Shelby
09-28-2005, 08:14 PM
Mandatory Rehabilitation
Maryland’s prison population has tripled over the last two decades, from 7,731 in 1980 to 23,403 in 2003. This is the result of higher recidivism rates, law enforcement efforts, and new legislation that has dramatically altered sentencing in the criminal justice system. Recidivism statistics show that more than half of the inmates, once released, will commit new crimes or revoke their parole and return to the system. Mandatory minimum sentencing, the “three strikes law”, and “truth in sentencing” laws have also fueled rising incarceration rates. Our current “tough on crime” approach has been to lock up the criminals and throw away the key. Inmates leave the system with no improvement in their education, no job skill training, and no cure for their addiction to drugs. Rehabilitation through mandatory education, mandatory vocational training, and mandatory drug treatment will provide better results than our current approach in the war against crime.
A poor educational background is a main factor leading to crime. Children with lower academic performance are more likely to violate the law. There is a strong link between low levels of education and high rates of criminal activity. People not having the proper education are limited in their ability to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory education will. In Maryland, 60% of the inmates who enter the correctional system are reading and writing on a sixth grade level. However, only 17% participate in the educational classes offered to them. Most inmates do not have basic study skills or effective communication skills. In a prison environment, where education is not valued, being harassed by your peers acts as a great deterrent for achieving a better education. According to Elizabeth Bartholomew, Public Information/Legislative Affairs Officer of Maryland’s Division of Parole and Probation, offenders who increase their educational level while in prison are less likely to return to prison and more likely to find jobs after their release. If the prison experience required enhancing education, it would give the inmate a fighting chance to a productive future, once released.
Unfortunately, state educators argue that between 1985 and 2003 the corrections budget increased by $300 million. Conversely, $30.6 million was cut from the Teacher’s Salary Challenge, a program that augments the salaries of teachers in low-performing, high-risk school districts. Higher education sustained a 20% cut totaling $200 million dollars. Cuts to higher education have resulted in a 21% increase in tuition at the University of Maryland. As these cuts were made to traditional forms of education in Maryland, the budget for Maryland's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services actually increased slightly, and there was a $77 million capital expenditure authorized to add prison beds to the corrections system.
However, improvement on recidivism rates would not require more prison beds; in fact, there might actually be a reduction. A study conducted by the Correctional Education Association for the United States Department of Education Office of Correctional Education, shows that simply attending educational classes while incarcerated reduces the likelihood of recidivism by 29%. Translated into savings, every dollar spent on education, returns more than two dollars to the citizens in reduced prison costs. While the savings in dollars is important, the reduction in crime itself is even more significant. The state spends less money for better results. The likelihood of a better-educated citizen committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
Unemployment is also a major factor leading to crime. In order for people to maintain a certain standard of living during a period of unemployment, they become more likely to commit a criminal act. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory vocational training will. In Maryland, 30% of the inmates entering the correctional system are unemployed. However, only 6% receive any vocational training while incarcerated. Carrying the stigma of having been incarcerated, and with gaps in their résumés makes it very difficult for ex-inmates to find employment. Once inmates are released back into society without having any job training or marketable skills, many have no choice but to return to the life of crime, since criminal activity is all they know. President George W. Bush, announced in his state of the union address on 20 January 2004:
Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help. This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including counseling from faith-based groups. America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.
As long as this is not just “read my lips” rhetoric, it is an encouraging start. Once the country embraces true rehabilitation, positive results will follow. Every effort should be made to require that inmates are rehabilitated. Maryland must be charged with releasing a different person than the one who came to them, a new and improved person armed with better vocational skills.
Sadly, United States Representative Pete Hoekstra, a Republican Congressman from Michigan, and others have sponsored a bill in the House claiming that prison labor places a disproportionate burden on private businesses that compete for the Federal Government's contracts for goods. The current law requires the government to buy specified quantities of certain goods from prison industries and in so doing prevents competition for those government contracts. This bill would eliminate the mandatory source preference that requires the Federal Government to buy some of the goods that prisoners produce.
However, many prisoners are eager to work, if only to relieve the tedium of prison life. But more important, is that the work is good for society in the long run because it reduces crime and recidivism. Working while serving a sentence should be mandatory, allowing inmates to be idle breeds violence and disruptive behavior. In Maryland, State Use Industries instructs and employs around one thousand inmates in the production of graphics, textiles, and furniture. By receiving, this real world, work experience the recidivism rates of the SUI employees is 62% lower than the recidivism rate of inmates not receiving this training. With the reduction of parole, the elimination of Pell grants for college classes, and other traditional behavioral incentives in the prison system, prison industries have become all the more important as a behavioral incentive. Mandatory work would not only eliminate idleness but would also provide inmates with on-the-job training and work experience that develops job skills and a strong work ethic. The likelihood of a citizen armed with a marketable vocational skill committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
Substance abuse is also a substantial factor leading to crime. Many people who are already involved in crime commit far more offenses once they become drug-dependent. Drug abusers commit robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, as well as shoplifting, and theft from automobiles to support their drug habits. They also may be involved in the violent drug distribution network, which can prompt them to engage in violence toward each other. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory drug treatment will. In Maryland, 80% of the inmates entering the correctional system abused drugs or alcohol. However, only 15% participated in drug treatment programs. Drug treatment programs are based heavily on group therapy regiments. Conventional programs were never designed for use with large, chronic, criminal populations in deep denial of their problems. Unlike community settings, issues brought up by prisoners, participating in groups within correctional settings are likely to end up as common knowledge on the prison yard. Conventional community programs were designed to treat populations that are more functional, more motivated, and more trusting and open with their peers, unlike prison settings. Expression of feelings of hurt and pain are considered a weakness and produce disrespect. By diverting drug offenders from prison into community-based treatment programs, the state can save much needed money to invest in important programs like education and health care.
Regrettably, some feel that to keep communities safe, the addicted should not be coddled by community treatment programs. In a letter to the American people, then Senator, John Ashcroft wrote on 1 January 2001:
As you are aware, I oppose any federal funding of drug-treatment programs. Why should we pay for those losers to "come down" and learn how to stop sticking needles in their arms? This is not our responsibility. Conversely, we must ban all drug-treatment programs, even those that are privately funded, and expedite the process of sending drug users to jail. Once incarcerated, the drug addicts can immediately get to work answering customer service calls and making clothes for the rest of us.
Senator Ashcroft is now the Attorney General of United States and is more able than ever to affect our nation’s drug policies.
However, drug treatment programs are less expensive than prisons and more effective at helping people turn their lives around. Maryland prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders who need treatment, not incarceration. Of Maryland’s 23,000 state prison inmates, about 25% are nonviolent drug offenders. It costs as much as $43,000 a year to keep someone imprisoned while drug treatment only costs around $7,000 per patient - a savings of $36,000 per person each year. According to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration, 71% of the patients in a residential treatment program are discharged with a successful treatment record. Maryland is wasting precious resources on prisons, which are more expensive and less effective at dealing with the disease of addiction, and drug related crime than treatment alternatives. Mandating treatment, rather than prison would help us both balance the budget and fund community-based organizations to provide treatment and reentry assistance. The likelihood of a drug free citizen committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
The State of Maryland is making progress by initiating more comprehensive treatment approaches. The ‘Maryland Treatment Not Jail Bill’was passed by Maryland’s General Assembly in May 2004, this bill will create the framework for diverting nonviolent offenders who abuse drugs, and alcohol into treatment programs instead of prisons and jails. In addition, under the guidance of Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Reentry Enforcement Services Targeting Addiction, Rehabilitation and Treatment known as RESTART was recently introduced. RESTART focuses on not only control and custody in state facilities but on education, substance abuse treatment, and re-entry support services to address the needs of inmates returning to the community. The RESTART program will dramatically reduce waiting lists by: adding more prison to work training, opening night schools, and providing career centers in all facilities. Also included, are transitional drug treatment services in pre-release facilities and referrals to community-based programs to continue treatment after release. Inmates will also receive pre-release planning with cognitive behavior modification, victim impact classes, and anger management counseling. These services will continue after release through community partners.
The recidivism rate in Maryland is 51%, and there are 654,976 citizens under supervision by Maryland’s Department of Parole and Probation. A prisoner who is released with little or no money, without an education, without employment or housing - usually with a history of life controlling addictions, has little or no chance of making it in a society that is at best suspicious and at worst hostile towards him or her. Unfortunately, many people re-offend over and over. During the periods between incarcerations, most released inmates go back to their old trade - crime. In addition to our tax dollars paying for the social and legal costs of crime, every citizen of Maryland stands a very good chance of being a victim of crime sometime during their life. Since the majority of the prison population suffers from low educational levels, unemployment, and addictive behaviors, it is imperative that they overcome these deficiencies through mandatory rehabilitation.
Maryland’s prison population has tripled over the last two decades, from 7,731 in 1980 to 23,403 in 2003. This is the result of higher recidivism rates, law enforcement efforts, and new legislation that has dramatically altered sentencing in the criminal justice system. Recidivism statistics show that more than half of the inmates, once released, will commit new crimes or revoke their parole and return to the system. Mandatory minimum sentencing, the “three strikes law”, and “truth in sentencing” laws have also fueled rising incarceration rates. Our current “tough on crime” approach has been to lock up the criminals and throw away the key. Inmates leave the system with no improvement in their education, no job skill training, and no cure for their addiction to drugs. Rehabilitation through mandatory education, mandatory vocational training, and mandatory drug treatment will provide better results than our current approach in the war against crime.
A poor educational background is a main factor leading to crime. Children with lower academic performance are more likely to violate the law. There is a strong link between low levels of education and high rates of criminal activity. People not having the proper education are limited in their ability to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory education will. In Maryland, 60% of the inmates who enter the correctional system are reading and writing on a sixth grade level. However, only 17% participate in the educational classes offered to them. Most inmates do not have basic study skills or effective communication skills. In a prison environment, where education is not valued, being harassed by your peers acts as a great deterrent for achieving a better education. According to Elizabeth Bartholomew, Public Information/Legislative Affairs Officer of Maryland’s Division of Parole and Probation, offenders who increase their educational level while in prison are less likely to return to prison and more likely to find jobs after their release. If the prison experience required enhancing education, it would give the inmate a fighting chance to a productive future, once released.
Unfortunately, state educators argue that between 1985 and 2003 the corrections budget increased by $300 million. Conversely, $30.6 million was cut from the Teacher’s Salary Challenge, a program that augments the salaries of teachers in low-performing, high-risk school districts. Higher education sustained a 20% cut totaling $200 million dollars. Cuts to higher education have resulted in a 21% increase in tuition at the University of Maryland. As these cuts were made to traditional forms of education in Maryland, the budget for Maryland's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services actually increased slightly, and there was a $77 million capital expenditure authorized to add prison beds to the corrections system.
However, improvement on recidivism rates would not require more prison beds; in fact, there might actually be a reduction. A study conducted by the Correctional Education Association for the United States Department of Education Office of Correctional Education, shows that simply attending educational classes while incarcerated reduces the likelihood of recidivism by 29%. Translated into savings, every dollar spent on education, returns more than two dollars to the citizens in reduced prison costs. While the savings in dollars is important, the reduction in crime itself is even more significant. The state spends less money for better results. The likelihood of a better-educated citizen committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
Unemployment is also a major factor leading to crime. In order for people to maintain a certain standard of living during a period of unemployment, they become more likely to commit a criminal act. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory vocational training will. In Maryland, 30% of the inmates entering the correctional system are unemployed. However, only 6% receive any vocational training while incarcerated. Carrying the stigma of having been incarcerated, and with gaps in their résumés makes it very difficult for ex-inmates to find employment. Once inmates are released back into society without having any job training or marketable skills, many have no choice but to return to the life of crime, since criminal activity is all they know. President George W. Bush, announced in his state of the union address on 20 January 2004:
Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help. This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including counseling from faith-based groups. America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.
As long as this is not just “read my lips” rhetoric, it is an encouraging start. Once the country embraces true rehabilitation, positive results will follow. Every effort should be made to require that inmates are rehabilitated. Maryland must be charged with releasing a different person than the one who came to them, a new and improved person armed with better vocational skills.
Sadly, United States Representative Pete Hoekstra, a Republican Congressman from Michigan, and others have sponsored a bill in the House claiming that prison labor places a disproportionate burden on private businesses that compete for the Federal Government's contracts for goods. The current law requires the government to buy specified quantities of certain goods from prison industries and in so doing prevents competition for those government contracts. This bill would eliminate the mandatory source preference that requires the Federal Government to buy some of the goods that prisoners produce.
However, many prisoners are eager to work, if only to relieve the tedium of prison life. But more important, is that the work is good for society in the long run because it reduces crime and recidivism. Working while serving a sentence should be mandatory, allowing inmates to be idle breeds violence and disruptive behavior. In Maryland, State Use Industries instructs and employs around one thousand inmates in the production of graphics, textiles, and furniture. By receiving, this real world, work experience the recidivism rates of the SUI employees is 62% lower than the recidivism rate of inmates not receiving this training. With the reduction of parole, the elimination of Pell grants for college classes, and other traditional behavioral incentives in the prison system, prison industries have become all the more important as a behavioral incentive. Mandatory work would not only eliminate idleness but would also provide inmates with on-the-job training and work experience that develops job skills and a strong work ethic. The likelihood of a citizen armed with a marketable vocational skill committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
Substance abuse is also a substantial factor leading to crime. Many people who are already involved in crime commit far more offenses once they become drug-dependent. Drug abusers commit robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, as well as shoplifting, and theft from automobiles to support their drug habits. They also may be involved in the violent drug distribution network, which can prompt them to engage in violence toward each other. Punishment alone will not reduce recidivism, mandatory drug treatment will. In Maryland, 80% of the inmates entering the correctional system abused drugs or alcohol. However, only 15% participated in drug treatment programs. Drug treatment programs are based heavily on group therapy regiments. Conventional programs were never designed for use with large, chronic, criminal populations in deep denial of their problems. Unlike community settings, issues brought up by prisoners, participating in groups within correctional settings are likely to end up as common knowledge on the prison yard. Conventional community programs were designed to treat populations that are more functional, more motivated, and more trusting and open with their peers, unlike prison settings. Expression of feelings of hurt and pain are considered a weakness and produce disrespect. By diverting drug offenders from prison into community-based treatment programs, the state can save much needed money to invest in important programs like education and health care.
Regrettably, some feel that to keep communities safe, the addicted should not be coddled by community treatment programs. In a letter to the American people, then Senator, John Ashcroft wrote on 1 January 2001:
As you are aware, I oppose any federal funding of drug-treatment programs. Why should we pay for those losers to "come down" and learn how to stop sticking needles in their arms? This is not our responsibility. Conversely, we must ban all drug-treatment programs, even those that are privately funded, and expedite the process of sending drug users to jail. Once incarcerated, the drug addicts can immediately get to work answering customer service calls and making clothes for the rest of us.
Senator Ashcroft is now the Attorney General of United States and is more able than ever to affect our nation’s drug policies.
However, drug treatment programs are less expensive than prisons and more effective at helping people turn their lives around. Maryland prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders who need treatment, not incarceration. Of Maryland’s 23,000 state prison inmates, about 25% are nonviolent drug offenders. It costs as much as $43,000 a year to keep someone imprisoned while drug treatment only costs around $7,000 per patient - a savings of $36,000 per person each year. According to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration, 71% of the patients in a residential treatment program are discharged with a successful treatment record. Maryland is wasting precious resources on prisons, which are more expensive and less effective at dealing with the disease of addiction, and drug related crime than treatment alternatives. Mandating treatment, rather than prison would help us both balance the budget and fund community-based organizations to provide treatment and reentry assistance. The likelihood of a drug free citizen committing another crime and returning to prison is greatly diminished.
The State of Maryland is making progress by initiating more comprehensive treatment approaches. The ‘Maryland Treatment Not Jail Bill’was passed by Maryland’s General Assembly in May 2004, this bill will create the framework for diverting nonviolent offenders who abuse drugs, and alcohol into treatment programs instead of prisons and jails. In addition, under the guidance of Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Reentry Enforcement Services Targeting Addiction, Rehabilitation and Treatment known as RESTART was recently introduced. RESTART focuses on not only control and custody in state facilities but on education, substance abuse treatment, and re-entry support services to address the needs of inmates returning to the community. The RESTART program will dramatically reduce waiting lists by: adding more prison to work training, opening night schools, and providing career centers in all facilities. Also included, are transitional drug treatment services in pre-release facilities and referrals to community-based programs to continue treatment after release. Inmates will also receive pre-release planning with cognitive behavior modification, victim impact classes, and anger management counseling. These services will continue after release through community partners.
The recidivism rate in Maryland is 51%, and there are 654,976 citizens under supervision by Maryland’s Department of Parole and Probation. A prisoner who is released with little or no money, without an education, without employment or housing - usually with a history of life controlling addictions, has little or no chance of making it in a society that is at best suspicious and at worst hostile towards him or her. Unfortunately, many people re-offend over and over. During the periods between incarcerations, most released inmates go back to their old trade - crime. In addition to our tax dollars paying for the social and legal costs of crime, every citizen of Maryland stands a very good chance of being a victim of crime sometime during their life. Since the majority of the prison population suffers from low educational levels, unemployment, and addictive behaviors, it is imperative that they overcome these deficiencies through mandatory rehabilitation.