Political Parties Need to Understand What “lock them up means”

 

Photo by Carles Rabada on Unsplash

Somewhere along the way, our society started confusing punishment for crimes with containment — and containment with care. Jails and prisons were designed to hold people who choose to break the law of the land. Laws that have been reviewed and established as true and within the constructs of the U.S. Constitution. The criminal justice system was built to contain crime—not to care for those battling mental illness. Prisons were never designed for people who hold extreme beliefs—only for those who act on them in ways that violate the law. Words alone should never warrant punishment, let alone death.

Every year, thousands of people with serious mental health conditions are funneled into the criminal justice system—not because they’re inherently dangerous, but because they’ve broken laws as a result of untreated mental illness. Our systems of care continue to fail them.

When someone is psychotic, manic, or deeply depressed and doesn’t receive timely help, their behavior can become “criminal,” and intervention may be necessary. But locking them up doesn’t treat the illness—it merely hides it from public view and gives politicians bragging rights for “cleaning up crime.”

The same principle applies to those with extreme or radical ideas. Holding disturbing or unconventional beliefs is not, in itself, a crime. In a free society, we cannot punish people simply for thinking differently—even when their ideas are uncomfortable, confusing, or upsetting.

We teach free speech, yet our system is increasingly silencing voices that don’t align with popular views or prevailing social agendas. Radical speech must be protected. Only when someone acts on those beliefs in harmful ways does it cross into criminal territory.

The deeper problem is that prisons have become our default social response to political differences. When was the last time you heard a politician say, “I don’t agree with my opponent, but they have a right to their extreme views”? These days, it is more likely that one side is shouting to imprison the other.

We’ve built a system that is trying to solve unresolved social issues—poverty, trauma, addiction, and mental illness—by locking people up. But correctional officers are not clinicians, and cells are not therapy rooms. People who need treatment are placed in environments that often worsen their symptoms, reinforce their radical views, and leave them more disconnected—and more likely to reoffend—when they’re released

Building safer communities means recognizing that treatment is not punishment—and that ideological differences aren’t threats. Fear and hate must not drive policy

Prisons should be for those who commit crimes with intent and understanding — not for those who need psychiatric care or social support. That means investing in mental health services, crisis intervention teams, and treatment facilities that can respond with compassion instead of cuffs.

We need to relearn how to agree to disagree—without resorting to hate or violent rhetoric. We need leaders who are not extreme, but balanced—leaders who understand that compromise is a necessary reality in this world.

We need social media platforms that promote thoughtful, balanced creators instead of amplifying the most extreme voices. And we need to return to a place where disagreement doesn’t automatically make someone an enemy.

It’s not “soft” on crime to say that jails and prisons shouldn’t serve as mental hospitals or holding cells for political dissent.

It’s simply humane — and smart. Because when we treat illness as illness, we prevent more harm, heal more people, and build a society that actually understands justice.

We need to learn how to make differences constructive again—to talk through them, not turn them into lines of social warfare by shouting for “them” to be arrested.

We need to engage in humane processes that defuse the anger and hatred being pushed by those in power—and refocus our minds on making society functional, not factional.