The Window to Reality
My journey using Virtual Reality to bring inclusive design and commitment to an educational opportunity program in prisons
Putting on the Oculus Quest headset, my reality shifted. I found myself stuck in a car with a stranger in the passenger seat — a woman who regarded me with menace. “I need the money,” she demanded. This stressful situation was part of the simulation module to practice the user’s skill in de-escalating conflicts. I knew my other teammates would love it, but it would be a while before they could experience virtual reality themselves, since half of my group comprises men serving time at a correctional facility. Together, we are developing a reentry program that leverages virtual reality to enhance the inmates’ perception of the outside world.
How it starts
In light of the recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, let’s visit a Supreme Court decision that sets the background for the Education Inside Prison project. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama ruled that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) was faced with a dilemma: how could they prepare those prisoners for reentry, while many of those who entered as juveniles were now middle-aged and never offered rehabilitation programs? They struggled with the basic tasks of livelihood, like riding public transit, visiting the laundromat, and even using a debit card. To the surprise of many, the DOC found a solution by offering New York-based technology company NSENA VR a contract to develop a series of videos reinforced with classroom instructions. The idea was that VR would reduce the rate of relapse into criminal behaviors (also known as the recidivism rate), which could be up to 50% in Colorado, depending on type of release¹. Our Evergreen state fared better by comparison, with tae rate of 27.8% in 2009², but there is much room for improvement.
Bridging Hope
So how did the state of Washington address this change in legislation? Considering that public universities — including the University of Washington — have an obligation to buy furniture and other products made by prisons through what some would consider to be exploitative manners, shouldn’t they shoulder the responsibility of rehabilitating state inmates?
A University of Washington lecturer, Claudia Jensen, reached out to the UW Virtual Reality Lab to find ways of incorporating VR into reentry programs. She also taught honor students in summer classes about Education Inside Prison and co-founded H.O.P.E (Huskies for Opportunities in Prison Education). As a former student, I had the opportunity to interview the inmates about the effects of VR on their reentry process. Conversations with the inmates enlightened me about the grim and unjust reality of exploitation. In fact, just as prison froze them in a time capsule by limiting their access to information, it also exemplified their innate personalities and humanity.
Through sharing our visions for the project and H.O.P.E, we came to the realization that the importance of VR in education is irrefutable. Moreover, in addition to teaching daily skills and vocational training, VR has the therapeutic effect of transporting an inmates to beautiful, immersive settings in nature.
One inmate succinctly summed up the purpose of VR education. “We are imprisoned physically, but we do not have to be imprisoned virtually”.
Of course, the notion of applying VR in prisons is not without its share of setbacks and obstacles. The videos used in VR must pass stringent criteria imposed by the Department of Corrections (DOC). For instance, in order to expose an inmate to the scene of a busy street to desensitize them to the sights and sounds, simply recording a busy area in Seattle will not do. The videos must not include any minors, alcohol, drug paraphernalia, or conservative dress codes, and everyone filmed must give consent to do so.
One common argument against VR for prisons is, “Why should [the inmates] be entitled to somethings we don’t have?” This perspective is not new, and it presents a valid point. In essence, the proverbial saying “crime doesn’t pay” suggests that one shouldn’t benefit in any way from committing a crime. In the case of Virtual Reality programs, though, it turns out that even when rehabilitation is attempted, it has usually been done within the punitive mindset (Quinney, p.342). We acknowledge that confinement is punishment in and of itself. But whether we acknowledge it or not, we are also making rehabilitation (or lack thereof) part of the punishment.
This project is still gaining momentum and support from stakeholders as it expands to include more educational opportunities and resources for inmates. I hope my experience will inspire anyone with a desire for social equity to advocate for inclusivity within their discipline and to identify groups of people who need that “bridge” to progress.
After all, the window to reality is actually a mirror reflection of our values as a society.
References
- Colorado Department of Corrections, Fiscal Year Statistical Report: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdoc/departmental-reports-and-statistics
- https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/200-CH001.pdf
- Quinney, R. (1979). Criminology (2d ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
