Prison Corrections, Treatment Programs, Rehabilitation, And The Prevention Of Recidivism

The United States prison system is considered today to be one of the most flawed and corrupt systems of the modern world. Given this fact, it is unsurprising that one of the most talked about issues in the US today is prison reform. Prison reform is a phrase which refers to the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, establishing a more effective penal system, or implementing alternatives to incarceration. The US has spent the past twenty years gradually working to improve its prisons, and even recently strives to better the federal and state prison system as a whole. One of the main goals of prison reform is reducing recidivism, which is the chance of an incarcerated person re-offending. One of the main ways to do this is to give inmates ways to spend their time that will better them and prepare them to re-enter society as a fully productive, rehabilitated citizen. This facet of prison reform is the basis for the Prison Reform and Redemption Act of 2017. This bill, which was to be reviewed on Wednesday, April 25 but is

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

As of the end of 2015, there were 1,526,800 prisoners in the United States being held in state or federal correctional facilities. Every year, thousands of people are released from jail or prison. Most people who are incarcerated today will eventually be released. Most of these individuals return to a life of freedom without the skills they need to survive. Recidivism rates suggest that many of these individuals will re-offend within six months of release, and most will reoffend within three years. This is not because they’re bad people; it’s because they are trying to thrive in a system that sets them up to fail.

From 1973 to 2000 the imprisonment rate in the U.S has increased by a multiple of four, while the actual crime rate saw no such increase over that period. (Visher and Travis, 2003, p. 89-90) Historically, the prison system in America had always been marred with inadequacies and failures, specifically in rehabilitating prisoners. The significant increase in incarceration rates have put an even greater burden on the already inefficient prison system. In reality, the prison system does not actually function as a means of rehabilitating prisoners, and real purpose of the institute is to basically keep the “deplorables” of society away from the public eye. It serves as a tool to degrade members of society to the bottom of the social ladder and strip them of their most basic rights. For many prisoners, rehabilitation comes in the form of “corrections” which is largely characterized by the humiliation, abuse, and subjugation of inmates by correction officers. This form of rehabilitation is largely malicious and ineffective in its procedures and outcomes. Often times inmates, leave prison more emotionally and physically damaged that they were upon entrance as a consequence of the dismal conditions they were subjugated to. The current high rates of recidivism have testified to the fact that our prisons have failed as a deterrent. As a result, it must be

Diversion programs have evolved over time. There are countless programs available with which they all aim to reduce recidivism within the correctional system. We’re going to discuss fome of the programs and their effectiveness.

An inherent marker of this case’s problematic nature can be demonstrated within the representation of the defendants by prosecution. The defendants had their socioeconomic status and previous interactions with the ‘justice’ system flagrantly used against them. They were characterized as those people, the others, the ones who commit crimes – preying on implicit jury biases*1. Their background and the neighborhood they grew up in was used as an excuse to typecast them for a role in prison. It seems obvious that in any case, the class roles of any participants should be irrelevant unless their crime explicitly involves the matter. Instead, theirs were touted as evidence. Additionally, the defendants’ previous transgressions were brought up in an attempt to further incriminate them. Though recidivism rates are essentially astronomical in the United States, this argument is beyond irrelevant and at its heart a fallacy that should make this information irrelevant. (If the defendants had interacted with the justice system before and they were convicted of anything, then the system has failed them. It’s clearly ineffective given that in the eyes of the state the defendants were far from rehabilitated).

When envisioning a prison, one often conceptualizes a grisly scene of hardened rapists and murderers wandering aimlessly down the darkened halls of Alcatraz, as opposed to a pleasant facility catering to the needs of troubled souls. Prisons have long been a source of punishment for inmates in America and the debate continues as to whether or not an overhaul of the US prison system should occur. Such an overhaul would readjust the focuses of prison to rehabilitation and incarceration of inmates instead of the current focuses of punishment and incarceration. Altering the goal of the entire state and federal prison system for the purpose of rehabilitation is an unrealistic objective, however. Rehabilitation should not be the main purpose of

The revolving door on American prisons is as bad for the communities across the nation as it is for the people being cycled through the system. In “Offender Reentry”, David Allender, delves into how recidivism affects both the criminals and the community. Americans are starting to realize that the current prison system is not designed to reform, only to punish criminals. Because of this many ex-convicts are released from sentencing and allowed back into the real world without the necessary social skills to properly reintegrate. The problem became obvous with sex offenders, followed by minor drug crime. Allender points out that “The limited funding for treatment programs, which occurs because no one can prove that criminal activity did not happen

The American Penal System has become a laughing stock to many citizens who view the system as lacking and useless. The correctional facilities have become overpopulated and are housing more repeat offenders than ever in American history. To find out what could be the cause of this, the focus need to be put on the training of the officers which provide security, the management of the facilities and the legislature which make the rules for governing such an enormous body of people. The training of people, who will be guarding the all offenders, especially those with mental challenges, required in-depth training, which correctional officers do not receive. Correction is the punishment intended to reform, improve or rehabilitate (Corrections.2014).

One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections by the PEW Center offers interesting insight into the system beyond the containment of offenders inside prison walls. For quite a long time, especially after reading Punished by Victor Rios in Professor Morton’s seminar course, my views on probation and parole systems were of a negative light. I read stories of the young boys constantly targeted by police, picked up for small offenses and then immediately on probation and looped directly into the cycle; there was also no respect for the authority, by the boys, of the probation or parole system because of it’s lack of timely response to offenses and control. As a fresh perspective, the article altered my point of a view – it cited specific examples of states that have launched programs to go with community corrections over prison as a first choice and the results are seemingly positive, both in terms of crime reduction and cost benefit. Overall, I really liked this article – and I agreed with the argument which they backed up with cost and population numbers displaying the benefits of community correction versus prison, if implemented correctly. With a focus on helping those on probation and parole, and doling out money for those branches and not just prisons we are putting ourselves on the path to success – one of safety and better budgets.

Today’s prisons do not effectively rehabilitate criminals, they are likely to reoffend and be incarcerated multiple times. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “At least 95% of inmates in the U.S. state prisons will return to their communities upon release, and more than 66% will be rearrested within three years.” (Beyer 2). The majority of prisoners who are in the same environment both before and after they were arrested continue to break the law. If jails and prisons focused more on rehabilitating criminals rather than only punishment, this number is likely to decrease. Prisons in the United states are overcrowded. This became a legal issue in 2011, when the Supreme Court required a reduction in California’s prison population by over 40,000 inmates. (Beyer 1). Cramming too many prisoners together does not benefit any party in the correctional system, and it is likely to cause more issues between prisoners. This also puts the safety of prison guards and correctional officers in jeopardy, because physical altercations between prisoners are more likely to occur. 676 per 100,000 people in the United States are imprisoned, which is the largest incarceration rate in the world. (Beyer 2). This number could decrease with a prison system that focused on a prisoner’s need as an individual. This includes education, job preparedness, and a plan for life

With the highest incarcerated rate in the world, does the United States prison systems offer quality rehabilitation or just punishment? According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there was approximately 706 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or about 2.2 million prisoners in 2012 and within 3 years, almost 6 out of 10 released inmates will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. According to data from www.gpo.gov , the vast majority of prisoners are not rehabilitated. Two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of release from prison. Rates of recidivism rise to approximately 75%-85% of released prisoners are likely to be re-arrested within a decade of release. Successful rehabilitation is vital when releasing an inmate into the community as it produces a significant reduction in criminal recidivism. The purpose of incarceration is to protect the public and punish as well as rehabilitate the criminal. It is designed to change an inmate's view of life and alter their future behavior when re-entering society. Prisons offer education, labor, and other rehabilitation sources to inmates, so why is the recidivism rate so high with these programs in place?

Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in

From their inception, prisons have attempted to act as both a deterrent and a rehabilitator. However, in certain times one of these is