Prisoner Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: Recidivism and Reentry

Introduction: The Reentry Problem

A film made in 1939 entitled They All Come Out makes the point that all prisoners are eventually released one way or another, with most returning to the community while a comparative few die in prison. The point of the film was that provision must be made for the reentry of prisoners into the community — a point that seems to have been lost in the intervening years as politicians increase punishments, as if longer sentences would solve all problems, while the reentry of prisoners to society takes a back seat and is often left to the prisoners themselves to figure out. If released felons commit more crimes, the response has been to reduce parole and keep them in prison longer, ignoring the fact that at some point they will still be released and the problem will appear once more.

Prison was once seen as a place for rehabilitation, in part so that the felon reentering society would be prepared with job skills and social skills to avoid returning to a life of crime. With a shift to a philosophy of punishment alone — often so severe that all amenities are excluded — prison does not prepare inmates for anything except being prisoners, and indeed serves for many as a training ground for new crimes. An examination of the issue shows that high recidivism rates are tied to this new philosophy and that a lack of any preparation for reentry makes successful reintegration less likely, suggesting that a rethinking of society's priorities is in order.

Sentencing Policy and the Growth of Mandatory Minimums

The United States Sentencing Commission was created in 1984 with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act. Prior to this, there had been considerable debate about the merits of a federal sentencing system that had little structure and broad judicial discretion. Critics argued that different judges with different judicial philosophies imposed different sentences on similarly situated offenders. Members of Congress therefore sought greater uniformity and certainty in sentencing. The resulting guidelines take into account both the defendant's count of conviction and the actual nature of the criminal conduct by assigning a base offense level — a number that serves as a starting point in assessing the seriousness of an offense. This base offense level increases or decreases depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, and the factors used to modify it are enumerated in the guidelines. This forms one axis of the table used to determine sentencing ranges, and the offense axis extends from level 1 (least serious) to level 43 (most serious). The other axis involves the defendant's criminal history, expressed in one of six categories, and the point at which the offense level and criminal history category intersect determines an offender's guideline range (Conaboy).

Political leaders can point to public opinion when asked why they support mandatory minimum sentencing. As Bessette notes, most Americans are skeptical of their criminal justice system: in 1994, 85% of Americans maintained that the courts in their area dealt "not harshly enough" with criminals, with almost no variation across demographic variables such as sex, race, age, education, income, and region (Bessette).

There is considerable public support for harsher punishment and very little for alternative approaches to reducing crime. A National Punishment Survey conducted by the Population and Society Research Center at Bowling Green State University in 1987 found that the public recommends prison sentences for a variety of violent and serious crimes that would be approximately three times longer than offenders actually serve. According to U.S. Department of Justice data on actual time served by those leaving state prisons: half of all murderers serve seven years or less; half of rapists serve less than four years; half of robbers serve two years and three months or less; half of those convicted of felony assault serve one year and four months or less; and half of drug traffickers serve one year and two months or less. Nearly half of the 54,000 violent offenders released from prisons in 36 states in 1992 served two years or less behind bars. These figures include many offenders with prior records and many convicted of multiple offenses. Beyond these figures, many felons receive sentences of straight probation rather than incarceration. In 1994, state courts throughout the nation sentenced 29% of convicted felons — a total of 253,000 offenders, including 2,400 rapists, 5,500 robbers, over 16,000 persons convicted of aggravated assault, and 48,000 drug traffickers — to probation with no incarceration (Bessette).

Bessette concludes that the sentences desired by the public are reasonable and that implementing them through mandatory minimums would be beneficial: "By bringing punishment more in line with public judgments about what offenders deserve, we will incapacitate recidivists, more effectively deter would-be criminals, and enhance public confidence in our governing institutions" (Bessette).

Critics, however, believe that mandatory minimum sentences do little beyond filling prisons with people who might be better punished in other ways. Kopel notes that since the 1980s, the United States has been engaged in the largest imprisonment program ever attempted by a democratic society. The drastic growth of the combined state and federal prison population is primarily the result not of demographics but of policy changes: population growth accounted for almost 8% of the increase in prison inmates; increased crime, about 19%; and more arrests, slightly more than 5%. Approximately 61% of the surge resulted from decisions to send to prison offenders who otherwise would have received an alternative sentence, and an additional 7% resulted from increases in time served (Kopel).

Prison Population, Costs, and Overcrowding

The figures on the size of the prison population are staggering and continue to grow. Each week, one thousand new prisoners are placed in U.S. prisons. Cost estimates range from $14,000 to $30,000 per year depending on the state or federal facility, with an average of approximately $20,000 per year. Prison construction is also up; at the time of this writing, well over 100 state facilities are under construction along with another ten for the federal system. The total cost for new prison construction alone will exceed $70 billion over the next few decades, assuming no increase in need beyond what is already foreseen. This represents a significant drain on budgets for schools, health care, and other public programs.

At the federal level, the number of prisoners being sentenced is exceeding the capacity of the prison system to house them. By the end of 1993, the federal prison population was expected to reach 84,000 — still 17,000 more than the expanded system proposed in 1989 by President George Bush could hold. Stiffer sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines have only compounded the problem. Such laws were passed to address public fears, but in practice thousands of prisoners have been released early from both state and federal prisons because the system cannot accommodate the population being sentenced (Lacayo 28–33).

Early release is not, however, the central issue: thousands of prisoners are released each year simply because their sentences are finished. The public has legitimate fears about crimes that might be committed by this population as well, and such fears are well founded given the high recidivism rates documented by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Conclusion

Fear of crime may affect the length of prison sentences, but this fear should not blind the public or political leaders to the fact that inmates will eventually be released. It is misguided to see training programs as evidence of "coddling criminals." In fact, such programs are one of the most effective ways society has of protecting itself in the future. Rehabilitation is not simply a gift to offenders — it is a necessity for the community.