I haven't read Ms. Bernstein's book so I don't know if these two rather relevant aspects are covered. The massive profits generated by the privatization of the prison system and the denial of voting rights to convicted felons. More inmates equals more profits equals less democratic voters. It is pure, unadulterated evil and it is sheer genius because voters fall for the "tough on crime" smokescreen every time.

So when a drug-dealing man beats his woman to death he shouldn't be sent to prison because that would leave their kids parentless. I get it. Prison would isolate him from the community he comes from; it doesn't matter that the same community regularly begs for a crackdown by law enforcement to rid themselves of criminals like this guy. I get it. People in his community live in a virtual prison already because of the crime going on around them-- the elderly suffocate during the summer because they dare not open their windows a crack, kids cannot play outside because of the stray bullets, the crime rate prevents economic development. I get it. Books like this are written to find a new victim class (children of convicts) and exalt their perceived needs above all others. I get it. The historical reality of slavery is diminished by the author to nothing more than an analogy of sending daddy the felon up the river rather than selling him down it. I get it.

What claptrap! Criminals prey on society, not vice versa, and their own children are among their victims. Yes, help the children-- but not by springing their parents.

I seem to remember an American medical Association study that concluded that the most damaging health effects of illegal drug use turned out to be the user's exposure to the criminal justice system. There are certainly people that should be removed from society but I bet that number is drastically smaller than the prison population. It is a tragedy for any child to lose a parent and kids need to be protected even from the institutions that claim to act in the interest of children.

I googled and could not find any AMA report concerning comparative health effects of the prison system and illegal drugs. Do you have the name of this study?

This book appears to be a lot of nonsense to me, full of unproven assumptions, not the least of which is that-- whatever the dreams of children-- these convicted criminals are desirous or capable of providing decent homes for their offspring.

Already the number of children in this nation living with one or more grandparents at any time is estimated to be between three and eight million. According to the coordinator of the Healthy Grandparents Program, such children are at a high risk for many disorders; their possible cognitive deficiencies are results of prenatal drug abuse or neglect early in life. Their parents are generally unfit-- drug-using, neglectful and/or abusive. Some of these are children whose parents are incarcerated, some have other unstable backgrounds.

Their parents made most of the problems these kids have. I fail to see why uniting convicts and kids would be a boon to society or to their unfortunate children.

I wince at the absolutism of a couple of the letter-writers here, bashing "convicts" with their bats of righteousness. As a felon who has paroled, and then been released from parole, after a stint in San Quentin Prison three years ago for drugs, let me add my perspective.

The book is absolutely right about the damage done to families by the incarceration of their parents. That some of the parents made bad choices, sure. That some of the parents chose drugs over the welfare of their family, sure. That's what addiction does. And, I have met women felons that are evil and act like career criminals, who essentially have abandoned their children to their non-criminal husbands.

But having said that, the majority of the men I met behind bars, including scores of black men from the inner cities in and around Oakland, California loved their children and families, were non-violent, and were caught in endless cycles of incarceration from parole violations over petty drug use, in ways the author describes. It was impossible for them to get off of parole (e.g, finding affordable housing and a job).

The bashers assume a perfect justice system that metes out punishment deservedly. As a former defendant in that system, I can testify that its adminsitration is vastly unequal along many lines, including: whether you can afford an attorney or have to settle for an overworked public defender, whether you can afford bail, the differing political agendas behind "charging policies" in county DA offices, the color of your skin, and yes, even gender (women, I observed, during my time awaiting trial and going to court --in my county-- were systematically given much lighter sentences than men for comparable offenses).

In my county too, Child Protective Services grabs your children at the first hint of an arrest, punishing single moms (the most) and dads. It takes years of effort and rehabilitation for these parents to recover their children--to reconstitute their families--if there is any form of conviction.

The book bashers also miss a point: the very act of arrest for even the smallest "illegal" act very often sets into motion a nearly unrecoverable set of actions: not having the funds for bail leads to an inability to pay rent or the mortgage while behind bars; not having a private attorney makes it impossible to handle related legal issues while behind bars, fighting eviction and foreclosure, dealing with Child Protective Services, getting final paychecks, fighting forfeiture actions, if any, securing an impounded car, to just name some. Much of this is due to the fact that public defenders are only allowed to deal with criminal matters--nothing else. And we haven't talked about what happens to your proterty and possessions while you are incarcerated, which for the average inmate means everything is stolen.

Martha Stewart gentrified going to prison; unfortunately this lead to the false dichotomy seen in media reports about her and her incarceration: the priviliged white woman with the million dollar attorneys(who probably din't really beling in prison, it was hinted) versus the poor black inmates in Alderson on drug charges, who belonged there. Stewart's family visited her frequently, coming by limosine and jet; the poor black inmates complained that Alderson was so far away from their homes that loved ones counldn't afford to visit. The media accounts also made prison seems like a kind of gothic college campus with dorm mothers parading as guards. But, the coverage of her soft imprisonment lead to collective media ignorance about how institutionalizing actually impacts the soul, psyche and physical health of a person. Impacts that further make relating to families left behind nearly impossible without post-release counseling, something unavailable to the poor parolee.

Having said all of this, it is my observation that the major residual of the present imprisonment boon is fatherless families. That was the principal issue I noted at San Quentin. It is an issue that we should all think about and deal with if we don't want successive generations of children of felons becoming felons themselves.