“I am more concerned with the exorbitant amount of money we spend on each inmate per year, as well as the inability of the prison system to prepare inmates for life back in society.”
Zachary Antoyan
[follow id =”CPMustangNews”]
Zachary Antoyan is a political science senior and Mustang News liberal columnist. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News.
At just less than 1 percent of its population, the United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world. However, as crime rates are a statistic of their own, I am more concerned with the exorbitant amount of money we spend on each inmate per year, as well as the inability of the prison system to prepare inmates for life back in society.
Recidivism rates, or the number of people that finish their sentences and are sent back to prison for crimes committed afterwards, stood at approximately 43 percent in a study conducted by the Pew Research Center. Not only this, but California has it even worse with 63 percent of their criminals returning to prison in less than three years. Our system of justice is in dire need of reform; we cannot continue to operate in the way that we currently do, as it is costing taxpayers billions. The specifics of such reform, however, are locked in a value debate about what to do with criminals and crime.
At the core of this argument, we focus on two major schools of thought in dealing with crime: retribution and rehabilitation. Both attempt to lay out their own conceptions of a criminal justice system, and are separated by their ideas of the purpose of such a system.
On the one hand, we have the retributive system, which asserts that a criminal justice system is supposed to dole out punishment for crimes committed. It is the prison sentence and loss of freedom that is the reparation to society. What this then supports is a purely reactionary system of justice, where society only seeks retribution for crimes and does not focus on the true causes of the crime within society. Whereas crime is the cause of social disorder, “retributivists” seek to prevent crime with the threat of punishment.
Supposedly, the very threat of the loss of freedom acts as the deterrent to committing crime. In many hypothetical situations, theories on justice assert that if all crime was punishable by death, we would see crime rates drop significantly. This notion, while crazy, correctly showcases the mindset and thought process of deterrence theory.
On the other hand, a rehabilitative system treats crime as a product of, not the cause of, social disorder. Those that support rehabilitative systems believe that crime is a resulting factor from poor social conditions, and that in order to combat crime rates, social issues must be addressed.
Additionally, rehabilitation accepts that at some point, criminals will be released back into society, and that when they gain their freedom it is important to be a productive member of society. This is, clearly, no easy task. Probation systems and opportunities to develop necessary skills while in prison exist, but if the recidivism rates indicate anything, it is that we are unable to prepare criminals for the road ahead.
At a cost of more than $40,000 a year per inmate in California, recidivism is as pertinent as ever. Deterrence — the threat of punishment — might be significant for some, but it has not shown itself to be an effective method of preventing people from committing crimes after they are freed from prison. Additionally, prisons are overcrowded in many places, and with the increasing cost of housing inmates, states and counties are forced to go to extreme measures to accommodate for those conditions.
We can help people reintegrate into society and prevent them from committing crimes again. And as members of that very society, it is in our interest to prepare them for their lives. More effective means of rehabilitation are necessary.
Fantastic, we’ve established we’ve got a problem with our prisons and that we’re paying a ton of money for something that doesn’t work. Any suggestions? Prison system reform has to revolve around establishing an environment that both mirrors the real world and encourages individual as well as group development.
There are hundreds of companies and schools that attempt to incorporate group development and team building exercises into their models to support individuals. Using these methods of group and individual training and implementing them into the prison system can have positive effects on inmates if correct incentives are provided. The system should also revolve around everyone building toward something positive.
Rather than separating them into teams and pitting them against each other Gryffindor vs. Slytherin style, you establish rewards for both small affinity groups and the prison population as a whole. Why is it that we consider team building exercises so essential to companies and leaderships, but do not consider it to be an effective means of real world preparation? If anything, the lessons learned in those models can be applied to real situations, so why are they not in places where people can truly benefit from them?
By establishing incentives through competition, creating affinity groups as support and team challenges that force groups to collaborate — along with creating environments that mirror real world situations — we can most definitely help inmates grow and prepare for re-integration into society. Whether you think they should or not, at some point criminals get released (but for death row and life in prison, not so much). Rather than wait for them to commit more crimes and pay for their stays in prison, I would want the system to refocus their priorities and help them in their development.
This is Zachary Antoyan, tripping over his thoughts and words and folders. Have a fantastic week everyone.