What Draymond Green’s NBA Suspension can teach us about the Criminal Justice System

Estimated Reading Time: 7 Minutes

Last Monday, all 230 pounds of Draymond Green stomped on the chest of opposing player Domantas Sabonis. Sabonis immediately began clutching his chest, and for the next few minutes he lay writhing in pain. Meanwhile, Draymond talked shit to the opposition’s fans, and he was soon ejected from the game.

After the game, Sabonis got X-rays on his chest and it was found that he had a sternum contusion.¹ He was listed as “questionable” for the next game, but ultimately ended up playing.

In the meantime, the NBA announced that Draymond would be suspended from the next playoff game. They cited three reasons for their decision: 1) Draymond’s stomp was dangerous and excessive, 2) Draymond egged on the crowd afterwards, and 3) Draymond has a history of unsportsmanlike conduct.²

And indeed, Draymond Green is rather infamous for his unsportsmanlike history. Some of the most memorable moments are the time he kicked Steven Adam’s in the nuts (twice in the same playoff series!),³ the time he got suspended in the NBA finals for tapping LeBron’s ballsack,⁴ and the time he punched his teammate Jordan Poole in the face.⁵ Over the years, Draymond has accumulated an impressive 163 career technical fouls, 17 ejections, and 4 suspensions.⁶

With all this controversy already surrounding one of the league’s best players, Draymond’s big stomp has been all the NBA’s been able to talk about. Was the suspension warranted? Was it even possible for Draymond to have avoided the stomp? And since Sabonis provoked Draymond by grabbing his leg, did Sabonis simply get what he had coming? These are the questions NBA fans and commentators have been passionately debating for the last week. ESPN has even called the incident “The Stomp heard around the World.”⁷

My personal opinion is that Draymond was obviously on some fuckshit. But putting all the NBA chatter aside, to me, the most interesting part of this has been observing the ways in which NBA punishment mirrors Criminal Justice punishment.

For example, a few days ago, the NBA Vice President went on ESPN to discuss Draymond’s suspension.⁸ He explained that the suspension wasn’t a snap decision, it was the result of debates that took place all day. These lengthy deliberations reminded me of a jury trial. Further, the Vice President used legal jargon like “conduct detrimental” and “repeat offender” to justify the suspension. This repeat offender justification reminded me of the “Three Strikes” criminal laws, which drastically increase punishment for people with prior felony convictions.⁹ Finally, if you check out the NBA rule used to determine Draymond’s punishment, Rule No. 12, Fouls and Penalties, you’ll see a long list of enumerated criteria, exceptions, and punishments.¹⁰ This struck me as resembling a criminal statute.

I wasn’t the only one drawing these comparisons, Marcus Thompson of The Athletic also made the same observation. “People really think this is a courtroom, huh?” he wrote. Thompson went on to argue that the NBA’s judicial posturing was just another example of the league taking itself way too seriously. The NBA isn’t a hall of justice, it’s a spectacle built on rivalries and drama. When the league suspends players like Draymond, it’s the fans who miss out.²

But the thing is, the NBA isn’t just another sitcom. It’s a powerful and influential enterprise capable of grabbing the nation’s attention. Most importantly, it has real life players who are seen as role models for many people, particularly young boys.

With all this influence, I think the NBA should take itself quite seriously. When injustice occurs, it should speak out. And when its players act harmfully, it should try to correct that behavior.

The problem is, the league is trying to correct behavior the same way as our Criminal Justice System, with punishment. That’s ineffective because, while punishment can act as a deterrent, it doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

We can plainly see that with Draymond. He’s already been punished with over a million dollars in fines,¹¹ suspensions from some of the most important games of his career, and nearly endless criticism about how he needs to change. Despite all that, when Draymond was interviewed after this latest fiasco he doubled down and said, “I will continue to play the game how I play the game, operate how I operate, be exactly who I am.”¹²

The same is true of many other players. Take Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and Rasheed Wallace for example. Each racked up over 300 technical fouls over the course of their careers! Clearly these players weren’t too deterred by whatever punishment they received. And the same can be said of the whole list of NBA players who’ve recorded over 100 technicals.¹³

If the NBA wants “repeat offenders” like Draymond to change, clearly it has to try something different. But what?

One option is increasing punishment severity: heavier fines, longer suspensions, maybe even league removal. This policy would surely do more to deter unsportsmanlike conduct, but also, it would probably ruin the NBA. Player-Franchise relationships would deteriorate, fans would be pissed, and everyone would miss out on good basketball. Because of these costs, I don’t think severe punishment is a viable solution.

Ideally, instead of solely using punishment to deter unsportsmanlike conduct, the NBA would also address its root causes. What exactly is it that causes players like Draymond to act out?

Maybe it’s something about the players. They could have trauma, mental disorders, or difficulty regulating their emotions. Or maybe it’s something about the NBA. It could be allowing tensions to rise too high during games, failing to prevent disrespectful fans, or treating players unfairly.

Whatever it is, the NBA should investigate this problem to determine its root causes, and then provide the appropriate solutions. Solutions might include stuff like new rules, therapy, community workshops, and a change in NBA culture.

I’m imagining going to an NBA executive and telling him about these ideas. I imagine he might laugh at me, and tell me how unfeasible these solutions are. And I’d agree that these solutions are huge undertakings, but what I’d try to explain is that they’re still less work than sticking to the traditional punishment scheme. In the long run, it’s always easier to address root causes because otherwise, problems will continue to resurface. To use a metaphor, it’s easier to grab the weed by its roots, than it is to endlessly trim.

---

I was talking to my dude bro friend about Draymond’s suspension a couple days ago, and at first, we both agreed that he deserved the punishment. He’s simply done this too many times, we said. But then, my friend, who’s also a borderline prison abolitionist, started to question our conclusion. Why should we accept the “repeat offender” logic in the NBA context, but not the Criminal Justice context?

Well, there are many ways to distinguish the criminal context from the basketball context. NBA players are unsportsmanlike, criminals are often violent.¹⁴ NBA players are multimillionaires, criminals are often poor.¹⁵ NBA players are suspended from basketball games, criminals are suspended from their lives.

These distinctions are certainly meaningful, but the more I think about it, the more I see these two situations as analogous. Both the NBA and the Criminal Justice System are hyper focused on punishment, both fail to address root causes, and both fail to eliminate the problems they purport to solve. #FreeDraymond.

Just as NBA punishment fails to deter unsportsmanlike conduct, criminal punishment fails to deter crime. If you don’t believe me, just look at how many times Draymond has tapped opponents in the balls, and look at how many former prisoners are reincarcerated. In America, 68% of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years, and 83% are re-arrested within nine years.¹⁶

Our Criminal Justice System is based on the flawed assumption that incarceration is an effective deterrent. It isn’t!

The U.S. Department of Justice itself has stated this. In its article “Five Things about Deterrence” it wrote, “Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.” It goes on to explain that this is because criminals rarely consider the severity of punishment, rather, they consider their perceived likelihood of being caught. Thus, even for America’s most severe punishment, the death penalty, there’s no evidence of a deterrence effect.¹⁷

And honestly, forget what the Department of Justice says, and just take a second to think about it. When people commit crimes, the Justice System’s standard remedy is to lock them up inside of a cage. What does that do to address crime’s root causes? Tearing someone away from their family and community, immersing them in a toxic prison environment, marking them with a criminal record that prevents them from transitioning back into society,¹⁸ does any of this really help prevent crime?

I doubt it. When people do harmful things, that is an indicator that they need our love and support, not that they need their life further upended. Instead of perpetuating violence with harsh punishments, we must disrupt violence with compassionate alternatives.

What are these alternatives? I’m far from being an expert on this subject, but I want to briefly lay out my two favorite ideas below.

The first idea is to be more like Norway. Over the span of thirty years, Norway was able to drop its two-year recidivism rate (the percentage of released prisoners who are re-arrested within two years) from 70% to 20%.¹⁹ How did the Norwegians do it?

Simple, they came together to overhaul the prison system as they knew it! Beginning in the 1990’s, Norway began to transition from a punitive, deterrence based system, to one more humane and effective. This included building small, decentralized jails to allow prisoners to remain close to home and see their loved ones; building single prisoner cells that resemble dorm rooms; building prisons with schools, amenities, and community spaces; granting prisoners the right to vote; capping maximum sentences at 30 years; and cutting 90% of sentences to less than a year long. Most importantly, Norway’s reforms were guided by a desire to recognize the dignity of each human prisoner.¹⁹

Today, Norway has one of the lowest crime rates, recidivism rates, and prison populations in the world.¹⁹ And while Norway is certainly different from America, I’m hopeful that many of these lessons are transferable.

The second alternative idea is Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice is a process where the offender and victim voluntarily meet to discuss their experiences, often with a mediator and community members present. The goal is for the victim to feel empowered, for the offender to recognize the harm they caused, and for both parties to agree on an appropriate remedy.²⁰

Research on Restorative Justice shows that it has considerable benefits. A 2007 meta-analysis found that, compared to traditional criminal justice, Restorative Justice reduced victims’ post-traumatic stress, increased offenders’ satisfaction with justice, reduced economic costs, and reduced recidivism.²¹

Turns out, there are better ways to deal with crime than the American prison system. For the sake of everyone suffering within its cages, we must desperately fight to see them implemented.

---

At this point, I’ve strayed quite far from Draymond Green’s basketball antics. Allow me to bring us back with a clever pun.

You can’t use punishment to stomp out the problems! 

For real though, we need to end our obsession with punishment, and we need to work together to confront the root causes of social problems. That means divesting from punishment, policing, and prisons; investing in communities, education, housing, and healthcare; and finally, recognizing the deep unfairness of our society. It’s no secret that social problems are concentrated among the poor, racial minorities, and other marginalized groups. This is the result of a deeply woven, systemic oppression that we must confront and uproot.

Solving these enormous social problems will be enormously difficult, but again, what’s even more difficult is leaving them unchecked.

---

Sources:

[1] NBC Sports – Kings’ Domantas Sabonis suffered sternum contusion in Draymond Green stomp

[2] The Athletic – The NBA missed the point with Draymond Green’s suspension

[3] YouTube – Every time Draymond Green kicked Steven Adams in the balls

[4] NBC Sports – NBA Finals: Warriors’ Draymond Green suspended for Game 5 after 4th flagrant foul

[5] YouTube – Draymond Green punch on Jordan Poole

[6] ESPN – Numbers when Draymond Green misses Warriors playoff games

[7] ESPN – Stomp heard around the world

[8] NBA – Joe Dumars: Draymond Green suspension was an “all-day process”

[9] Wikipedia – Three Strikes Law

[10] NBA – Rule No. 12: Fouls and Penalties

[11] Hoops Hype – Draymond Green has eclipsed the $1 million mark in fines

[12] AP News – Draymond Green won’t change post-suspension

[13] Interbasket – The 20 NBA Players with the most technical fouls in history

[14] The Sentencing Project – Mass Incarceration Trends – “More than three in five people (62%) sentenced to state prison have been convicted of a violent crime.”

[15] Prison Policy Initiative – Prisons of Poverty – “Incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to their incarceration, which is 41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages.”

[16] U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics – 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism

[17] U.S. Department of Justice – Five Things about Deterrence

[18] The Brennan Center – Collateral Consequences and the Enduring Nature of Punishment

[19] First Step Alliance – What We Can Learn From Norway’s Prison System

[20] Wikipedia – Restorative Justice

[21] The Smith Institute – Restorative Justice: The Evidence