Preventing Crime Will Be More Effective Than

Preventing Crime Will Be More Effective Than Rehabilitation

Pennsylvania

Preventing Crime May Be

More Effective Than

Rehabilitation

This paper reviews Pennsylvania policymakers approach to crime. In particular the researcher explores the idea that it is better to prevent crime than merely rehabilitate criminals. Once released, most criminals return to a life of crime. Recent research in Pennsylvania State however, reveals that crime may be prevented if rehabilitative measures begin at the juvenile level. If at-risk youths are identified at an early age, there is a greater chance that they can be rehabilitated to become contributing members of society rather than criminals engaged in an endless cycle of violent criminal activity.

Introduction

There are few things that make a difference in one's life than the values and morals one learns as a child. Self-sufficiency is something that is taught, not necessarily something a child instinctually learns when they are born. Criminal behavior is a learned process, much like self-sufficient. Many policymakers believe that self-sufficiency may be the key to solving crime, much more so than the tough love approach policymakers of the past have. This is not however, the case for everyone. Joelle Farrell (2011) argues in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Pennsylvania policymakers are discovering "get tough on crime" sentencing causes recidivism and increases cost, and so corrections should focus on support systems, which have been shown to save money and keep convicts from returning to prison in many cases. Is support enough however, to reduce crime, or even eliminate it? Statistics suggest discovering the causes for crime will reduce crime rates far more that getting tough, and result in even greater net benefits than trying to reintegrate criminals into society after following rehabilitative measures. This paper will discuss the net benefits of a self-sufficiency program that rehabilitates juveniles so they stop criminal behaviors before they have a chance to become criminals at all.

Why is discovering the cause of crime so critical to reducing overall crime rates? Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections John Wetzell and other regional advocates of prison reform show that lack of support for reformed criminals often drives ex-cons to commit crime again, which drives up prison populations and the cost of rehabilitating criminals. According to a report published by Right on Crime, (2011) representing state initiatives interested in reducing crime rates, between 1999 and 2007 the prison population increased by 24% in Pennsylvania, a rate which outpaced the adult resident population. In fact one out of every 28 adults was in prison or on probation which cost taxpayers just under 2 billion dollars; the overall prison rate increased just under 300% during the last two decades according to the Commonwealth Foundation (2009). This occurred despite legislative actions that were designed to reduce recidivism, which included programs focusing on non-violent offenders including drug addicts. These programs included electronic monitoring and "sanctions for violations" (Commonwealth Foundation 2009).

Pennsylvania's transition toward prison reform has been hindered by many obstacles including the lack of accountability of a more formal correctional institution. The prison population in Pennsylvania is made up primarily of non-violent criminals; this includes drug addicts, people that suffer from addictions. Thus, addictions are often the cause of criminal activity. Rehabilitation will only go so far if addicts do not receive continuing support once they are released. If addicts hit the street and do not have reasonable homes and jobs to go to, they will only commit crimes again, go back to prison, and cost the state even more in rehabilitation and support fees.

Studies in other states where drug addiction is a huge problem including Baltimore show that factors contributing to drug addiction include child abuse and neglect, as well as substandard living conditions; these factors make criminals out of individuals that might otherwise become productive members of society (House Hearing 2002). Thus, an innovating crime prevention system must include components that identify potential problems before they start; meaning identifying offenders before they become offenders; this means tackling potential abusers in the juvenile system, and proving them with support and guidance at a critical age before they become hard core addicts. Providing assistance to at risk youths so they can become self-sufficient and possibly law abiding, non-addicted citizens is one of many ways to help reduce the non-violent crime rate in many of Pennsylvania's already overloaded prisons; that ways potential offenders become productive humans capable of becoming parents, employees and other community members (House Hearing, 2002). Addiction and criminal behavior are easy to take hold; while self-sufficiency is a learned behavior; however, it is easy to teach in a system that is willing to embrace common values and identify at risk individuals before it is willing to simply punish bad behaviors.

Conclusions