A Report By Mother Jones Reporter Shane Bauer Essay

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

Other punitive measures, that have developed out of the just deserts mentality, such as three-strikes laws, which required life sentences for those with three convictions, as well as Scared Straight programs and boot camps, have negligible or detrimental effects to recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences and lack of rehabilitation actually increases the likelihood of reoffending (Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA], 2011). While using punitive measures in the name of retribution may make those in society feel safe, there is no evidence to support this approach.

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

In his chapter on “Assessing the Prison Experiment,” he explained that the increase of crime rate is not the sole reason that mass incarceration occurs, and it was also because the courts and the legislature did indeed became “tougher” on offenders (Currie 14). Currie discussed the circumstances of the war on drugs, which was launched by President Richard Nixon. He indicates that the incarceration rate and sentence longevity were increased dramatically since the beginning of the war on drugs. Some of these offenders were given a sentence for more than ten years without the possibility of parole, which is taking away any chance of the prisoner being released before the completion of his or her sentence. Locking people up is a failed attempt to descend the crime rate, and the adoption of mandatory minimum sentencing law is the root of mass incarceration. The government should reconsider the current sentencing laws and reform the correctional system in order to solve the current mass incarceration problem. Furthermore, establishing more community-based programs for youth offenders and initiating early release programs are excellent alternatives to resolve the issue of mass incarceration from both long-term and short-term perspectives, respectively.

In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

Due to the increase of correctional populations that continue to exceed its’ capacity, correctional alternatives were created. Correctional alternatives were to alleviate both prison crowding and the threat to public safety posed by serious offenders (Flores, Holsinger, Latessa, Lowenkamp, & Makarios, 2010). Rehabilitation in the 1970s was a variable correctional goal however by the 1980s intermediate sanctions developed . Intermediate sanctions consist of house arrest, electronic monitoring, boot camps, day reporting centers, intensive supervision probation or parole, community service, fines, and curfews (Tonry, 1990). These sanctions offer community based punishments that focus on deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution (Tonry, 1990).

As the 21st century continues, there will possibly be a developing public policy dilemma between firm determinate sentencing structures that have been recently developed in many states and the evolving social movement reemphasizing offender-based sentencing options. If the growth of alternative and restorative sentencing options continues on its existing path, the future will likely witness a growing separation between existing determinate sentencing systems and progressively individualized sentencing movements. Therefore, it will be the task of future generations to successfully balance the goals of justice and consistency within structured sentencing bases with the evolving emphasis on individualized rehabilitative methods to routine and

Introduction to Issue - Over the past few decades there has been an increased amount of public and media attention directed to repeat criminal offenders. In the 1980s, crime rates increased and scholars found that a number of these criminal activities were committed by repeat offenders. In response to this information, many states began to enact the so-called Three Strikes, You're Out Law. The proponents of this legislation, including several victims' rights organizations, believe that habitual criminals do not have the desire or capacity to reform. The law mandates that State Courts impose life sentences to individuals convicted of three or more criminal offenses typically at the felony level. Now, habitual offenders in 24 States will face some form of the Three Strikes Law (Zimring, et.al., 2001). Since these laws have become more popular, there have been at least two separate Supreme Court decisions upholding their validity and indicating that these laws do not, in fact, constitute "cruel and unusual punishment."

Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].

The goal of rehabilitation is an idealistic goal that is morally superior to the other possible goals of the correctional system. It was inspired by the belief that both inmates and society as a whole benefit more from the successful rehabilitation of convicted criminals than they benefit from punitive incarceration or by mere incapacitation (Schmalleger, 2009). After decades of social experimentation with criminal justice and corrections policies that incorporated and emphasized elements of rehabilitation over elements of punishment or mere incapacitation, the rehabilitation approach came to be widely perceived as having been a failure, largely by virtue of the very high recidivism rates of inmates during that time frame (Schmalleger, 2009).

As prisons became overwhelmed by the increase of inmates, the prison officials focus was on discipline and control and rehabilitation took a back seat. America’s form of punishment has been incarceration which has not deterred crime, the cost for institutionalizing inmates cost states an astronomical amount of money. Alternative sanctions can help deter crime and cut the cost of prisons and states. Alternative sanctions help to prevent overcrowding in many prisons, unfortunately, there has not been enough statistics that support alternative sanctions. Without rehabilitative methods, offenders will more often re-offend once released. What tends to happen is those that are nonviolent encounter violent offenders and they begin to take on their traits. When traditional sentencing is not working there must be a change. Maine has experimented an alternative approach called mental health courts, they did see some success with this program (Jones, 2014). Research is needed to study alternative sanctions that could lessen the mass incarceration that is evident in prisons across the United States. Many states may be willing to try deferred dispositions, probation, or

You have a seven times more chance of going to prison in the United States than in all other countries, and an almost 80 percent chance of staying there. About three-quarters of inmates released from state prisons are rearrested within five years of their release, and 55 percent of them incarcerated. (R) With one of the highest National recidivism rates, the United States has produced a country where the phrase, “Once a criminal, always a criminal” has quickly become a reality for most convicts. The implementation issues of Rehabilitation programs and the defective tools used to determine the risks of recidivism has caused an outbreak in reoffenders.