faith_hope_love
11-27-2006, 06:53 PM
This is an excerpt from my college research portfolio. It discusses the topic of prison rehabilitation and why it is completely and utterly necessary. I see a lot of you debating on whether or not it is actually effective, but in the research I have done, I would definitely say that it is. I hope this provides some insight on the matter. I would also like to hear any feedback that ya'll have......criticism or praise :)
The Vital Role of Rehabilitation in America’s Justice System
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, "It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons […] that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens" ("Mission"). However, in a 1994 study done by the U.S. Department of Justice, 67.5% of released inmates were rearrested within three years of their release date (Criminal). With the tremendous increase of repeat offenders and new inmates, this year’s prison and jail population soared to well over 2 million persons and is rising at a rate of 2.6%. One Bureau of Justice Statistics report stated that this 2.6% growth rate equates to 1,085 new inmates each week (Beck). Considering such astounding statistics, one is led to question whether or not the current corrections system is acting as a safe environment for rehabilitation or as a breeding ground for repeat criminal offenders.
The concept of rehabilitation was introduced in 1870 when the National Congress of Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline met in Cincinnati to construct a modernistic penology that would rehabilitate criminals for the primary objective of maintaining the safety of society upon the inmate’s release. In the late 19th century, the rehabilitation ideal was established. This ideal recognized that crime is the result of an array of psychological and social factors. Thus, to prevent crime, these psychological and social factors must be considered. The goal of corrections should then be to identify such conditions and remove them through intensive rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation has to be individualized and structured for the needs of each particular person undergoing the treatment in order for it to prove comprehensively dynamic. Each person’s behavior is the result of various situations and circumstances and therefore, the focus of treatment should be on the individual and their condition as opposed to the condition of the crime committed (Cullen 116-117).
Rehabilitation may be defined as planned intervention that attempts to change or alter whatever aspects cause the delinquent’s criminality (i.e. interpersonal relationships, behavior, addiction, attitude, and cognitive processes) and to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Generally, rehabilitation is utilized in tandem with various education and work programs. The effectiveness of these programs is measured by recidivism, or the rate at which released convicts commit a subsequent crime and are reconvicted (Cullen 110). Admittedly, rehabilitation requires a great deal of tax money and not all programs are 100 percent effective. However, rehabilitation and education in correctional facilities are integral components of America’s justice system because they give inmates a reason to become productive citizens upon release, significantly reduce the nation’s prison operational expenses, and foster the safety of society by reducing crime and recidivism rates.
In California, the rate of recidivism is 70%. For 30 years, policy-makers have emphasized punishment rather than rehabilitation. Because of this, California’s prisons are now facing severe budget issues and rising recidivism (Martin). Recently, Senator Ross Johnson stated, "It is time for members of this Legislature, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives, to concede that our prison system is a monumental failure" (Martin). Finally, California policy-makers are recognizing the necessity of rehabilitation as a paramount constituent of criminal reconstruction. Johnson later conceded, "We have an obligation to the people of California to at least try to have these people who come out able to be functioning members of society" (Martin). These circumstances only further the knowing need of rehabilitation within correctional facilities. Without it, there is no incentive for the offender not to return and it is even more difficult for inmates to readjust to society upon release. L. Kay Gillespie, professor of criminology at Weber State University, expressed his feelings on the issue, saying, "It’s really sort of ironic that we take people who can't live in our society, put them in prison where we’re putting them in another society and the values of that society are almost the opposite of the values of our society" (Bridge). He believes that the greater amount of time one spends in prison, the less likely he will be to successfully adjust to life on the outside (Bridge).
Many believe that obtaining a job upon release is enough to keep a criminal from returning to prison. This is simply not true. An article in the Chicago Reporter explained, "Many advocates, scholars, and even former prisoners themselves agree that a job won’t help someone released from prison if they don’t have the right attitude" (VerBruggen). In 2001, a research organization in Washington D.C. called the Urban Institute, tracked 400 former prisoners after their release. Of those who had found employment, 18% returned to prison within 13 months. Of those who were not employed, 33% were reconvicted and also sent back to prison (VerBruggen). These statistics only emphasize the fact that, while employment does reduce the rate of recidivism, the inmate must additional rehabilitation before he is able to adjust properly to our society and function adequately. Learning new vocational and interpersonal skills, gaining self-confidence, and working on addiction recovery are all vital components of this concept that must be acknowledged and provided before progress may be seen. Comprehensive rehabilitative programs focus on such areas and allow inmates to see the consequences of their actions more clearly, thereby lessening the likelihood of reconviction for another offense.
Some argue that, while rehabilitation is pragmatic in theory, it is not financially feasible. It is true that rehabilitation comes with a high cost and requires a great deal of funding; however, it has been proven that these rehabilitative programs more than pay for themselves by reducing recidivism and therefore reducing the number of inmates that require housing. The U.S. Department of Justice’s State Prison Expenditures report stated:
Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation’s State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-to-day operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, $1.1 billion. The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650 or $62.05 per day. (Stephan)
Correctional authorities are being forced to spend billions of dollars each year on the maintenance of pre-existing facilities and the building of new ones due to the substantial accrual of incoming inmates. The United States is already facing unrelenting budget quandaries in the arena of correctional facilities and therefore, has little funds remaining to invest in exorbitant rehabilitation programs. However, in a study done by Dr. Rudy J. Cypser of the New York Chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, four common types of rehabilitation programs were examined: Diversions from Prison to Community-Based Intermediate Sanctions, Post-Secondary Correctional Education, 3-Stage Rehabilitation Programs, and Earned Rehabilitation Incentive Programs. The study concluded that if such programs were employed in the nation’s correctional facilities, the national net savings would approach $5 billion each year because of the significant decrease in recidivism (Cypser).
Proponents of rehabilitation are not merely encouraging the treatment and reformation of the criminal, they are encouraging the safety of our communities by ensuring that the released offender will be less likely to commit another crime against society. In another report from the U.S. Department of Justice, it was found that more than half of the increase in the population of state prisons since 1995 is because of the significant influx of prisoners that have been convicted of various violent offenses (Over). At some point in time, 98% of all inmates will be released into society yet again (Sage). It would therefore be in our best interest to ensure that such criminals have little or no incentive to commit subsequent violent acts against our citizens. Most rehabilitation and education programs, if employed correctly, provide a satisfying solution for such situations.
In a Department of Education study, 3,000 prisoners in Ohio, Minnesota, and Maryland were followed for three years after their release. Of the prisoners who participated in education programs, only 22% went back to prison. Of those who did not participate, 31% returned (Lewin). In another study, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons reported that education programs in prisons could reduce recidivism rates by almost 50 percent. However, only 5 percent of inmates are enrolled in such programs (Prisons). If we were to make these programs more accessible to inmates and provide stronger incentives for participation, the results would be astonishing. Not only would it benefit the transgressors themselves, it would allow room for more dangerous criminals and stop crime at the source instead of merely confining the violence for the time being.
Gail Spangenberg, President of the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy, declared:
The fact is that unless parolees and others released from confinement have the skills needed to obtain and keep a job, they are apt to find themselves back in the same circumstances that produced their criminal behavior in the first place, with consequent implications for the public safety and the economy. If they are to find meaningful jobs, acquire GED’s, and transition into some post-secondary education (because the nature of work increasingly requires it), carefully targeted policies, funding, and programming need to be strongly supported at all levels. (Spangeberg)
It is in the collective interest of our nation, both financially and morally, that these individuals receive the treatment and education they require in order to be successful and contributive citizens. Without treatment, correctional facilities merely serve as breeding grounds for more hardened criminals and future acts of crime. Bernie Warner, Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice at the N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton, noted, "There are two components to reform—make the facilities safer, but also change the delinquent behavior so that we’re addressing public safety and making communities safer" (DeSa). In order to efficiently cope with the issues of ever-increasing inmate populations and ever-decreasing prison space, action must be taken in the way of rehabilitation and education programs. Not only will such programs benefit the individuals behind bars; they will ultimately benefit those outside the prisons by ensuring the safety of our communities nation-wide.
(E-mail me if you would like to view the works cited)
The Vital Role of Rehabilitation in America’s Justice System
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, "It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons […] that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens" ("Mission"). However, in a 1994 study done by the U.S. Department of Justice, 67.5% of released inmates were rearrested within three years of their release date (Criminal). With the tremendous increase of repeat offenders and new inmates, this year’s prison and jail population soared to well over 2 million persons and is rising at a rate of 2.6%. One Bureau of Justice Statistics report stated that this 2.6% growth rate equates to 1,085 new inmates each week (Beck). Considering such astounding statistics, one is led to question whether or not the current corrections system is acting as a safe environment for rehabilitation or as a breeding ground for repeat criminal offenders.
The concept of rehabilitation was introduced in 1870 when the National Congress of Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline met in Cincinnati to construct a modernistic penology that would rehabilitate criminals for the primary objective of maintaining the safety of society upon the inmate’s release. In the late 19th century, the rehabilitation ideal was established. This ideal recognized that crime is the result of an array of psychological and social factors. Thus, to prevent crime, these psychological and social factors must be considered. The goal of corrections should then be to identify such conditions and remove them through intensive rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation has to be individualized and structured for the needs of each particular person undergoing the treatment in order for it to prove comprehensively dynamic. Each person’s behavior is the result of various situations and circumstances and therefore, the focus of treatment should be on the individual and their condition as opposed to the condition of the crime committed (Cullen 116-117).
Rehabilitation may be defined as planned intervention that attempts to change or alter whatever aspects cause the delinquent’s criminality (i.e. interpersonal relationships, behavior, addiction, attitude, and cognitive processes) and to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Generally, rehabilitation is utilized in tandem with various education and work programs. The effectiveness of these programs is measured by recidivism, or the rate at which released convicts commit a subsequent crime and are reconvicted (Cullen 110). Admittedly, rehabilitation requires a great deal of tax money and not all programs are 100 percent effective. However, rehabilitation and education in correctional facilities are integral components of America’s justice system because they give inmates a reason to become productive citizens upon release, significantly reduce the nation’s prison operational expenses, and foster the safety of society by reducing crime and recidivism rates.
In California, the rate of recidivism is 70%. For 30 years, policy-makers have emphasized punishment rather than rehabilitation. Because of this, California’s prisons are now facing severe budget issues and rising recidivism (Martin). Recently, Senator Ross Johnson stated, "It is time for members of this Legislature, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives, to concede that our prison system is a monumental failure" (Martin). Finally, California policy-makers are recognizing the necessity of rehabilitation as a paramount constituent of criminal reconstruction. Johnson later conceded, "We have an obligation to the people of California to at least try to have these people who come out able to be functioning members of society" (Martin). These circumstances only further the knowing need of rehabilitation within correctional facilities. Without it, there is no incentive for the offender not to return and it is even more difficult for inmates to readjust to society upon release. L. Kay Gillespie, professor of criminology at Weber State University, expressed his feelings on the issue, saying, "It’s really sort of ironic that we take people who can't live in our society, put them in prison where we’re putting them in another society and the values of that society are almost the opposite of the values of our society" (Bridge). He believes that the greater amount of time one spends in prison, the less likely he will be to successfully adjust to life on the outside (Bridge).
Many believe that obtaining a job upon release is enough to keep a criminal from returning to prison. This is simply not true. An article in the Chicago Reporter explained, "Many advocates, scholars, and even former prisoners themselves agree that a job won’t help someone released from prison if they don’t have the right attitude" (VerBruggen). In 2001, a research organization in Washington D.C. called the Urban Institute, tracked 400 former prisoners after their release. Of those who had found employment, 18% returned to prison within 13 months. Of those who were not employed, 33% were reconvicted and also sent back to prison (VerBruggen). These statistics only emphasize the fact that, while employment does reduce the rate of recidivism, the inmate must additional rehabilitation before he is able to adjust properly to our society and function adequately. Learning new vocational and interpersonal skills, gaining self-confidence, and working on addiction recovery are all vital components of this concept that must be acknowledged and provided before progress may be seen. Comprehensive rehabilitative programs focus on such areas and allow inmates to see the consequences of their actions more clearly, thereby lessening the likelihood of reconviction for another offense.
Some argue that, while rehabilitation is pragmatic in theory, it is not financially feasible. It is true that rehabilitation comes with a high cost and requires a great deal of funding; however, it has been proven that these rehabilitative programs more than pay for themselves by reducing recidivism and therefore reducing the number of inmates that require housing. The U.S. Department of Justice’s State Prison Expenditures report stated:
Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation’s State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-to-day operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, $1.1 billion. The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650 or $62.05 per day. (Stephan)
Correctional authorities are being forced to spend billions of dollars each year on the maintenance of pre-existing facilities and the building of new ones due to the substantial accrual of incoming inmates. The United States is already facing unrelenting budget quandaries in the arena of correctional facilities and therefore, has little funds remaining to invest in exorbitant rehabilitation programs. However, in a study done by Dr. Rudy J. Cypser of the New York Chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, four common types of rehabilitation programs were examined: Diversions from Prison to Community-Based Intermediate Sanctions, Post-Secondary Correctional Education, 3-Stage Rehabilitation Programs, and Earned Rehabilitation Incentive Programs. The study concluded that if such programs were employed in the nation’s correctional facilities, the national net savings would approach $5 billion each year because of the significant decrease in recidivism (Cypser).
Proponents of rehabilitation are not merely encouraging the treatment and reformation of the criminal, they are encouraging the safety of our communities by ensuring that the released offender will be less likely to commit another crime against society. In another report from the U.S. Department of Justice, it was found that more than half of the increase in the population of state prisons since 1995 is because of the significant influx of prisoners that have been convicted of various violent offenses (Over). At some point in time, 98% of all inmates will be released into society yet again (Sage). It would therefore be in our best interest to ensure that such criminals have little or no incentive to commit subsequent violent acts against our citizens. Most rehabilitation and education programs, if employed correctly, provide a satisfying solution for such situations.
In a Department of Education study, 3,000 prisoners in Ohio, Minnesota, and Maryland were followed for three years after their release. Of the prisoners who participated in education programs, only 22% went back to prison. Of those who did not participate, 31% returned (Lewin). In another study, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons reported that education programs in prisons could reduce recidivism rates by almost 50 percent. However, only 5 percent of inmates are enrolled in such programs (Prisons). If we were to make these programs more accessible to inmates and provide stronger incentives for participation, the results would be astonishing. Not only would it benefit the transgressors themselves, it would allow room for more dangerous criminals and stop crime at the source instead of merely confining the violence for the time being.
Gail Spangenberg, President of the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy, declared:
The fact is that unless parolees and others released from confinement have the skills needed to obtain and keep a job, they are apt to find themselves back in the same circumstances that produced their criminal behavior in the first place, with consequent implications for the public safety and the economy. If they are to find meaningful jobs, acquire GED’s, and transition into some post-secondary education (because the nature of work increasingly requires it), carefully targeted policies, funding, and programming need to be strongly supported at all levels. (Spangeberg)
It is in the collective interest of our nation, both financially and morally, that these individuals receive the treatment and education they require in order to be successful and contributive citizens. Without treatment, correctional facilities merely serve as breeding grounds for more hardened criminals and future acts of crime. Bernie Warner, Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice at the N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton, noted, "There are two components to reform—make the facilities safer, but also change the delinquent behavior so that we’re addressing public safety and making communities safer" (DeSa). In order to efficiently cope with the issues of ever-increasing inmate populations and ever-decreasing prison space, action must be taken in the way of rehabilitation and education programs. Not only will such programs benefit the individuals behind bars; they will ultimately benefit those outside the prisons by ensuring the safety of our communities nation-wide.
(E-mail me if you would like to view the works cited)