officers, we're visiting with someone who was noncompliant. Right. And and, actually, you can pretty much search. If if someone's under probation, you can search. But as I recall, the officer on this case, and I was back up, was being extra careful and and making sure that every everything was in order.
Speaker 2:So I think he got a warrant. And I've been at a place where we had a sex offender who crawled out the fire escape, and we had a chase a little bit. There had been a number of, you know, situations, you might say. I I don't I don't recall. I remember being, like, appropriately afraid.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean? Like, a little bit of fear, but also prepared. I had really good training, so I was really prepared for a lot of these situations. But I think it was also, like, interesting the first time I sat down with my first convicted serial murderer. You know?
Speaker 2:I was like, okay. Well, I'm a probation officer, and this person is I'm investigating this person who has killed at least three people, and we're sitting in the same room together. And there's nothing separating us. Right? We're on this there's no there's no guard.
Speaker 2:There's no window. Like, anything could happen. So
Speaker 1:it can get feeling at that at that moment?
Speaker 2:The first time, I was very young too. So I would I would also
Speaker 1:preface that.
Speaker 2:Let's see. So I was about I think it was 24. The first time I sat in a room, 24 or 20 '5. And for a probation officer to sit in with, you know, on a serious murder case, that's pretty young. You're not really seasoned yet, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 2:Sorry. Something in my eye. So I was young, and I I think I had an appropriate amount of fear. I felt confident. I knew that I was trained, but still there was a
Speaker 1:I love that expression, the appropriate amount of fear. What is the explain that to us. What's the what's an inappropriate amount of fear, and what's an appropriate amount of fear?
Speaker 2:Right. So there is no scared
Speaker 1:shitless sitting with a serial killer, I gotta tell you.
Speaker 2:There's no appropriate like, it's appropriate for me. So I wasn't terrified that I was shaking and I had to leave the room. Right? But I was I had, like, a, like, a healthy fear. Like, be on guard.
Speaker 2:Know that something can go wrong. And you maybe have trained a little bit, but that's not you're young and you're naive and you're not even naive, but you're still you're you're new. So for me, was like healthy fear, which probably kept me safe. You know?
Speaker 1:Yeah. No. I appreciate that. So so I wanna fast forward Long career reflecting over those years. What is how do you kind of see that career now in this kind of dynamics between criminals serving their time, coming out back into the world, going through a process with you, and then trying to remake their lives.
Speaker 1:Does the system work? Doesn't the system work? Or is it broken? What's your what's your, you know, what's your pains?
Speaker 2:Yeah. This system is entirely broken. I can tell you that. It does not work very well here because seventy five percent seventy to seventy five percent of people will go back within three years to prison, which means it doesn't work. But I can tell you that from the start of my career to now, my views are entirely different.
Speaker 2:When I worked as a probation officer, I viewed punishment differently. I viewed prison differently. And since flipping to the other side, working in academia, researching, working in prisons, meeting with offenders on a an entirely different level, I've been able to see what real rehabilitation looks like, what it can look like, what it entails, how it can be done, and it can be done. We just we do a really crappy job in The United States. One of the best innovations are
Speaker 1:There's a lot to unpack there.
Speaker 2:Oh, okay. So okay.
Speaker 1:This is a lot of good stuff. So you said your opinions changed between Young and today as it came to punishment and probation. Yes. Why don't we why don't we just focus on the punishment for a second? How so?
Speaker 2:I think I was very in favor of punishment for every crime when I began my career in law enforcement, and that's a law enforcement orientation as well. You're way more punitive from when you work in law enforcement. And it's because you see a lot of things. Right. And I and I did see a lot of people who deserve to be punished, but I also what happened was I saw a lot of people who were very poor, a lot of people who were very sick, drug addicted, that weren't you know, they're not monsters.
Speaker 2:These are people. And I began to see punishment as not appropriate for all offenders. It wasn't it wasn't the right thing to fix people per se. And I worked in a system that I thought was too punitive and had really harsh punishments for people who really were not the worst offenders. And I think that was part of the impetus for me to move over to academia because I thought, oh, I can research.
Speaker 2:I can critique the system. I can teach students about what the realities are. Like, I I just thought there was so much more I could do on the other side. And so I do think that I became less punitive. However, I will say that I I don't think rehabilitation is appropriate for everyone.
Speaker 2:I think punishment is appropriate in in certain cases. But my views on punishment definitely change in terms of it's not it's not it shouldn't be punishment for everyone. It's not one solution for everything. What you really have to look at is what's causing crime? What's the main driver of it?
Speaker 2:Is it you know, are we just labeling people criminals? So is it actually that there's something causing people to commit crime, or are we just calling things crime? And and so that's how my abusive team
Speaker 1:Let's unpack. Let me play the devil's advocate here. You are now state your potential argument. Tell me if I get it. Seventy five percent of the people who go down this punishment route will never come out of it.
Speaker 1:They'll be back in prison within three years. Yeah. So we shouldn't go down this rat hole if it's not effective. The devil's advocate view here that I want to present is, well, the punishment is a deterrent if it becomes easier or if the punishment isn't so severe, are we not increasing the, let's say, economic pipeline of the amount of people who are now willing to do crimes? So the more severe the punishment, then the more the less people who might attempt it.
Speaker 1:So is there just simple math here that you need severe punishments just as a deterrent?
Speaker 2:Well, that's a great question. But if you think about your question, it's kind of flawed because if punishment was a deterrent, why do 75 of people return? We are actually one of the most punitive nations in the world. You know, I think we hold like 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners, we are almost number one in incarceration. We are a highly punitive nation in terms of incarceration.
Speaker 2:But if it was a deterrent, 75% of people wouldn't deterrent argument is broken by the sheer number of recidivism, and that's the problem. It's just not working. And it and it's not just incarceration. It's the collateral consequences that follow incarceration. So it's coming out with a record, and then everyone knows your record.
Speaker 2:It's coming out with losing access to housing, to welfare benefits, to food stamps. There are all these barriers once people leave prison that are part that's part of the problem as well. But it's just prison is not a deterrent. You can't argue that in pretty much in our country if that many people return.
Speaker 1:So so I I I mean, the return could be related to so many other issues. As you said, it's what happens after you come back and but but the 20% number worries me. So you said 5% of the world population, 20% find themselves in it. Is that because 25. 25.
Speaker 1:Is that because so many people are returning or are we actually incarcerating more people per se with excluding that amount of people that are returning? Because if we're incarcerating the same amount as the rest of the world, ignoring returning, then we have a return issue. But but if we're incarcerating more, like, what does the rest of the world look like?
Speaker 2:We incarcerate more, and that's because of I'm sorry. Since the nineteen nineties, we started when we got tough on crime, law and order in the nineteen nineties, We began to incarcerate people. We passed a number of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and other crimes. We got extremely punitive. And so it drove up our incarceration rate substantially.
Speaker 2:You know, in 1975, we incarcerated about I think we had about 200 to 250,000 people incarcerated in The US. Currently, we have 2,300,000. You add the people who are on probation and parole, that number goes to over 7,000,000, so close to two percent of our population. We have two problems. One is that we incarcerate more people since the nineties and that more people return because of that.
Speaker 2:And one of the things that or one of the ways that we've attempted to reduce incarceration now because it's so escalated is to stop incarcerating people because of minor probation or parole infractions. So, you know, when I worked as a probation officer, like, you didn't bring probation officers can use discretion. You really didn't bring someone let's say someone comes in on probation, they fail a urine test for smoking marijuana. Really, you don't bring them in front of the court to send them back to prison. That's like, you set a new rule.
Speaker 2:You set something else. For quite a while, there was a number of technical infractions that were sending people back to prison and judges and everyone started saying, stop. It's enough. Like, we're not sending people back to prison for years because they broke a curfew or failed one drug test. Like, you know, we have to figure out this problem.
Speaker 2:So we have two problems, and both of those, you acknowledged.
Speaker 1:What why is the is this about the minimum sentences? I mean, what does this look like in the rest of the world? Is there more discretion in the judicial systems? How do we kind of compare when we look side to side?
Speaker 2:So I can tell you this. First of all, let me just state, I'm a domestic criminologist, so I am not I'm not great with the global. Like, I can't compare other countries per se. I I I can compare similar countries, and I can tell you that there are a number of countries that have decriminalized drugs, and that is most definitely responsible for lesser rates. We also have a lot more guns.
Speaker 2:Guns are part of the problem. There's no doubt about that. We have a very big gap between social classes, and that is part of the problem as well. Other countries are there are some places that are more rehabilitative, certainly less punitive. So if you ever if you've heard, like, some of the big trials that you follow, you might hear about someone getting a sentence for a hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 2:So there are a number of countries that do not use that kind of logic. They that's ridiculous. Why would we send it someone to a hundred and fifty years? No one's gonna live that long. Right?
Speaker 2:Or not yet anyway. So there is like a max of thirty years. So there are many different approaches that I will say are a lot more sensible than the ones that we use here.
Speaker 1:And what's the difference? Or maybe if we focus domestically, what are the challenges in rehabilitation? I mean, seventy five percent, that's just incredibly high.
Speaker 2:It's one of the main things is how punitive we are afterwards. Like, I was talking about these collateral consequences. I think a number of people, offenders who plead guilty well, also plea bargains, you know, pleading guilty. Ninety five percent of people plead guilty, and they don't realize what's gonna happen after that.
Speaker 1:Wait. Hold on. Explain that to me. 95% plea guilty. What is that?
Speaker 1:How is that even possible? What does that mean?
Speaker 2:Isn't this crazy? So everyone thinks that trial is, like, the hallmark of justice in The United States. You always every show has, like, a trial.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Well, Hollywood taught us that.
Speaker 2:Right. Only 5% of people will ever go to trial because the incentives and the pressure is too great. Like, plea bargaining is how our system runs.
Speaker 1:So what's the incentives? Tell us more about this.
Speaker 2:So there's incentives on both sides. Obviously, defense attorneys, especially if you're a public defender, you are overworked, underpaid, your caseload is extreme. 85% of people in state courts are indigent, so they cannot afford an attorney. So they rely on public defenders who have way too many cases. Like, really, they are overworked and their incentives are they just cannot go to trial.
Speaker 2:They can't handle that. So getting a plea deal is the best they can probably do for the most part. And then prosecutors, they have a lot more power. They get paid a lot more money. They have less cases.
Speaker 2:They're in a much better position. But the benefit for them is most prosecutors are not judged for what we consider justice. They are judged for what's a conviction. That's a win. So a plea bargain is a conviction is a win for them.
Speaker 2:So they can say they you know what I mean? That's a that's a win. So for both sides, it represents a win, but it's not at all what I would say is the most sorry, the best part of our justice system. In fact, I think it's horribly flawed. And I think prosecutors even though I know some good prosecutors, and I don't mean to speak ill of them, but I think it just places too much power in their hands.
Speaker 1:Is so so let's say I'm a a a criminal. I'm about to make or I should say alleged. I'm about to make this decision. Should I or should I not go to trial? Let's say I am I am guilt free.
Speaker 1:I know that. I believe it. I wanna prove it to the world. Why would I take a plea bargain?
Speaker 2:Is this the
Speaker 1:financial costs that are gonna crush me? What is it?
Speaker 2:There are any number of things. But really, the truth is even when you're innocent I mean, lot of people are convicted that are innocent. If you know anything about wrongful convictions, you would know now that you have a good chance of being convicted. And when people are convicted, they face what we call a trial penalty. Meaning that they're punished even more harshly for just going to trial and exercising their right to do so.
Speaker 2:There's a definite penalty for doing that. So it's not the odds are
Speaker 1:not some incentive to take the plea bargain, basically.
Speaker 2:I okay. Let me let me just give you an example. I actually sat in on I sat in on hearings all the time because as part of my research, I also studied bail hearings and plea bargaining. That's part of my research. So I sat in.
Speaker 2:It was last year on a couple of trials and and hearings. And I remember a lawyer standing up with his client. He was charged with some type of fraud. And I I don't know what level it was, so I couldn't tell you, but it's it wasn't terribly serious. And he stood up and said the judge asked, has there been a plea?
Speaker 2:And the prosecutor said, we've offered him six months in jail. Okay. So the defense attorney stood up and said, your honor, my client does refuses does not wanna serve six months, and he would like to exercise his right to go to trial. And the judge said, really? Has he really thought about this?
Speaker 2:He said, yes. He has. We've discussed it. The judge said, I'm gonna tell you to go home and think about this again because if your client comes back and decides to go to trial and is found guilty, he's going to be, I'm going to sentence him to something way harsher than that. So he should really consider this.
Speaker 2:That was a warrant first of all, that that's illegal. Judge should never say that, but it's fine. Basically telling him, if you don't take this plea, I'm gonna sentence you to so much worse that you better go home and take this plea. And that's the way our system works.
Speaker 1:Yeah. That I mean, I don't know anything about the law, but that didn't feel good just hearing it. So I I It wasn't. I mean, there is that if there, the but but but, yeah, it makes a very stark case and, like, you're hearing this from the judge, the person who's supposed to make the decision, like, that doesn't feel good as the person who believes or knows that you're innocent. Right?
Speaker 2:Well, I didn't go back for the the Monday because that was, a Friday or Thursday, and it was a Monday hearing. I didn't go back, but I can bet anything that he took that plea because his lawyer told him, look, this judge is gonna punish you. You don't take that plea. He's gonna punish you. You're gonna get a year, two years, whatever you're gonna like, the maximum.
Speaker 2:And so that's, like, the course of nature of the system. It's terrible. I was and you know what? I will tell you another thing. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 2:And I just give you one more story. You said horrible stuff. Go ahead. When I was writing my dissertation on bail decisions, I sat in on a number of bail hearings in Newark, New Jersey, which used to have a very high crime rate. It's what it's better now.
Speaker 2:Still can be a high it's high voluminous. The defendants go through the courts. And I sat in on a couple of hearings and the judge, I'll forget, actually called on me and said, who are you in my gallery? He's been sitting here. And I told him who I was, and he said, come back into my chambers.
Speaker 2:And I was like, oh gosh. Am I in trouble? Like, this is public. I can sit here. Right?
Speaker 2:So he wanted to know about my research, and and I was happy to explain it to him. But he had just given a bail amount to a defendant who was charged with assaulting a nun.
Speaker 1:That's a bad choice.
Speaker 2:It's I you know, it was it was not a good choice. Right? Yeah. And the bail was a $150,000. It was considered it was a simple assault.
Speaker 2:So it was like a hand and there, as I understand it, the injuries were not serious. So the bail was a little bit high for that kind of assault. Yeah. And the judge told me without me even asking, just so you know, I I gave that guy a $150,000 bail because I knew he couldn't pay it. If I thought he could have, I would have given him a lot higher.
Speaker 2:And that's completely illegal. That's what we call de facto preventive detention. And he had no problem stating that. And he said, put it in your paper. And I went, wow.
Speaker 2:That's our system.
Speaker 1:So so we're we don't wanna end this show on a overly negative tone. I wanna go to the twenty five percent. The twenty five percent that does not come back into the system. Yeah. Is it luck?
Speaker 1:Is it that something that that something went right in their rehabilitation? Like, what can we learn from that twenty five percent?
Speaker 2:Sure. There are things that go right. And I will tell you optimistically, a number of the people that I work with are in the lifers group, and that means that they are serving sentences of thirty years to life. People who serve long long sentences, like twenty years and above, are very unlikely to return to prison. They have been rehabilitated.
Speaker 2:They've aged out of crime. They've learned something. So it is age and experience. One of the other positive things in New Jersey where I work is that they've introduced serious college education into prisons. So college education in prisons drastically changes the outcomes for people.
Speaker 1:Oh, wow.
Speaker 2:And in fact, it really changes the entire culture inside of prisons. Changes the language, the motivation, everything.
Speaker 1:Right. Tell us tell us what this this is really interesting. What does that look like? What is the what is the before and after if you've been exposed to that where college program is introduced?
Speaker 2:So it Mhmm.
Speaker 1:This is this sounds kinda crazy. Like, why? But then when I think about it, it's like, well, we're creating options here. Right?
Speaker 2:We're creating such great outcomes. Education has been linked to serious success after incarceration. And so what happens is professors like myself will offer classes inside of a prison, and they are given not, like, all the degrees, but a couple different options for degrees. And prisoners who are the best prisoners have the best behavior. The best records can apply.
Speaker 2:And if they're accepted in the program and they keep great behavior and they do well in the program, they have to maintain the same grades as college students that I teach can complete a degree, which they can use on the outside. And so it changes behavior in prisons, and I have absolutely seen the difference between people who didn't really have much motivation or didn't really care very much about what happened. All of a sudden, these guys are educated. They're motivated. They're excited, and they're going to do so much better on the outside.
Speaker 2:And I can tell you anecdotally, I've seen a number of people cycle through these programs who have left prison and who are absolutely thriving, like doing very well and not return to prison. It's a game changer. So I will say, if you wanna end on something positive, I will college education in prisons is a total game changer.
Speaker 1:What do you think is driving that? Why does it make such a big difference?
Speaker 2:I think that a number of people who are in prison, remember, they're in there for a long time. There aren't that many programs. There's not that many vocational things that people can do. They don't have great goals or things to do with their time, but now there is an incentive. There's an excitement.
Speaker 2:So many of these people didn't have money or access to education on the outside, and all of a sudden, they find themselves in prison for a very long time. They're drug free now and doing a little bit better, but not finding something to kind of complete them and strive for something to do on the outside. And now they just it's like a world of opportunity opens to them. And I've seen so many people go through the program that are just doing so well.
Speaker 1:Do you have the numbers in regards to how many of our institutions, prisons have these programs versus don't have it? Is it like it's everywhere, and it's just doing all that
Speaker 2:it's everywhere.
Speaker 1:Or is there a huge opportunity No.
Speaker 2:New Jersey is very progressive in that regard. They have education in a number of their prisons, most of their prisons. Not every state has it. All states have GED opportunities. But, you know, once you get your GED, if you're in prison for ten, twenty years, like, GED, that's it.
Speaker 2:You know? Will say there are other very good programs in some prisons that are not necessarily college, but I don't know if you've heard of, like, the puppies in prison, the pet programs. So dog training. Yeah. Dog training has become a thing in a lot of prisons across various states.
Speaker 2:And inmates who have good behavior are allowed to train dogs to be used in various situations as service dogs in a number of other ways, support dogs, even law enforcement dogs, believe it
Speaker 1:or not. Ironically.
Speaker 2:I know ironically, but it's a, it's a long term commitment. And what happens is in a number of these programs, are certified then. So when they leave prison, they have certifications as dog trainers that they can And take to the the programs that I've looked at and the numbers, the research I've seen has shown that people who participate in those programs are highly also successful on the outside.
Speaker 1:I would imagine that even if they don't become dog trainers on the outside, there's a therapeutic value there.
Speaker 2:There are so many benefits just like education is. Like, it's the benefits can't can't be, what's the word, overstated? Yeah.
Speaker 1:Okay. So, Meghan, thank you so much for coming on the show. We have only one question, which is scripted. It's a difficult question because it's very personal.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:If you had to go back to 20 year old Meghan, what would you advise her?
Speaker 2:Your first job won't be your last job. It's a long road. Don't be afraid of the change, and don't be afraid of how your feelings will change about what you do. And, also, one of the things that I would tell myself, I wouldn't tell myself because I knew it, but I would tell someone else is don't be afraid sometimes to take big gambles and risks. I left a really comfy federal job for school and who you know, I was poor again.
Speaker 2:And I remember my dad being like, are you crazy? This was the dream job. Sometimes you just have to like go big or go home. So I would tell someone else that also.
Speaker 1:Meghan, thank you so much for coming on the show today. I appreciate you. Thank you
Speaker 2:for having me. Thank you.