Rehabilitation & Return to Society - Anybody Remember That?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Another thread addressing the case of an inmate facing impending execution got me to thinking about the whole idea of criminal rehabilitation. Very simply, the idea is that men who have committed crimes needn't be discarded by society - that they might yet have value; that they may still produce significant contributions.

This idea is the basis for countless programs started at various times during the history of correctons in the United States. Alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs, anger management programs, sex offender treatment and therapy programs, vocational training, faith-based programs like those run by Charles Colson, even unconventional programs like transcendental meditation programs, are all efforts by people who operate under the belief that men who offend may be salvaged to the good of society. The links below speak of some of those programs, and their results.

http://www.penalrehab.org/

http://www.psychologymatters.org/prison_drugabuse.html

http://www.prisonministry.org/stats.htm

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/abetterway/rehabilitation.aspx

http://www.istpp.org/rehabilitation/14.html

It seems to me that the idea of rehabilitation of prisoners has strong connections to the Judeo-Christian notions of forgiveness and redemption which are so central to the beliefs of the majority of those who practice a religion in the U.S. That being said, it would seem to be a logical assumption to say that most people (who practice religion) in the U.S. believe generally that those convicted of crimes should get a chance to redeem themselves and return to society.

I am only guessing, but my sense is that that is not the case. I think most people (religious and not) believe that those in jail deserve to be there, that prisons are too soft, that there should be tougher sentencing and stricter parole policy. I think most people find the idea of rehabilitation of prisoners to be a shaky and doubtful proposition, most suitable to 'tree-huggers' and the woefully naive.

I may be wrong about my take on the attitudes of most Americans toward those convicted of a crime, and I hasten to stress that it is only an opinion - gleaned from observations, conversations and debates. But if I'm right, I think it begs the question - why? Why do we believe more in "lock 'em up, and throw away the key", or even in "hang 'em high", moreso than in "everyone deserves a second chance"?

My own attitudes and thinking about rehabilitation probably stem from a combination of several factors. I am a recovered (or recovering, as some say) alcoholic, who did things before getting clean and sober that could have easily gotten me killed, institutionalized or jailed for a long time. I am a black man from modest beginnings who has observed firsthand and otherwise a criminal justice system that can be inordinately unjust to poor people who look like me. I have instructed young people for several years, and have seen how one person's faith in another can turn them around.

I just think its a shame that at the same time that a beginning teacher makes about $30 thousand a year, the criminal justice system spends money exponentially faster on locking up more people longer, and rehabilitation seems to fade further into the backround as a goal. I just think its a shame that most of us would excuse ourselves and see the sense in granting ourselves or our loved ones a second chance no matter what our crime, but it seems we are very much less willing when that decision has no personal repercussions.

Maybe I'm wrong, and there is a strong silent majority who believes that many criminals are basically worthy and capable of rehabilitation. But I don't think so.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,320 • Replies: 76

No top replies

snood, thanks for a thoughtful post. i couldn't begin to guess what my fellow citizens think about your topic, but i think it's important to distinguish between the morality of incarceration and its effect on crime rate. proponents of stiff sentences usually claim that there will be a greater deterrent effect, but that doesn't necessarily make longer sentences more just. i personally would like to see more emphasis on making criminals provide restitution for their victims.

0 Replies

snood

This post and your other thread (clearly related) represent two examples of why I'm always happy to find you returning here. You're a thoughtful and caring guy.

See if you can get dyslexia to pop in here as he has related expertise and knowledge that will be a great asset.

I don't have much knowledge re penal issues. I have certain values and principles that it seems we share. One side of this question which may well be relevant is the recent shift towards privatizing prisons. Where there is a financial motive to filling prisons then that would seem to to be a purpose or intent quite opposite to reducing prison populations.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

snood

This post and your other thread (clearly related) represent two examples of why I'm always happy to find you returning here. You're a thoughtful and caring guy.

See if you can get dyslexia to pop in here as he has related expertise and knowledge that will be a great asset.

I don't have much knowledge re penal issues. I have certain values and principles that it seems we share. One side of this question which may well be relevant is the recent shift towards privatizing prisons. Where there is a financial motive to filling prisons then that would seem (obviously) to to be a purpose or intent quite opposite to reducing prison populations.

0 Replies

Since I've worked as a probation officer as well as a social worker in a prison, I know a bit about criminal rehabilitation - besides the point that 'rehabilition' was my focus at university.

I suppose, mayn here think similar as you wrote in the introduction of this thread (thanks for posting this!!!).
However - you don't get prison so fast here, prevention (and rehabilitation) starts before.

Another fifference - the bigest in my opinion - is the junevile criminal law: it's an educational law = no punishment per se. (One aim of the imposed penalty is to support the ability and intention of the offender to live in a responsible way without criminal acts.)

This remark instead of 'bookmark'.

0 Replies

The bottom line is the recidivism rate, for me, anyway.

"In 2003, PRIDE participants also have a recidivism rate of only 14 per cent in the year after release compared to roughly 25 per cent in Florida's state prisons."

This, from one of the links in the threadstarter, appears notably successful.

0 Replies

Everyone seems pretty much in lockstep here, but I'd venture that some who haven't answered hold a virulently opposite view.

The reason I think so is because, given any capitol criminal case, the facts surrounding which were posted here on A2K, there would be some who'd immediately jump on the "fry 'em" side, and some who'd be more of the "let me see what the facts are" point of view.

There are some I'd venture, for whom the fact that our criminal justice system has convicted a person would make that person worthy of their disdain and disgust. You know - like the ones who decided Tookie Williams would be best killed when all they knew about him was that he was someone convicted of murder who was an ex-gang member.

Those are the ones about whom I was concerned when I wrote the launch post. I wonder what kind of criminal these people think is salvageable, if any.

0 Replies

Re: Rehabilitation & Return to Society - Anybody Remembe

snood wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, and there is a strong silent majority who believes that many criminals are basically worthy and capable of rehabilitation. But I don't think so.

What do you think?

I think you are wrong.

IMO, most people believe that the majority of criminals can be rehab'd. Each of us however, has a breakpoint where the idea of rehab seems like a fruitless effort.

When you speak of those who have been sentenced to capitol punishment you are talking about an extremely snmall segment of the entire prison population. Just because someone believes that someone that got the death sentence isn't capable of rehab it doesn't mean that they don't think every other criminal is as well.

Even the most vehement anti-death penalty advocates admit that there are people that are beyond rehab.

0 Replies

Re: Rehabilitation & Return to Society - Anybody Remembe

fishin' wrote:

snood wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, and there is a strong silent majority who believes that many criminals are basically worthy and capable of rehabilitation. But I don't think so.

What do you think?

I think you are wrong.

IMO, most people believe that the majority of criminals can be rehab'd. Each of us however, has a breakpoint where the idea of rehab seems like a fruitless effort.

When you speak of those who have been sentenced to capitol punishment you are talking about an extremely snmall segment of the entire prison population. Just because someone believes that someone that got the death sentence isn't capable of rehab it doesn't mean that they don't think every other criminal is as well.

Even the most vehement anti-death penalty advocates admit that there are people that are beyond rehab.

Well, if we deal in extremes, then we can probably find a lot of common ground. I don't have any doubt that I, too have my "breakpoint" - if by that you mean that I wouldn't give a repeat criminal or a serial murderer a third or fourth chance. No, I wouldn't - that's stupid. That's not what I was talking about. And I know some people are "beyond rehab" - but they are not what I'm talking about.

You answered my main point with your second sentence - you think most people think the majority of criminals can be rehabilitated. We disagree about that - I happen to think most Americans couldn't care less unless the convicted is himself or a family member. They like to wax philosophical and holy about god and heaven and bootstraps, but giving real convicted people real chances at life with programs the government has to invest money in, is a different story.

0 Replies

All those, who are thought by the courts (and before that by consultants) not to be able to get rehabilitated, get in Germany additionally to their time in prison a "preventive detention" (which unfortunately mostly takes place in prisons as well).

Placement in Preventive Detention

All others are though by law to get the change of rehabilitation.

0 Replies

Many people give lip service to rehabilitaion, but still treat ex cons much differently than anybody else. For instance, a person with a felony is not allowed to live at the apartments where I work, nevermind they paid their debt. Many need help to find jobs, but many make out on their own. And, you do have to be careful of many of them, for reasons apparent in Snood's original post.

There are many different kinds of ex cons. I know one who did his time and then resumed his life where it left off. He had a friend in the boss's office and a supportive family.

Another couple of ex cons I know cannot keep their hands clean. They are capable of earning a decent living, but are constantly in and out. They can't be rehabilitated.

One of these men attended schools while in prison, where he learned at least one lucrative trade. In addition, he owns a profitable tree service.

The other died in jail last year.

I don't believe enough attention is paid rehabilitation in the prisons and I don't think much of the public wants it. Punishment is the key word I hear. You could populate a large nation with our prisoners. It would be to our benefit to turn as many as possible into decent citizens.

0 Replies

In Pennsylvania more money is spent on the State Prisons than on the State Colleges.

I resent paying millions of dollars for warehousing people while their problems fester.

I'd gladly pay for reformatories that reform.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Re: Rehabilitation & Return to Society - Anybody Remembe

snood wrote:

I happen to think most Americans couldn't care less unless the convicted is himself or a family member. They like to wax philosophical and holy about god and heaven and bootstraps, but giving real convicted people real chances at life with programs the government has to invest money in, is a different story.

It's not that I don't care about criminals... it's that I don't think criminals can be rehabilitated. I'm not talking about drug charges or lesser charges like that, I think that they should most definitely get another chance. When it comes to violent criminals (ie: murders, rapists, pedophiles) I am less forgiving. Their actions have ruined the lives of at least one person and usually multiple people. Why on earth would you want to let these people out of jail? Their victims don't get another chance... why should they?

0 Replies

Although it may be comforting for the religious to consider that the notion of criminal rehabilitation derives from a starry-eyed notion of christian charity, that is not in fact the case.

The open-ended sentences for criminal convictions which eventually evolved in the English-speaking world by the end of the nineteenth century had their origin in Benthamite pragmatism. Bentham had a plan for a "panopticon," a prison in which all prisoners were isolated, one from the other--but in which the prisoners could be observed by guards, invisible to the prisoners, standing at a central point.

Only two panopticons were ever built. One was built by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but was rather soon after "remodeld" into a more tradtional style of prison, although it was still praised as a paragon of security. Ironically, Bentham's pragmatism seems in that case to have been defeated by the pragmatic recognition that the state could not afford to operate prisons in which each prisoner was, effectively, in solitary confinement. The only other panopticon built was on an island in the harbor at Hobart, in Van Dieman's Land (now Tasmania). It was used to house juvenile offenders, and quickly became a by-word for psychological cruetly--precisely because of the isolation which Bentham (a self-preening pragmatist, most of his ideas actually had little practical value) alleged would prevent "criminal infection," the moral pollution of first-time offenders by hardened criminals. The panopticon in Australia was simply abandoned altogether when Melbourne's ministry (i believe it was his ministry, although i'm certain someone will correct me if i am wrong) came to see it as an institutionalized cruelty, which might turn public opinion against their penal colonies in the antipodes. It was not many years later that the use of Australia as a penal colony was abandoned altogether.

However, Bentham's core thesis that traditional prisons failed of their purpose because they put convicted offenders back on the streets no better off and perhaps even more criminally depraved than before remained popular in penal circles. Eventually, sentencing guidelines, previously rather restrictive, were altered by the governments of the several states in the United States to allow for open-ended sentencing, with provisions for determining the degree of rehabilitation of the convict--and hence the establishment of parole boards.

One might point out, reasonably, that the entire open-ended sentence/convict rehabilitation movement got a good deal of public relations boost from the religiously motivated. However, its origins were in Benthamite pragmatism, and his assertions regarding the need to "quarantine" prisoners from harmful influences, and to use that opportunity to educate and rehabilitate the prisoners.

EDIT: It is worth noting that, with regard to religious notions of redemption, the expression "as cold as Christian charity" has its origins in the same historical period.

0 Replies

Thank you for the lesson on the origins of open-ended sentencing. Care to express an opinion about present-day attention given to prisoner rehab - whether there's enough, too much, the right kinds...?

I'd really hate for this to become just another opportunity for you to rail against Christians and Christianity.

Can't you find enough other places to spew that bile?

0 Replies

About as easily as you can resist the temptation to follow me around and sneer at my opinions.

************************************

I don't happen to think that convict rehabilitation is of much use. Those who leave such an institution and return to blighted neighborhoods or fading small towns to face the same economic and education deprivation which lead them to originally consider crime as a reasonable employment option aren't going to be helped by programs which make their appreciation of their deprivation more accute and poignant. The effort would be better directed to improving the conditions in which criminality becomes attractive.

0 Replies

Setanta:

Quote:

About as easily as you can resist the temptation to follow me around and sneer at my opinions.

It's a true testament to the size and disorienting power of your ego that you post to a thread I started and then claim I'm following you around.

But thanks for your opinion that rehabilitation of prisoners is of little use.

0 Replies

That is not what i wrote (my reference was, as you well know, to you showing up in other threads with your puerile sneers--which adjective should jolt your memory if it is actually that defective).

I commented that rehabilitative efforts are of little use if the released convict returns to the same conditions of economic and employment deprivation in which he or she first turned to crime. This does not relate, of course, necessarily, to drug crimes--there could be a positive benefit to drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. It also does not relate to those convicted of sexual crimes, or other infractions which may reasonably be ascribed to mental deficiency.

For "garden variety" crime, however, crimes against property, or against people to deprive them of their property, it is difficult to see a situation much different that than of Jean Valjean, if less melodramatic.

It is also instructive to read Neitzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. In one passage, he reviews what systems of punition accomplish, and suggests with a convincing argument that their purpose is not and never has been rehabilitation (the debate on the topic was in full swing at the time he wrote). He suggests that criminals view their apprehension and conviction as mere misfortune, like hiking in the mountains and being caught in a rock slide--it is also inferentially an argument against the notion of deterence. In essence, it is the argument that criminals do not commit their crimes in the belief that they will be apprehended--they would not otherwise attempt the act. He is saying that having been aprehended and convicted, the released convict simply believes he must proceed with a more salutary caution.

0 Replies

Rehabilitation & Return to Society - Anybody Remember That?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know