At some point, repeated failure stops looking like incompetence and starts looking like a choice. When the same problems persist despite decades of evidence, reports, and lived experience, the issue is no longer a lack of information. It’s a lack of willingness to change what threatens the institution’s image.
Arizona Department of Corrections is deeply invested in appearing effective. Metrics are polished. Language is carefully chosen. “Rehabilitation,” “accountability,” and “public safety” are repeated until they sound true, even when outcomes say otherwise. The system measures what makes it look functional, not what actually reduces harm.
This is why surface-level compliance is celebrated while deeper failures are ignored. It’s why write-up numbers matter more than emotional regulation, and why recidivism is framed as individual weakness instead of institutional feedback. A system that prioritized outcomes would be forced to confront uncomfortable truths about trauma, skill-building, and the limits of punishment. A system that prioritizes image avoids those conversations entirely.
Image protection shows up in how problems are explained away. When people fail after release, the narrative shifts immediately to personal responsibility. When programs don’t work, participation is blamed. When conditions cause harm, the harm is minimized. The institution stays intact because the failure is always externalized. Accountability is demanded everywhere except where real power sits.
This focus on image also explains the resistance to meaningful reform. Reform requires admitting that current practices don’t work. That admission threatens authority, funding, and public trust. So instead of changing the design, the system doubles down on enforcement and messaging. The optics stay clean while the outcomes rot underneath.
What gets lost in this process is the human cost. People cycle through the same system, experiencing deeper instability each time, while the institution points to rules followed and boxes checked. Families absorb the fallout. Communities inherit the damage. And the system continues to present itself as necessary and effective because its image remains intact.
If AZDOC were truly outcome-focused, success would be measured by what happens after release. Fewer returns. Better stability. Improved mental health. Real capacity to function without constant control. Those metrics would force a reckoning with how trauma is handled, how support is withheld, and how obedience has been mistaken for growth. But those metrics are harder to spin, so they remain secondary.
Protecting image is easier than protecting people. It requires less effort, less humility, and no structural change. But it also guarantees the same failures will repeat, because nothing foundational is ever addressed. The system survives. The damage continues.
Tomorrow, we’re going to talk about what real accountability would actually require from AZDOC—and why that kind of accountability has never been applied inward.
This isn’t cynicism.
It’s pattern recognition.
And the pattern has been consistent for a very long time.
Comments
Post a Comment