Reform Analysis
Numerous problems for many years have beset our nation’s criminal justice system. The overcrowding of prisons and jails, juvenile justice, organized crime, overcriminalization, adult probation, teenage violence, and the rise in drug-related offenses are some of the significant and severe concerns we are currently confronting. The number of drug-related crimes in the nation has gradually risen over the previous few years, reaching record-high rates. According to Glaze and Parks (2021), 1.89 million US citizens were detained for drug-related offenses in 2020. Most of these individuals were imprisoned for nonviolent crimes without directly threatening society. The young people who are found guilty in juvenile court wind up spending most or all of their productive years behind in prisons, even though there is much that can be done to stop them from living a life of crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The main objective of this paper is to determine how rehabilitation, a proposed prison reform, might decrease the amount of taxpayer money used in the criminal justice system, enhance community safety, lower recidivism rates, and decrease prison overcrowding. Around the world, criminal justice systems face various difficulties, particularly when trying to change how inmates act. The paper evaluates the numerous problems with rehabilitation programs within correctional facilities, stakeholders, and others factors around the reform. Fundamentally, rehabilitation programs rectify and rehabilitate criminal offenders to ensure they become helpful citizens once they fulfill their jail sentences (Glaze & Parks, 2011). Counseling, exercise regimens, mindfulness, academic courses, and religious programs are a few techniques frequently utilized to rehabilitate prisoners. These rehabilitative initiatives are typically founded on the notion that some potential cause, like a previous violent past or psychological or mental illnesses drive criminality in most individuals.
Description of Rehabilitation as a Reform
Estimates indicate that 13.5 million Americans serve time in jail or prison every year, but 95% of them eventually reintegrate into society. The US government also invests more than $60 billion annually in incarcerating criminals, most of whom are repeat offenders (Glaze & Parks, 2011). Consequently, a suggestion for prison reform involves having the government start policies that support numerous rehab programs like learning, well-being, mentoring, work opportunities, and transitional to ensure that detainees become contributing citizens and decrease re-offending cases (Stein, 2012). Having these eventually will reduce imprisonment or prison overcrowding. This change is crucial because it will decrease the rate of recidivism, improve societal safety, and cut expenditures.
This premise does not deny that some criminals choose to disobey the law independently; instead, it suggests that these choices are typically influenced by many elements that fuel criminal activity. As a result, rehabilitation programs are built on such viewpoints, in which various correctional regimens are made to address enforced criminal behavior (Glaze & Parks, 2021). For instance, whereas educational programs can concentrate on transforming negative behavior into sound reinforcement, counseling programs might focus on the behavior that caused the criminal offender to commit the crime (Harding, 2014). Consequently, prisons must implement corrective programs to lower recidivism among probation officers and parolees and reduce criminal conduct.
Since rehabilitation programs are primarily concerned with treating prisoners’ criminal conduct by eradicating the factors or situations that motivate them to do illegal activities, they have generally successfully reduced crime among prison inmates (Kaeble et al., 2016). Martinson and other criminologists who studied the success of rehabilitative programs like educational, community-based, and transcendental programs found that these programs were most effective when focused on treating prisoners to lower recidivism.
Historical Overview of Rehabilitation Reforms
Although the rehabilitation program policies were first implemented in the US in the 1930s, their popularity peaked in the 1950s. The competent staff member was entrusted with diagnosing the root causes of an offender’s criminal behavior. Also, they were given the role of prescribing the proper treatment and calculating how long it took the person to get rehabilitated (Phelps, 2011). The methods used were behavior modification, group therapy, and counseling. Unfortunately, because of the poor budget of the detention centers and the rising number of convicts, the staff needed help to appropriately treat all detainees, especially those convicted of violent crimes. (Phelps, 2011). Rehabilitation began to take place in the community rather than prisons in reaction to the increasing criminal behavior in the nation throughout the 1960s. Around this time, proponents of correctional facilities favored parole, vocational training, and educational programs.
The Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice advocated alternative strategies in 1965 (Harding, 2014). Some included community-based initiatives, educational and vocational training programs, and varied methods for treating criminals from various categories. Unfortunately, the community corrections concept appeared to be ineffective in the late 1980s as crime soared. Indefinite sentences, mental health programs, probation, parole, and rehab came under increasing criticism. The federal and state governments started implementing mandatory and consecutive life sentences for repeat offenders. Ever since, rehabilitation in the institutions has suffered due to the present administration’s “get tough on crime” strategy, which sees prisons primarily as places for punishment (Phelps, 2011, p. 56). The population has proliferated because of this, and recidivism and re-offending rates are very high.
Literature Review
The criminal justice system has historically used the “get tough” approach to criminals, as per Andrews & Bonta (2010). As a result, the growing use of punitive measures has not succeeded in lowering criminal recidivism levels but has grown the jail population, placing pressure on government expenditures. The authors point out that while seeking heavier penalties in light of the psychology of human behavior is understandable, the government must focus more on rehabilitating criminals. The authors also note that programs that follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model have demonstrated a decrease in criminal recidivism. According to Merlo & Benekos (2010), the harsh juvenile justice strategy has become less prevalent in the US during the 1990s. The authors point out that the harsh penalties introduced for youth crime significantly impacted communicative justice and the vilification of youths. This article suggests that to reduce juvenile crime, intervention, and rehabilitation programs should be established to reduce the severity of the punishments for young offenders.
According to Winterdyk & Ruddell (2010), engaging criminal gangs in active rehabilitation services that occupy them most often is among the most efficient ways to manage them inside prison. The authors researched gang control techniques in the American prison systems, which house over 1.19 million offenders. The results show that involving gang members in possibilities for rehabilitation was one of the tactics for gang containment in most jurisdictions. Another scholar, Cole (2011), points out the necessity of understanding the significance of prison rehabilitation in his paper about the end of mass incarceration. He does note that the authorities must increase their efforts in rehabilitation. The government must also work to enact additional legal changes that support attempts at rehabilitation, such as lessened penalties for minor offenses, the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, and more money for convicts’ rejoining the community.
Harding (2014) claims that prison-based rehabilitation programs have decreased the post-release re-offending rates among some criminals. Also, this article mentions how rehabilitation contributes to a better social climate in jail, which lessens the adverse effects for inmates. More evidence that interventions have decreased recidivism rates comes from Heseltine et al. (2011)’s study on prison-based correctional rehabilitation. The authors write that the implementation of recovery as a specific intervention in prisons has primarily resulted in a decrease in prison unrest and the incidence of re-offending, despite the growth in jail populations in most of the world.
According to Esperian (2010), prison educational programs that lower recidivism rates are among the most efficient rehab programs that should be implemented in jail institutions. The author mentions that many correctional facilities have had severe budgetary restrictions on these initiatives. According to this article, there are two key reasons why funding inmate education programs would be much more advantageous for the states. Teaching these convicts first lowers the recidivism rate and, second, decrease the long-term warehousing expenditures. According to Davis et al. (2013), obtaining correctional education while detained lowers the likelihood that offenders will re-offend after release. Nonetheless, the author argues that by providing inmates with job-market skills, industry-recognized certificates, and connections to potential employers, technical education initiatives should be more effective than academic education programs.
Very congested circumstances and gang violence have taken over several of the nation’s prisons (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Most prisoners typically contend with the brutal and terrible circumstances of gang crime, infectious diseases, forceful exertions by correctional officers, and inmate rape. Hence, it is ineffective and inefficient for the federal government to waste tax dollars on the legal system by implementing laws that only increase the number of criminals rather than instituting robust rehabilitation strategies that will lower crime rates (Harding, 2014). It will continue to be fruitless and meaningless to remove criminals from our streets while ignoring how the harsh correctional facilities will ultimately affect their re-entry into our communities if the administration cannot implement these initiatives.
Implementation Plan of the Reform
The crucial spheres of family, schooling, personality, healthcare, and work will be the emphasis of this jail reform. However, the journey toward reintegration into society should continue. Hence, there should be several measures that an offender needs to take before being released in order to increase their potential for success in society. Also, the jails must provide upcoming releasees with housing, employment, and health assistance (Esperian, 2010). The prisons should engage with county and state agencies like the health department, social security administration, department of employee training, Bureau of motor services, and social and family assistance to integrate this reform. Also, prisons must offer proper medical treatment because one of their rehabilitation programs has been shown to lower recidivism rates.
Every prison should implement laws that make drug rehabilitation mandatory or required for all low-level drug addicts. Thus, it is crucial to establish a system that allows low-level drug users to be imprisoned or enroll in a drug rehab program like an inpatient rather than send them to jail or prison (Davis et al., 2013). After finishing the programs, they should be placed on probation for the remainder of their predetermined sentence. Finally, judges should have the flexibility to give nonviolent offenders parole rather than a jail term or prison sentence, or reduced sentences altogether.
The Challenges of Rehabilitation as a Reform
It is significant to highlight that although most jails in various states offer a wide range of offender rehabilitation programs, they still struggle with funding. As a result, one of the main obstacles to the execution of this reform is the federal and state governments’ inadequate or absence of budgetary allocation for these initiatives (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Also, most jails devote considerable resources to maintaining initiatives that have little beneficial effect on the rehabilitative success of convicts or recidivism rates. As a result, states must discontinue several of these initiatives and start the ones mentioned above, which will reduce recidivism rates. The unwillingness of violent offenders who are serving lengthy terms and believe that rehabilitation will not assist them to cooperate is another problem.
Conflicting institutional goals and a shortage of finances are two problems that have hampered rehabilitation programs, and both are crucial to addressing criminal conduct inside correctional facilities. The aims required to establish and administer correctional programs inside the jail facility conflict with the objectives and goals of different correctional facilities. Due to this conflict, predicting the resources required to create and execute either community-based initiatives or education programs is challenging. Another issue is job confusion, in which different law enforcement officials in charge of correctional programs are unsure of their tasks in rehabilitation programs.
Benefits of Implementing this Reform
The implementation of this reform will lead to the reformation of the prison system. The reformation will result in a decrease in crime and associated expenses and a decline in recidivism rates (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). It can also result in an improvement in community safety. Many people believe that the nation’s prison system is now doing more damage than good to criminals by primarily emphasizing retribution rather than rehabilitative initiatives that help the inmates become ready to reintegrate into society. Adequate and proper rehabilitation is the ideal prison reform to alleviate and minimize most issues plaguing our jail system.
Stakeholders
Correctional officers, jail keepers, and detaining officers are among the many law enforcement personnel participating in rehabilitative and penitentiary programs. Their primary duty is to watch inmates and assure their security while they wait for their sentences to be determined by the court or while they serve their sentences. If a problem is inside the prison, they are also responsible for keeping order by imposing disciplinary sanctions. These law enforcers typically have an authoritative, severe, strict, and intolerant manner that allows them to deal with convicts.
Conclusion
The known causes of recidivism can be targeted by rehabilitation programs founded on the tenets of effective intervention, forcing change and allowing the integration of behavioral or cognitive therapies to undermine the criminal offender’s patterns of thinking and reinforce their behavior. According to the guidelines for successful intervention, rehabilitation programs can consider the numerous features of offenders that might affect their responsiveness to rehabilitative therapies. Many rehabilitation programs, including academic and vocational instruction, community-based initiatives, ethical awareness therapy, and behavioral treatment centers, have shown promise in lowering recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals. It has also been highlighted that because these programs primarily focused on criminal offenders’ behavior and related circumstances, they successfully treated them. The concepts of effective intervention in rehabilitation programs, such as concentrating therapeutic approaches on high-risk offenders and hiring compassionate staff, are practical. These rehab programs also apply follow-up care to perpetrators after they exit the rehabilitation program.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. Cole, D. (2011). Turning the corner on mass incarceration. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 9, 27.
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that educate incarcerated adults. Rand Corporation.
Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 316-334.
Glaze, L. E., & Parks, E. (2021). Correctional populations in the United States, 2011. Population, 6(7), 8.
Gottschalk, M. (2015). Fuel to the Fire. Boston Review, 40(3), 63–66. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ofs&AN=102613134&site=eds-live&scope=site
Harding, R. (2014). Rehabilitation and prison social climate: Do ‘What Works’ rehabilitation programs work better in prisons with a positive social climate? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(2), 163–175.
Heseltine, K., Sarre, R., & Day, A. (2011). Prison-based correctional rehabilitation: An overview of intensive interventions for moderate to high-risk offenders. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (412), 1.
Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A., & Minton, T. (2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Larson, D. (2011). Abolition from Within: Enabling the Citizen Convict. Radical Teacher, pp. 91, 4– 15. Retrieved from https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.5406/radicalteacher.91.0004
Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. J. (2010). Is punitive juvenile justice policy declining in the United States? A critique of emergent initiatives. Youth justice, 10(1), 3-24.
Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in US prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 33–68.
Stein, A. (2012). Back on the Chain Gang: The New/Old Prison Labor Paradigm. Journal of Psychohistory, 39(4), 254–260. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login? url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ofs&AN=96043620&site=eds-live&scope=site
Winterdyk, J., & Ruddell, R. (2010). Managing prison gangs: Results from a survey of US prison systems. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 730-736.
write