Recidivism rates continue to serve as a problem in the Criminal Justice System. Within three years of release, about two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested. Reentrants are often sent back to prison for violating probation or parole or for committing new offenses. Many recidivate due to the challenges of reintegrating into society, and know no other way to sustain than to live a life of crime. This is a result of prisons providing temporary solutions to the problems offenders face. Many entered with no jobs, low education, low socioeconomic status, and no social skills, and leave prison with those same problems. Prison time furthers those barriers while creating new ones. Incarceration has done little to nothing to assist offenders with solving those problems in order to successfully reenter society. The failure of the criminal justice system to address prisoner reentry and restrictive policies contribute to the increase of recidivism.
Researching the criminal justice system and public policies effect on prisoner reentry can assist in determining how to lower recidivism rates. By focusing on what perpetuates offenders from reoffending, it can help find effective methods to deter offenders from committing crimes once released. Recidivism rates are continuing to remain at high levels implying that more needs to be done to address the issues of recidivism. Apprehension and punishment seem to have little effect on the offending behavior of chronic offenders, and most repeat their acts after release(Book pg 53). It can help with understanding the reentry experiences of returning prisoners and thus assist in determining in what ways prison systems can be improved as well as public policies to make transitioning easier. Recidivism can affect the public's safety and the economy, reducing the rates will also reduce the consequences it has. There is no initiative by policy makers and the criminal justice system to address recidivism and prisoner reentry. Although reentry programs does not eliminate recidivism, the effect it has on lowering rates will increase the desire for creating programs that assist with reentry. Similarly it may cause changes in policies that make transitioning from prison to the community harder. Traditional theories of criminal behavior focus more on why people begin to commit crime and rarely focus on why people stop offending. This paper aims to use why people begin to commit crime to help answer why people stop crime.
Using literature reviews,data, and surveys, this paper determines the connections between recidivism rates and prisoners success with reentering society. Research suggests that incarceration is at limited value and may, in fact lead to an increase in recidivism. One possible explanation is that prison life is not conducive to the offender making personal changes that would reduce the risk of him or her re-offending (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2005) Prisons with programs to assist re entry have lower recidivism rates while prisons without it do not. While prisons can affect the rate offenders return to prison, policies enhance restrictions that make reentry harder. While both public policies and reentry programs can help lower recidivism rates, recidivism can be offender-specific. For some offenders, even with the help of reentry programs, the still reoffend. For other offenders, the likelihood of reoffense will be reduced by these programs. Furthermore, while reentry programs do not appear to deter all offenders away from crime, it does reduce recidivism rates.
Prison Systems
In order to understand how the prison system is failing, one must first understand the purpose of prison. Prisons have four major purposes: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Classical criminology “believed” that people commit crime when the potential pleasure and reward they believe they will receive from the illegal act outweighs the the threat of punishment. (Siegel 2016) In order to deter crime, offenders must be punished for committing the criminal act and removed from society. Rehabilitation also helps with deterrence as it assist in providing criminals with the tools needed to be law abiding citizens. This may include providing educational courses in prison, teaching job skills, and offering counselling with a psychologist or social worker. It is hoped that prisons provide warnings to people thinking about committing crimes, and that the possibility of going to prison will discourage people from breaking the law again. The notion that state prison systems are supposed to deter criminals aways from crime is an aspiration that is, however, undermined by the lack of rehabilitation programs and the violence within the prisons due to an increase of private prisons.
While the government’s goal of prisons is to reduce crime, the primary goal of private prisons is to increase revenue and profits. This eventually leads to higher rates of recidivism (Davilmar 2014). Often times, efforts to increase profits comes at a cost to prisoners, those who work inside the prisons, and the broader public. Private prisons stand to make a profit by managing more prisoners and keeping those facilities housed with inmates. Consequently, any decrease in the prison population will hinder revenue. Thus, rehabilitation and education are not a top priority when it comes to what these entities should be spending their money on. In an effort to assess the level of professional support for these goals, a survey was administered to staff in three prisons, two jails, and a jail academy. The results indicate that jail and prison staff are more likely than not to perceive the primary goal of corrections as incapacitation. Respondents generally ranked incapacitation first. (Kifer, Hemmens & Stohr, 2011). As a result of focusing only on the imprisonment of criminals, they forget about their goals to rehabilitate and deter offenders away from crime.Instead these corporations focus their spending on construction fees, management salaries, and employee wages (Engage 2013). To cut costs on employee wages, private prisons hire inexperienced and poorly trained workers.
Private prison companies have long histories of neglecting prisoners’ basic needs and failing to create an environment conducive to rehabilitation. Conditions at many prisons have been deteriorating and those conditions can be linked to the goals of prisons not being meant. To ensure profit, private prison companies add occupancy guarantee clauses to many contracts, which compel states and local governments to pay the companies for unused beds if the population drops below a certain threshold, typically around 90 percent of a facility’s capacity.14 The conditions in prisons have been documented in some cases to be deplorable, overcrowded, lack of programs for inmates, and certain inmates being confined to solitary confinement. These conditions such as these how can we expect any rehabilitative measures to take place and try and reintegrate inmates back into society once their sentence is complete? If we place goals such as rehabilitation and we remove programs that are in place; education, groups, etc… Then eventually the inmates are going to turn to violence to be heard and that's how prison riots begin. Research studies show that people incarcerated in private prisons have higher rates of recidivism than people incarcerated in public prisons.
Poor conditions within private prisons, including violence from insufficient guard training and lack of educational programs contribute significantly to recidivism rates. The findings of the Patrick Bayer and David E. Pozen study indicate how private prisons encourage recidivism by actively neglecting or discouraging rehabilitation programs (Baker, Pozen, 2003). Private prisons are more violent than public prisons, which can lead to higher rates of recidivism.The increased violence in private prisons is partially the result of private prison companies cutting corners on staffing, which reduces company operating costs, thereby increasing profits. Evidence shows that prisoners who experience violence while incarcerated are more likely to recidivate than prisoners who do not experience violence. To fill empty beds in facilities they own, private prison companies contract with states to incarcerate people in facilities that can be far away from those prisoners’ homes. As a result, prisoners lose contact with their families and communities, which increases recidivism b/c fewer visits. Gang activity, a major factor in many prisons, has implications for in-prison and post prison behavior. The existence of gangs and the related racial tension mean that inmates tend to be more preoccupied with finding a safe niche than with long-term self-improvement. Gang conflicts in prison also continue in the community after gang members are released.
Prisoners are forced to face prior challenges along with those brung on by prison conditions. Virtually no systematic, comprehensive attention has been paid to dealing with these challenges after release from prison. Inmates have always been released from prison, and officials have long struggled with helping them succeed. There is no comprehensive initiative by policy makers and the criminal justice system to address recidivism, prisoner reentry, and reformed inmates (Austin, 2001; Marbley, Ferguson, & Henderson, 2000; Petersilia, 2001; Travis, 2001).In fact there has been a decrease in prison rehabilitation programs. Increased dollars have funded operating costs for more prisons, but not more rehabilitation. Fewer programs, and lack of incentives to participate, mean fewer inmates leave prison having addressed their work, education, and substance abuse problems. Unless they are offered a good reentry program, prospects are bleak for those returning home, says the Economist. Prisoners who participate in job training and educational programs are less likely to return to prison after release.Additionally, former prisoners who participate in an employment program or substance abuse treatment are better able to avoid reincarceration the within a year of release.While in prison, if available, inmates can participate in various recidivism reducing treatment programs. This include but are not limited to anger management, drug treatment, education and vocation training, sex offender relapse prevention, to name a few. Programs are necessary but not entirely sufficient. The most effective programs have been found to reduce recidivism by about 10 to 15 percent; on rare occasion, up to 20 percent. Treatment programs work, but this doesn’t mean that everyone who participates in a program will be crime free upon release.
Challenges of reentering society
Incarceration appears to exacerbate existing racial and socioeconomic inequalities by making those who are already disadvantaged even more so. Released prisoners are disadvantaged educationally, economically, and socially (Visher & Travis 2003). After release from prison, life often becomes more difficult for ex-offenders than it was while locked-up.Persons released from prison face a multitude of difficulties in trying to reenter the outside community successfully. The three most pressing re-entry challenges are: a place to live/housing; drug treatment/medical care; and employment. A deficiency in any one of these three is a serious risk factor to relapse. because the chances of them reoffending is higher without support in these areas Since the vast majority of offenders come from economically disadvantaged, culturally isolated, inner-city neighborhoods, they return there upon release. They remain largely uneducated, unskilled, and usually without solid family support systems-and now they bear the added burdens of a prison record and the distrust and fear that inevitably results. Another is the “collateral consequences” of imprisonment, statutes and administrative rules that bar offenders from means of social, economic, and political reintegration, including laws and rules disqualifying some offenders from receiving public benefits, holding certain jobs, voting or holding political office, and monetary penalties and fees levied on offenders under community supervision (Alexander 2010, Harris et al 2010, Mauer & Chesney-Lind 2002).
Helping people released from prisons or jails to find safe places to live is critical to reducing homelessness and recidivism. Research has shown that people who do not find stable housing in the community are more likely to recidivate than those who do. According to a qualitative study by the Vera Institute of Justice, people released from prison and jail to parole who entered homeless shelters in New York City were seven times more likely to abscond during the first month after release than those who had some form of housing (Justice System). Housing after incarceration can serve as a stabilizing platform where people can get back on their feet, maintain employment, and reconnect with their families and communities, while also reducing recidivism and homelessness. `In one study, participants who received supportive housing were 61% less likely to be re-incarcerated within one year. After release from prisons however, finding housing can be a challenge. A criminal history can affect your eligibility for both public housing and, if a landlord conducts a background check, private housing. In addition, if a family member in public house allows an offender to stay with them they are a risking losing their housing.
Statistics indicate that education can decrease the chances of committing a crime (RAND 2013). There is an inverse relationship between rates of recidivism and level of education, the higher the level of education the less likely the person is to be rearrested or imprisoned (Engage 2013). Educated inmates with at least two years of college have a ten percent re-arrest rate, while the national re-arrest rate is about sixty-six percent (Stravinskas 2009:16). Employment after release was thirteen percent higher among prisoners who participated in either academic or vocational education programs over those who did not (RAND 2013). Currently 12.4 percent of privately operated prisons are without any educational programs, compared to 8.8 percent for state prisons (Wright 2010). Educational programs within a private prison are immensely important since they provide the basis for employment, which is pivotal since it allows offenders to become self-sufficient and thus reduces their risk of reoffending. Many people returning from prison have significant educational and employment deficits: roughly half lack a high school degree or equivalent, more than half have been previously fired from a job, and many depended on illegal income before incarceration. Former prisoners who held an in-prison job, participated in job training while incarcerated, earned a GED during prison, or participated in an employment program soon after release work a greater percentage of time the first year post release than those who did not.
After release, former prisoners have limited success finding employment; about half find work the first year postrelease. As a result, returning prisoners often have poor prospects for employment and struggle to “make ends meet” (Harding et al Forthcoming).Upon release from prison, many ex- offenders encounter problems in securing permanent, unsubsidized employment because they lack occupational skills, have little or no job hunting experience, and find that many employers refuse to hire individuals with criminal records. Those who find employment soon after release are less likely to be reincarcerated within a year of release (Visher et al. 2008; Ex-offenders who are unemployed or working in poorly paid or temporary jobs often fall back into a life of crime.1 To start, former inmates tend to have low levels of educational attainment, little formal work experience,and other characteristics associated with poor employment prospects. Moreover, the stigmatizing effect (sometimes exacerbated by state and federal policy) associ? ated with a prior felony conviction and incarceration faced by all former inmates is certainly an obstacle while searching for a job.Many people returning from prison have significant educational and employment deficits: roughly half lack a high school degree or equivalent, more than half have been previously fired from a job, and many depended on illegal income before incarceration. Failure to find employment will leave offenders to depend on illegal income again.
Now what, so what
Creating more programs and policies that give prisoners a second chance can help with there reentrance and thus reduce the likelihood of reoffense. Unfortunately when convicted felons have served their ad dicated time, they are not only denied prestigious, well-paid but also forfeit their right to vote. Therefore, any comprehe plan must include restoration of voting rights and securing of competitive employment. Reentry programs help develop workforce skills and provide offenders with jobs and thus income to sustain in society. A few jurisdictions have developed programs designed to overcome these barriers, Former inmates reentering noninstitutionalized society face a number of challenges in procuring and maintaining stable employment. More programs need to be created both inside and outside prisons to ensure an easier transition and reentrance. Having more educational opportunities, allowing offenders to receive pell grants to reenter school, and drug rehabilitation programs need to be created. More policies like the Second Chance Legislation and the Fair Housing Act, that provide offenders with a chance of successfully participating in society, need to be established instead of detrimental ones that restrict their capability to adjust and live in society. In addition, Cash Assistance should also not be withheld from offenders who need it to help. If prison is meant to deter offenders from committing crime and to rehabilitate them then they need to be able to participate as citizens upon release and not still treated as criminals