Reducing recidivism through prison rehabilitation and reform strategies

Prison Life and Recidivism

Generally, recidivism in the justice system context entails the tendency amongst former prisoners or criminals to go back to their criminal lives mainly upon release from prison. In this case, recidivism rates are measured by having a look at the number of former prisoners re-incarcerated within a given time period. It can be noted that in basic terms, high recidivism rates are in most cases associated with increased costs of re-offender arrest and prosecution. Other related costs in this case relate to public safety. In this text, I will concern myself with prison life and the approaches/strategies to bring down the rate of recidivism upon a prisoner's release from jail.

The Purpose for Prisons in the U.S. Justice System

Prisons have an existing obligation enshrined in the constitution to avail to inmates a minimal standard of care. However, it is important to note that in relation to the preparation of prisoners for release, this standard of care is more often than not poorly defined. According to Osher (2007), the correctional responsibility of prisons in most cases comes to an end upon a prisoner's release. Hence the primary purpose of prisons in the U.S. justice system tends to be limited to segregation of offenders from the society. In a broader sense though, the purpose of prisons in the U.S. justice system can be described from a number of viewpoints. In that regard, prisons in this case could be seen as having an underlying purpose of punishing offenders in a way that could be considered just and fair. Further, the U.S. justice system seeks to protect the society from offenders through incarceration. However, it is important to note that this purpose is largely enjoined with the need to ensure that criminals are rehabilitated as they do their time in jail. This assertion is founded on the fact that a vast majority of prisoners serve only brief stints in prison other than life or death sentences. It can be noted that though the protection of society as well as punishment of offenders are largely valid and necessary, the main focus of prisons should be on rehabilitation of prisoners.

Current Conditions in U.S. Prisons

According to the Human Rights Watch (2011), the detention conditions in most prison facilities including those managed by private entities as well as federal and state facilities can only be described as dangerous, degrading and abusive. According to the organization, these conditions are largely as a result of increasing prison populations brought about by sentencing laws which are seen to be relatively harsh. Further, the human rights organization goes ahead to note that deplorable conditions are also informed by resource constraints as well as policies relating to immigrant detention. However, it can be noted that in most cases, prison overcrowding is often the culprit when it comes to the failure of U.S. prisons to meet constitutional standards. According to Reid (2011), "overcrowding is a serious problem in some U.S. jails and prisons, leading to double or triple celling." The author further notes that in some cases, congregate areas are used to house prisoners hence effectively stripping the inmates of their privacy in addition to escalating the spread on both violence and diseases. In a way, this defeats the key mandate of prisons to rehabilitate offenders. It is however important to note that though the current state of U.S. jails is not as deplorable as that of other nations, more needs to be done so as to ensure that U.S. prisons meet the constitutional threshold in relation to fair and just treatment of prisoners.

Rehabilitative Programs in Prisons: A Brief Overview

According to Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010), "rehabilitative programs aim at reforming the offenders' behavior." According to the authors, there are those who are of the opinion that the painful nature of imprisonment can be seen as being reformative in itself. However, quite a number of scholars question this view. They claim that there is no way prison life can be considered sufficiently reformative (Clear, Cole and Reisig 2010). The need to enhance the reformative nature of a prisoner's prison activities is however indisputable. The question that remains in this case is which rehabilitative programs should be embraced by prison authorities. For instance, should the programs offered be vocational or behavioral?

Some of the programs proposed by Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010) include but are not in any way limited to psychological programs, behavioral therapy, social therapy and religious programs. When it comes to psychological programs, the emphasis is on treating the inherent causes of criminality be they mental or emotional. It is however important to note that in this case, the assumption is that the criminality of the offender is largely informed or brought about by mental or emotional issues. This according to Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010) is one of the rehabilitative programs that have withstood significant challenges from a cross-section of critics. Critics of the rehabilitative program in this case include Thomas Szasz. In most cases, those criticizing the approach have claimed that criminal behavior cannot be explained in its entirety using mental illness.

Another common rehabilitative program in prisons is behavioral therapy. In this case, the assumption is that the way an individual responds to environmental problems is what either makes him deviant or non-deviant. Hence in this case, it is an individual's behavior that needs reformation and not his emotions or mind. Hence, the approach here is to adapt behavior through the identification as well as alteration of the environmental conditions which give rise to the behavior seen as a problem. When it comes to social therapy as yet another rehabilitative program used in prisons, the goal is basically the creation of an institutional environment that enhances or reinforces behavior and attitudes at a pro-social level. According to Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010), this "approach assumes that true change occurs when offenders begin to take responsibility for the social climate within which they must live." Hence in this case, efforts are not spared in the development of a personal culture which enhances not only the desired social attitudes but also reinforces a law-abiding lifestyle.

Religious programs are the other significant prison rehabilitative programs. As Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010) note, religious programs are in one way or the other different from the other rehabilitative programs. It can be noted that for quite a while, religious programs have been part and parcel of the prison services. However, for the most part, such programs were considered as offshoots to prison life rather than planned rehabilitative programs. Clear, Cole and Reisig (2010) are of the opinion that the recent popularity of religious programs as strategies to address problems of a social nature has got to do with the establishment of Faith Based and Community Initiatives by the former U.S. president. The authors in this case also note that in the past, crime studies have demonstrated that those individuals having a religious orientation are highly unlikely to be caught engaging in criminal activities. Hence when it comes to the use of religious programs as rehabilitative programs in the prison setting, the objective is to convince inmates to change their ways of living. Currently, religious programs in prison are largely voluntary. This voluntarily nature of involvement in this case is based on past court rulings deeming involvement into religious programs at the compulsory level as a violation of the First Amendment. However, it is important to note that all inmates, and not only those on special programs, have equal access to religious programs. This is seen to be in line with the right to belief and practice as enshrined and guaranteed under the first amendment.

Other rehabilitative programs in prisons which I have also identified as being widely used in efforts to bring down the rate of recidivism include but are not limited to substance abuse programs and vocational or educational programs.

Re-Introduction to Society Programs: An Analysis

Basically, re-entry or re-introduction programs help inmates released from prison to have a smooth transition and integration back to the community. In most cases, these programs include but again are not limited to a wide range of assistance services in relation to getting a job or housing as well as accessing a variety of community services. It is important to note that most states have their own re-entry or re-introduction programs. For instance, in Wisconsin, there are well-formulated prisoner re-introduction programs which are availed to inmates mainly through the Corrections Department. However, in general terms, the main re-introduction programs availed to inmates include employment training and readiness, anger management courses and house placements. In a way, these programs are critical for the successful integration of the inmate back to the community.

Protecting the Public upon a Prisoner's Release: Current Approaches

According to Reid (2011), approximately two thirds of inmates released are re-arrested for the commission of additional offenses within a period of three years after their release date. With this in mind, the relevance of protecting the public upon the release of prisoners cannot be overstated. In an effort to protect the public given the high proportion of offenders likely to go back to jail for the commission of additional crimes, there are a number of approaches which are largely considered effective. To begin with, Reid (2011) notes that some states have effectively reviewed parole conditions with others abolishing parole boards altogether. The author notes that a number of people have already fallen victim to crimes perpetrated by individuals released through parole. A total of 15 states had already abolished parole boards by 1999 (Reid 2011).

Another approach taken so as to protect the public according to Reid (2011) is the registration of sex offenders. In some States i.e. New Jersey, law enforcement officers must be kept up-to-date on the location of a released sex offender i.e. where the said offender plans to live upon release. Though the statutes calling for the registration of released or known sexual offenders vary from state to state, most of them require that residents be notified of the presence of a released or known sexual offender in their neighborhood (Reid, 2011).

Further, it can also be noted that there have been continuous and enhanced improvements on the way released inmates are supervised upon release from prison. In this case, various stakeholders work together to improve the management of risk presented by such individuals. Further, efforts have been taken to ensure that the prison service, law enforcement officers and other relevant parties work closely in the supervision of released offenders.

New Proposals Relating to Public Protection and Reduction of Recidivism

When an inmate is released, among those he or she relates to at close quarters are members of his or her family. In that regard, it does make great sense to ensure that individuals comprising of this group are protected at every instance from the offender. This is where the need for a domestic violence programs comes in. Most particularly, this program is most appropriate for individuals who have in the past shown patterns of abuse towards a family member or spouse.

Next, in an attempt to bring down recidivism levels and protect the public, it should be made compulsory for particular inmates to attend anger management courses prior to their release. Offenders targeted by such courses should include those who have shown violent inclinations in the past. This could be critical in seeking to reduce the physical as well as verbal aggression of affected individuals.

Lastly, still in an attempt to protect the public and bring down recidivism rates, sexual offenders should join treatment initiatives on a compulsory basis. Further, treatment of sexual offenders should be divided into two i.e. short-term and long-term. In this case, short-term treatment initiatives should be undertaken for a short time period i.e. A couple of months while long-term treatment approaches should cover a significant range of time most of which should be based on behavioral analysis.

Conclusion

It can be noted that when it comes to the criminal justice system, prisons should be more rehabilitative other than punitive. Indeed, this is the only way to ensure that the system does not end up producing worse individuals than it took in. Therefore, towards that end, there is an existing need to reinforce the current rehabilitative programs in prisons. This will be a critical step towards bringing down the rates of recidivism and enhancing public safety.