Essay: A new hybrid model of rehabilitation and punitive correction

Given current trends in society today, the next era of corrections will be a hybrid model between the rehabilitation and punitive model. Thousands of studies show the positive and negative components of each of these models. The rehabilitation model was not properly measured years prior due to the lack of technology and society was critiquing the process because they were not able to see the benefits of the program first hand. The punitive model on the other had has had plenty of evidence on its success in increasing incarceration rates and creating issues with overcrowding and lack of funding. Nevertheless, each model has something positive they can bring to the table. This new model will allow for a very small transition of models due to the current present of rehabilitation programs and the current popularity of the punitive model. The problem with each model of these models is that they both need to be a little more realistic; they each need modified qualities added to the general ideas. Each have a common goal of reducing recidivism and crime, but they each have different methods of achieving that goal. This new movement will include the evidence-based assessment, in order to assess the programs and techniques from each model in order to find the most useful elements and collaborate them in order to have a successful model.
Another realistic element that would be added would be a process of filtering the inmates allowed to participate in rehabilitation programs from the rehabilitation model. In the past, all inmates were given the opportunity to participate in these programs, which skewed any results, if not all data because there are some individuals who unfortunately be changed. Nevertheless, the inmates in the future model would be filtered based on their crime and length of sentence. For example, sex offenders or serial killers will require different programs and treatment than those who were charges with less serious crimes. In all reality, those individuals need more advanced care. In addition to that, they would only include inmates who have a chance of returning to society. Life-serving offenders have no chance of being released and usually have no motivation to change. In addition to the filtering process, the rehabilitation model would need to supply adequate forms of education varying from inmates being able to get their GED to a associates and/or bachelors. These programs are offered in many correctional facilities, but people do not realize the huge benefit of an inmate acquire some type of education on the recidivism rates. Less than 10% of the inmates in correctional facilities leave with an associate’s degree. However, the return rate of those individuals is less than 8%. The first thought that runs through most of societies mind when it comes to these programs are the cost. The information they did not know was that the amount of money paid for their education is almost half of what is paid for reoffenders. In a study in a Texas Correctional Facility, it cost them about $42,000,000 a year. However, the recidivism rates for those who don’t acquire any type of education, those individuals have a 60% recidivism rate and that cost taxpayers almost doubled the initial cost, costing them about $95,000,000 (Beard, 2003). However, some people are skeptical on whether or not the community would be willing to use their tax dollars to allow inmates to acquire these degrees/certifications and other programs towards rehabilitation. This study had called approximately 500 households in the southeast state of the US and asked a structured question that asked if the head of the household was willing to spend an additional $100 on their taxes for either incarceration programs or rehabilitation programs and more respondents were willing to pay $100 more on their taxes for additional rehabilitation rather than for additional punishment. They concluded that about 40% of the respondents were unwilling to pay for additional incarceration and the rest were supportive of the rehabilitation program. This makes it quite clear that the public supports the rehabilitation programs and they are more than willing to spend a little more to better these individuals and provide them with the tools to reenter into society as a productive member (Piquero & Steinberg, 2008)
Another realistic modification to involves the Punitive Model. The punitive model has beneficial aspects such as the severity of crime and having a strict layout of punishment, but there are a few ethical issues within this model. This model has increased incarceration rates, which has creating a safer society, nonetheless, in return it is causing issues with overcrowding and lack of funding’s. This part of the new model would incorporate the strict punishments ideas, but to an extent. This type of punishment would be directed towards individuals who were guilty of serious crimes such as domestic violence, rape, other forms of sexual offenses, murder (all degrees), attempted murder, and kidnapping. These types of crimes are much more severe and require punitive punishment due to the fact that these individuals have a slim chance of being released into society and the rehabilitation program will not benefit society. They would be treated adequately based on the crime they are found guilty of.
In conclusion, the new model would be a better for society because it uses the programs and forms of punishment that are analyzed using the evidence-based assessment. This allows for this model to have only methods of punishment and programs that have been examined and have had positive results. This essentially means that only successful methods that have been either put into effect in years past or that are currently in effect, will be permissible in this model and incorporated in corrections to help reach the common goal of lowering crime and reducing recidivism.