(Newswire.net — February 7, 2020) — Watch any television show about prison or jail, and you are virtually guaranteed to see an inmate claiming “I’m never coming back here again. I’ve learned my lesson.” All too often, the very next scene shows that same person, often just days or weeks later, posing ruefully for yet another mugshot.
Including prisons, jails, detention centers, and juvenile facilities, a staggering 2.3 million Americans are currently incarcerated. That’s a discouraging number, and what’s even more discouraging is the fact that in the 12-month period after their release, over 80% of those inmates will reoffend and be returned to custody.
The following are questions to consider when debating this age-old issue. If you are engaged in this topic, whether in a formal debate, a critical essay, or just a casual conversation, it’s important to consider these aspects of the argument.
1. Is Recidivism Linked to the Lack of Rehabilitation?
Activists who are lobbying for prison reform point to the lack of programs in federal and state prisons that are intended to help the inmates upon their release. Without being given the chance to improve their lives, the argument goes, a former inmate has little to no opportunity to choose a different path once they are free. Therefore it’s virtually inevitable that they will return to a life of crime and be unable to escape the justice system once and for all.
The types of educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs include drug and alcohol rehab, anger management courses, parenting classes, job training, GED classes and college-level classes, mentoring opportunities, sober living skills, reentry programs, work-release programs, and mental health treatment programs.
2. Is Punishment Sufficient to Deter Recidivism?
Others argue that prison should be used primarily in a punitive way. When an individual commits a crime, they posit, that individual must “pay his debt to society” by forgoing his liberty.
Repayment of this debt includes separation from one’s family; the inability to go where one pleases whenever they please; the loss of opportunities to contribute to society in a meaningful way through employment; limited freedoms upon parole or probation, and the ramifications of having a criminal record (such as having difficulty obtaining housing or employment).
These ought to be incentive enough, some people argue, for that person to change their ways upon release.
3. What Consequences Are We Attempting to Achieve?
The dichotomy between rehabilitation and punishment boils down to a choice between consequences. Are we most interested in merely “cleaning up the streets” or “keeping society safe” by locking up criminals and severely restricting their freedoms? Or do we want to actively improve the lives of people who have committed crimes, in order to discourage them from returning to their old habits upon release?
Is it possible to achieve both of these aims?
“There is no question that recidivism drives up the costs to taxpayers and contributes to the overcrowding of jails and prisons,” says David Hunter, a criminal defense attorney in Fort Bend County. “But there are so many socioeconomic factors influencing the issue — drugs and gangs are two of the most notable — that there are no straightforward solutions to this issue.”
4. What Role Does Humiliation Play?
Another valid question to ask is whether or not humiliation is an effective deterrent. One of the main proponents of the punishment theory of incarceration is Joe Arpaio, the infamous former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County. During his tenure, he instituted several policies that were intended not just to punish offenders but to humiliate and shame them: male prisoners were made to wear pink underwear, socks, and other clothing; chain gangs made a public spectacle of the convicts, and a “Tent City” was erected outdoors to house inmates in uncomfortable, even dangerous conditions.
Arpaio and his supporters are quick to say that if a person does not want to work on a chain gang or live outdoors in dangerously hot conditions, he should not commit a crime in the first place. Opponents argue that everyone is entitled to certain human rights, which brings us to our next point.
5. Do Criminals Waive Their Rights?
Do criminals waive their basic human rights when they commit a crime? Or are they entitled to at least a modicum of creature comforts such as air-conditioned living spaces; nutritious and palatable meals; adequate medical care access to outdoor recreation opportunities; the freedom to read, watch television, or create art; privacy and the dignity it provides; and access to friends and family on the outside?
What is the bare minimum that we owe our fellow man? Is it cruel and unusual to keep someone locked in a cell for 23 out of 24 hours? What are the psychological effects of these conditions on a prisoner?
The Debate Is Ongoing
As with many of the classic debate topics, there are no right or wrong answers here, no black and white absolutes, no line to be drawn in the sand. Everyone must make up their own mind, based on their own beliefs, values, religious teachings, political leanings, and personal experience.
Moreover, the justice system in the United States is so enormous and so complex that it’s virtually impossible to impose changes on a national scale. Reform is taking place, with limited programs and on a very small scale, but we cannot hope to achieve widespread reform until we, as a nation, agree on at least some of the answers to the questions outlined here — and that will take a very long time, if it is even possible at all.