Ken doesn’t think that philosophy is the most conducive setting for philosophy; John agrees that that’s the case, at least in the U.S., where prisons are like overcrowded warehouses that are excessively focused on punishment. But that’s not the case everywhere – prisons in Norway, for instance, demonstrate that prisons don’t have to be so bleak. They can be places for rehabilitation. It doesn’t have to be a dichotomy of rehabilitation and punishment: losing freedom and being confined are already punishment enough, Scandinavian prisons hold. There’s no need to heap on insults to inmates’ dignity on a daily basis. Okay, says, Ken, but if you’re going to teach inmates anything, why should it be philosophy? Shouldn’t it be something more job-oriented? And what about the money that goes into prison education – shouldn’t that money be going to the education of non-inmates? John disagrees – he argues that we can educate both the free and the incarcerated.

John and Ken welcome guest Jennifer Lackey, Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University. John asks Jennifer why she decided to teach inmates in prison in the first place. Jennifer explains that she’s had an interest in the prison population since she was 12 years old. At some level, we all bear responsibility for incarceration. John asks Jennifer about what it’s like to teach at a maximum security men’s prison – both for her, as a teacher, and for the students themselves. Jennifer explains that most of her students have been convicted of at least one murder and most have at least 25 years left on their sentence. There are constant challenges with security (though she’s never been afraid for her own safety, expect for a few tense situations) and with bringing course materials. Ken asks her whether the students see this as an hour-long escape from their regular prison routine or whether they’re actually invested in the learnings. Jennifer explains that in her 16 years of teaching, she’s rarely come across more engaged, more passionate, and committed students than her students at Stateville.

肯请詹妮弗解释她是如何在监狱里教书的。这和她没有被监禁的学生有什么不同吗?她解释说，准备的程度是不同的——她的一些被监禁的学生到监狱时还不知道如何阅读。但是，詹妮弗解释说，她教这两组学生的内容和期望是相同的。她在斯泰特维尔的一些学生在抗争，并且出现了一些一次性的问题——比如，监狱被封锁了一个月。约翰问，为什么斯泰特维尔大学的学生关心这个问题?詹妮弗解释说，她的大多数学生都是在监狱里长大的——他们在监狱里犯的罪是几年前，如果不是几十年前的话。他们想要提升自己，他们想要孩子重视教育，他们想要看到他们的父亲能够通过学习成长，他们想要感觉到他们有第二次生命的机会……各种各样的原因都可以作为动力。他们三人更深入地讨论了对意义的深刻探索，囚犯——甚至那些死囚——可以通过学习哲学来补充。

John then brings up a common concern: we have a finite amount of resources, so why should we spend them on prison education when we could be using those resources to prevent the crimes that lead people to prison in the first place? Jennifer, John, and Ken discuss this topic in greater depth, then welcome questions from the audience. They continue the discussion by tackling questions about the views of people who work in prisons on prisoner education, what education can do for prisoners, and whether we can muster the political will to change our system of incarceration.

Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 5:47): Shuka Kalantari explores the workings of a philosophy in prison program in Kansas by talking to the first transgender woman in Kansas to transition while being incarcerated.

60-Second Philosopher(Seek to 45:10): Ian Shoales talks about prisoners who write while imprisoned and people who became famous in great part due to their time behind bars.