Rehabilitation in corrections: ethical policy initiatives for criminal justice

Justice, Crime and Ethics

Prepping the President: Ethical Analysis and Future Policy Initiatives

Suggesting the Use of Rehabilitation in Corrections

The President of the United States has just scheduled a town hall meeting entitled, "Criminal Justice Ethics: Today's News and Tomorrow's Solutions." Many of the country's most interested individuals in the field of criminal justice's present ethical issues are attending the meeting and expect to be informed on the status of some of the most innovative and future-leaning criminal justice policies that the country currently utilizes. In prepping the president on the topic at hand, significant attention must be paid to the use of rehabilitation in corrections, which has proven itself effective in rehabilitating criminal offenders in a way that allows them to regain a productive life for the remainder of their sentence and beyond. In viewing the status of criminal rehabilitation as well as the programs and policy considerations which are in place today, the president and the public will see the benefits of such programs and likely support the use of such programs in the future.

Factual Background and Relevant Public Policy

Prisoners make up a far greater percentage of the United States than the average individual may know. As of the start of 2012, the United States had 2.2 million behind bars, which raises the question: "What are we supposed to do with them?" Since the start of the American legal system hundreds of years ago, government and criminal justice officials have sought out ways to ensure that during a prison sentence, an inmate is reformed as much as possible in order to ensure they have seen the error in their ways and have placed an eye on the future. In attempting to ensure that those individuals who commit crimes will eventually be allowed to return to their own lives outside of a prison cell, many individuals in the field have sought to put into place rehabilitative programs in prisons in American prisons. Such rehabilitative measures have been suggested and enforced by the government for many years, since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965, which set the ball in motion. In essence, the act worked to "facilitate the rehabilitation of persons convicted of offenses against the United States" (Long, 1965, pp.1). This act further sought to end the process of merely sending inmates from prison to prison for established periods of time, for instance allowing a prisoner to spend the first 10 years of his sentence in a maximum-security prison and then transferring him (deeming good behavior) to a lesser level prison for the last 2 years of a sentence, and instead allowing prisoners to use good work ethic and behavior as a motivation for task-based rehabilitation.

The new bill authorized the Attorney General of a state to transfer a prisoner from a prison to residential community treatment centers, to grant them brief periods of unescorted leave under emergency circumstances or for purposes related to release preparations, and to permit them to work in private employment or participate in community training programs while continuing as prisoners of the institutions to which they are committed (Long, 1965, pp.1). Generally, in the nearly 50 years since, these programs have proved beneficial to many prisoners as well as to the prisons in which they are enforced. Additionally, society has generally come to terms with these programs, understanding that a prison sentence is by no means indicative that all prisoners are essentially monsters who deserve no shot at a new life after being paroled. Many of the crimes for which true rehabilitation for rejoining the world are offered are not violent crimes and allow for paroled inmates to go into the workforce immediately upon leaving prison. The main basis for such rehabilitative programs is to ensure that these inmates can find jobs, are assisted in doing so and maintain the types of support that they will need in order not to relapse again into a life of crime.

Today, the government and federal sentencing guidelines note that a prison's purpose is to "provide retribution, to educate, to deter and to incapacitate," and in order to do so, rehabilitative programs are used for those prisoners who meets the qualifications of being placed into such a program (Grover, Lane and Santos, 2012, pp. 490). The model of rehabilitation for prisoners has changed partially from 1965 to 2012, and the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act has been lost to the Second Chance Act of 2008, under which the country still operates (it was revitalized in 2011). The Second Chance Act (which is still effective despite funding cuts) was signed into law on April 9, 2008 and is heralded as a bipartisan effort representing state and local government, law enforcement, corrections, courts, service providers and community organizers (SCA, 2008, pp. 111). Generally, the rehabilitation process for a prisoner works like this: state and federal prisons receive funding from the government in order to administer an evidence-based approach to reducing crime and improving public safety through reentry programs such as:

Employment assistance and job-skills training

Substance abuse treatment

Housing assistance

Family-based programming

Individual group mentoring

Victim support (SCA, 2008, pp. 112-13).

The debate has long existed as to whether such a rehabilitative agenda should be used as opposed to a punishment-based agenda, and in actuality, the success rates for rehabilitative tactics pushed by public policy initiatives have been considerably low. In fact, out of every ten parolees who leave prison, four of them are arrested and placed back in prison within a span of only three years (Latessa, et al., 2012, pp. 775). However, proponents of the Second Chance Act and all it has to offer pose the question, "What would this rate be if rehabilitation wasn't used?" Such a question proves one that is valid for any debate. Being an inmate in a prison is punishment in itself, and it can be assumed that in utilizing nothing but punishment in order to deal with the offending crime itself and then every other issue that came up within the walls of that prison, a prison following government policy only to punish will breed inmates who are far more angry and likely to reoffend upon their ultimate release. In understanding this issue from both perspectives, one can pinpoint the strongest arguments on each side. However, in further examining the utilitarian structure upon which the United States can be generally seen as relying upon, it would appear that rehabilitation practices in prisons are really the best way to attempt aiding an already-dismal circumstance.

Ethical Issue Debate

Perhaps the most argued ethical issue when it comes to the call to continuing to rehabilitate is the question of spending the country's money, in a time of poor economic standing, on prisoners and not on the economic standing of hardworking citizens who have never been to jail or in trouble with the law. Such a debate comes into hand and into play in the realm of ethics because regardless of the fact that all humans should be treated equally as a basic right of humanity, prisoners are consistently viewed as less than human in the eyes of many. Why then, should these individuals who appear beneath us be afforded the education and training cost-free that many law-abiding individuals would love to have yet could never afford?

Currently the country is still facing the effects of the recession. Individuals who were once affluent members of society are now out of work and out of their homes. Unemployment is still at an undesirable standstill. Food banks have seen influxes of individuals looking for a meal unlike any time since the Great Depression. In such times of crisis, many people view the government's funding of policy like the Second Chance Act as a travesty. With so many people in the American population pinching their pennies to put dinner on the table, the American inmate receives three meals a day. While heat and water are being turned off all around the country because people can't pay their bills, inmates always have the option to shower and shave before getting into a bed. Of course, no sane individual would switch places with these inmates, but it just goes to show the kind of amenities that these people are provided with while the rest of the country is rapidly changing from the "haves" to the "have nots."

Again, the situation reverts quickly back to the fact that all human beings deserve the right to live happily, which is something that is generally hard to find in the American prison system. Yet each year, inmates are learning the skills they will need to go out and work in the real world, they are earning their GEDs from prison-led training, they are going on to achieve higher education and they are learning to provide for the families that they have left on the outside. Surely this cannot be all bad. Perhaps the ethical question can be solved by understanding what those individuals who go out into the world after having been incarcerated to do good have done -- to see what the six out of ten have contributed to their families and their country upon being given the tools to have done so.

The overwhelming amount of statistics presented detail the overwhelming statistics of those individuals who return to a life of crime, but clearly missing are the values that trace back to ex-prisoners who have become contributing members of society. In order to assess who these people are, the success stories must be weeded out from the failures, but these success stories shed light on the successful people that rehabilitation while in prison has molded. These people cite the system as the reason for their respective successes, which while it seems counter-intuitive, sheds light on the feats that can be achieved when the world does not give up on you.

Take, for instance, the story of Michael Santos, a long-term federal inmate, sentenced in 1987 at the age of 23 to a 45-year term for selling cocaine. Through the rehabilitative programs offered at his prison, Santos earned his bachelor's degree, his master's degree and a regular blog about prison reform for the Huffington Post, and Santos has done this all behind bars. Such feats can be achieved with similar self-improvement and rehabilitation programs which can be seen in viewing countless other stories just like Michael's -- the stories you rarely hear.

Prisoners who participate in these programs in large numbers receive their post-secondary degrees within prison walls, which is especially beneficial for young offenders. Recent studies have found that there is a high concentration of youth offenders who meet the criteria to participate in programs funded through the government and its prison grant allocations (Meyer, 2010, pp. 153). In this context, many inmates who come into the prison setting in their youth are able to work toward new education which has the possibility of aiding them in their eventual parole. For instance, an inmate who has utilized his time in the prison setting to better himself, receiving educational degrees and working to hone them while in prison is far more likely to be offered early release than someone who has done nothing during the duration of his sentence to better himself as an individual or as a part of society.

Such programs are necessary for the treatment of prisoners as human being, which should be enough to settle the financial debate that still looms in current American society. In being imprisoned itself, many more chances are added to an individual that he or she will commit a future crime; further, it is suggested that there are far more negative counter-influences associated in prisons with punishment tactics such as: abuse by other prisoners; humiliation by staff; inhumane conditions; further alienation by society; and barriers to work, housing and other forms of integration upon release (Gehring and Warner, 2007, pp. 170; Werner, 2000, pp. 2).

In viewing all the facts at hand, in assessing the use of rehabilitative programs for prisoners on a human note as well as a societal one, it is clear that systems that utilize punishment are archaic and not useful to the progression of American society. The fact remains that a massive percentage of prisoners who are incarcerated will leave prison and enter society again. The choice that we, as American people, have is to assert that educating and training these prisoners for this re-entrance is the most beneficial thing we can do to ensure that these individuals will not re-offend. It is our duty as fellow-citizens of these prisoners to afford them their rights as a human and as an American, and there are certain routes to ensure this in the realm of public policy.

Recommendation of Continued Use for the Future

In viewing the alternative to rehabilitation, there appears no other method of ensuring that those individuals who leave prison are individuals that can function among the rest of society in an effective way. The United States government has long been a proponent of such measures as seen through the noted policy implemented throughout the years, and the only right way to begin planning for the future of the country and the future of criminal justice is to continue these methods with little modification. Perhaps the most effective way to implement such a future is to follow the suggestions of prison guards and officials themselves.

Sergeant Barry Everett has found that the most effective way to rehabilitate prisoners is to follow the 12-point plan that has been rapidly spreading in use throughout the country, which ensures that when prisoner release days come or if an early inmate release should come, past inmates will have the tools that they need for success already embedded in their minds. These tools include several easy and effective tools that prison officials and employees can work by in order to ensure that their work pays off in the end. The 12 steps toward successful rehabilitation include tips such as: don't waste money, time or resources on "lifer" inmates, who will never be able to utilize what they have learned in the real world; college degrees must be paid for out-of-pocket by inmates and not by taxpayers; sex offenders need psychiatric care, not rehabilitation; real trade programs are essential to inmates who will be released; private businesses can and will teach their skills to inmates; allow inmate labor to be bought; timely release of trained, low-risk offenders; increase the size of parole operations; increase the options for officers; create non-conforming facilities; use the labor that is there; and treat inmates as humans -- and as inmates -- and always hold them accountable (Everett, 2010, pp. 1). While some of these tactics may appear controversial, the fact is that government funding is there to be utilized, and these methods can be supplemented or decreased to fit any specific prison situation. These tools have proven effective in many circumstances, and criminal justice employees need to research and allow the tools to work for them.

Conclusion

The future of the American criminal justice system essentially lies in the hands of the government and the president. In viewing the information at hand about the history of the prisoner rehabilitation initiatives and policy within the United States, I am confident that the best path for the country to take in terms of the future is to follow the tactics of the past in order to hone responsible, educated and trained prisoners and successfully transition them from the prison to society.