Posted by Scott on June 19th, 2008 — Posted in Recidivism
In my previous post entitled, Recidivism and the Prison Industry (Part 1), I explained that the prison industry does not effectively rehabilitate offenders because doing so is not in their financial interests. The prison industry profits from the expensive wastefulness and ineffectiveness of the prison system. As I said about rehabilitating offenders in the last post, the problem is not that the prison industry does not know how to do it; the problem is that they do not want to do it. In today’s post, I will explain how we can get the prison industry and the politicians to actually rehabilitate offenders.
It all comes down to money. We have to make it profitable for them to actually rehabilitate offenders and lower violent crime rates. And we have to make it unprofitable for them to keep wasting our resources.
To that end, we need to create a system of strict financial accountability.
When a prison releases someone who goes on to commit a new crime, I suggest we hold the prison financially responsible by making them pay for the damages caused by the crime or by making the prison pay a penalty fine of some sort.
I suggest prisons do not receive funding based on how many inmates they have each year because that can leave it profitable for the prison to keep inmates too long. Instead, I suggest prisons receive a certain amount of total funding for each inmate no matter how long they keep the inmate so that it is in the prison’s interest to rehabilitate and release that inmate as quickly and efficiently as possible.
To help ensure that inmates are not released until they have been rehabilitated and are safe to be released, I suggest that professionals must be put in charge of reviewing inmates and approving or rejecting each inmate for release. Then if a released convict commits another crime, a single person can be held accountable for releasing the dangerous, non-rehabilitated inmate. The especially helpful advantage is that we can fire reviewers who have approved the release of a relatively high percentage of inmates who re-offend. So we can find reviewers who are able to predict more accurately whether someone will re-offend and thus drastically lower the recidivism rate.
Finally, we need to ensure that effective incarceration and rehabilitation systems receive a lot of funding if they work correctly. The funding provides the financial incentive for the industry to actually rehabilitate offenders. And the funding also provides the ability to afford to rehabilitate offenders. For more about providing the funds, check out my post entitled Funding Security.
What do you think? How do you suggest we make it in the financial interests of the prison industry to actually do their job, rehabilitate offenders and lower recidivism rates?
22 Comments »
Posted by Scott on April 28th, 2008 — Posted in Recidivism
In regards to criminal behavior, recidivism refers to criminals re-offending after release from prison. In the United States, the recidivism rate is approximately 60%, which means that more than half of people released from prison commit another known crime.
An incarceration system could find many effective ways to significantly reduce the recidivism rate. And I assume doing it would save a lot of money because it would reduce so much crime, much of which is committed by previously convicted offenders.
Unfortunately, I do not think it is in the interests of the prison industry to reduce recidivism and prevent crime. The prison-industrial complex makes money by building prisons and stuffing them full of people. They make money with high crime rates. For example, you may wonder why the prison system wastes so much of taxpayers’ money barbarically throwing non-violent drug offenders in overcrowded prisons while releasing non-rehabilitated violent offenders who then commit more violent crime such as rape, murder and battery. The prison industry does that because they make more money that way. The prison industry makes money by getting people put in prison who do not belong there. They make money by not lowering violent crime rates such as when they fail to rehabilitate violent offenders before release.
Industrial-complexes cause the government to spend taxpayers’ money in ways that are wasteful, inefficient and ineffective for the taxpayers but profitable for the industries, politicians and bureaucrats that receive the money.
We can talk all day about how the politicians and the prison industry could reduce recidivism and violent crime. But the problem is not that they do not know how to do it. The problem is that they do not want to do it.
In the interest of keeping this blog post from getting too long, I will make my next post about how I think we can solve the problem and get the prison industry to actually rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism and violent crime.
3 Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 15th, 2008 — Posted in Recidivism
For the most part, most incarceration systems do not rehabilitate offenders. After convicting violent criminals and victimizers, we throw them in a horrible prison where they suffer while associating with other criminals. We either leave them there for life, or let them out after a certain amount of time. When we let them out, they probably come out more dangerous than before.
I support rehabilitation out of compassion, not for fiscal reasons. I have compassion both for the offenders and for potential victims. For the sake of offenders, I would rather rehabilitate offenders so that we can release them rather than make them suffer in prisons. For the sake of potential victims, I want the offenders rehabilitated so that, when they get out, they do not victimize anyone else.
Nonetheless, I assume rehabilitation would also make more sense fiscally. It costs a whole lot of money to keep people in prison for extended periods of time. Also, non-rehabilitated offenders will likely re-offend which will cost a lot of money in terms of law enforcement, court proceedings, and re-incarceration.
I see the main forms of rehabilitation as education, psycho-therapy, and psychiatric care. Most importantly, education can include vocational training as most offenders would not turn to crime if they had a good career with good pay. I bet many gang-bangers and violent criminals would want to give that up and become educated professionals if they thought it was viable.
What do you think? Do you also think that rehabilitation tends to cost less than just keeping people in prison without rehabilitating them? Do you know any studies that look into the possible fiscal advantages of rehabilitating criminals? If so, please post a comment about them! Thanks!
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on December 21st, 2007 — Posted in Recidivism
I just read an interesting blog post by a police officer who rants about how courts do not put offenders in jail long enough. He points out how most offenders have already committed previous offenses, but the courts or incarceration system has already released them.
I think we can all see that the courts and incarceration systems release non-rehabilitated predators in massive numbers. Most of those predators go out and victimize more people. The government could have prevented those repeat offenses simply by keeping the predator in jail or prison.
However, the jails and prisons have neither the resources nor the space to keep inmates any longer, let alone to actually rehabilitate them. As a result, it releases these victimizers.
We can free up space, funds, and resources by legalizing victimless crimes. The enforcement of victimless crimes costs the United States hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Non-violent drug “offenders” make up over 25% of the inmate population in the United States. Instead of releasing victimizers early, we could stop the authoritarian enforcement of victimless crimes.
What do you think?
2 Comments »
Posted by Scott on September 16th, 2007 — Posted in Recidivism
In a recent article, Patty Wetterling suggested that some strict sex-offender laws may do more harm than good, namely by making it difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society.
This week it published a 143-page report, “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States.” The researchers examined whether we are building safer communities with these laws, and what issues policy-makers should consider. HRW found that many laws may not prevent sexual attacks on children, but do lead to harassment, ostracism and even violence against former offenders. That makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate those people and reintegrate them safely into their communities — and that may actually increase the risk that they’ll repeat their crime.
As a mother who lost her son and helped incite some sex-offender laws, Patty Wetterling makes some great points in the article.
I think most sex-offender laws and policies fail because they take to generic of an approach.
Teenagers who engage in consensual sex get classified as “sex offenders” and have to register as such. Classifying non-violent teenagers who have sex the same as forcible rapists undermines the whole system.
Additionally, some sex offenders may never get rehabilitated, while others may. The incarceration system needs to have a way to study and monitor these offenders to determine whether or not they can and have been rehabilitated. Namely, I suggest that the release of sex offenders depends on extensive psychological evaluations.
Finally, most correction facilities do quite the opposite. They can even make matters worse by further perverting offenders of all types. In jails and prisons, inmates often become more violent and criminal as a result of living with other criminals in a harsh, violent, and often inhumane environment. The correctional facility needs to focus on actually rehabilitating offenders. This includes psychiatric and psychological treatment, education and job-training. The inmates need to learn how to live peacefully, and the system needs to prepare them to live as a non-criminal, contributing member of society who can function healthily in society and take care of themselves.
What do you think?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on September 5th, 2007 — Posted in Recidivism
Jim Hines recently wrote an article about the need for revision in sex offender laws. I include an excerpt:
“Jessica’s Law,” while not perfect, assigns a much greater mandatory prison sentence (25 years) to those who rape or molest the youngest (under 12) and most vulnerable (disabled and seniors). It also mandates GPS monitoring for life for perpetrators released from prison. It makes no distinction between rapists who may be grandfathers, teachers, clergy or perfect strangers. It is desperately needed in Washington. We should also consider a penalty and danger “multiplier” or modifier. The larger the age gap between the perpetrator and the victim, the greater the punishment and scrutiny.
We must also discontinue labeling as a sex offender someone who makes a very bad mistake, but who represents very little future threat. A Hoquiam wrestling coach was sentenced for having sex with an 18-year-old female student whom he coached. While this crime deserves punishment, it seems an overreach to label this man a sex offender and classify his danger and risk the same as when Adhahn left treatment after his conviction for a violent rape.
We need to overhaul how we track and monitor offenders upon release. The most dangerous must be on a very short leash once released. There is a smarter and more effective approach available to our state’s leaders. Recent cases and this study should move lawmakers to immediate action.
I agree with Jim Hines that sex offender laws need revision. I also agree that age makes a major different. I find it absurd to classify someone who enters a sexual relationship with a high-school teenager the same as someone who forcibly rapes a girl under 12 years old.
Using the term “sex offender” too loosely weakens it. Making less dangerous people register as sex offenders the same as the most dangerous rapists undermines the sex offender registration system.
However, once a sex offender spends years in jail, the presence rehabilitation matters more than their original. The current system lets unrehabilitated sex offenders out–often with insufficient supervision and restrictions.
First of all, I suggest we get rid of maximum sentences for violent criminals. I suggest we keep them locked up until a professional certifies their rehabilitation. An offender has already shown a lack of responsibility, so the incarceration system has to become accountable for their actions. If the jail or prison releases an offender who then goes on to hurt more people or otherwise cause damages, we have to hold the jail or prison responsible for releasing the dangerous offender.
If the sex offender has not been rehabilitated, do not release the offender. If the sex offender cannot be rehabilitated, then keep the offender locked up for life.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on August 21st, 2007 — Posted in Recidivism
Nowadays, I often observe various people call for harsher penalties for repeat offenders.
According to U.S. Department of Justice, of the people released from jail, an estimated 67.5% get rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years. I like most people have a major problem with revolving door justice.
However, calling for harsher laws and harsher penalties on repeat offenders completely misses the point. We do not need to punish people after they commit a new crime. That does nothing and just wastes resources.
Instead, we need to stop people from committing the new crime in the first place. I suggest we get rid of maximum sentences, and keep convicted victimizers in jail until a professional certifies their rehabilitation. I suggest not only holding reoffenders responsible, but also holding whoever released them responsible for their new offense.
If I let my wild dog out and he causes damage to someone else, you would hold me responsible. Similarly, if an incarceration releases a convicted offender without fully rehabilitating that offender, then let’s hold that incarceration system responsible in addition to the criminal they released.
What do you think?
8 Comments »
