Putting individuals convicted of crimes, especially violent crimes, in prison is thought to make the rest of us safer. But how much safety does all this imprisonment actually buy us? A study I recently published with colleagues shows the answer is very little, especially in the long-term. There are good reasons to think prisons might prevent crime.
The experience of imprisonment could deter someone from committing crimes to avoid prison in the future. Prison might provide opportunities for rehabilitation, such as drug and alcohol treatment, education, or counseling.
Yet there are also good reasons to believe that prisons might actually increase crime. The harsh prison environment could exacerbate mental health problems, make people more prone to aggression, or make them cynical and distrustful of the legal system. Prisons could isolate prisoners from friends and family who might help them find jobs eventually.
Or prisoners may learn from other prisoners how to be better criminals. To examine how prison affects violent crime, our study compared people sentenced to prison to those sentenced to probation supervision in the community, using data on all individuals sentenced for a felony in Michigan between and They were followed through to track convictions for violent crimes.
The study focused on people who had committed a violent crime and were eligible for both prison or probation sentences. Such people were typically convicted of crimes like robbery or assault individuals convicted of more serious violent crimes like rape or murder are generally not eligible for probation.
Determining whether differences in future violent offending are a result of prison itself is challenging, however. The key to effective drug courts is the ability to make drug treatment orders, calling for the intensive treatment and monitoring of offenders with substance issues. Similarly, specialty jurisdictions exist for offenders with mental health issues.
For example, the Assessment and Referral Court List in Victoria deals with accused persons who have a mental illness or cognitive impairment, lining them out with treatment agencies to deal with the underlying causes of offending.
Not all forms of offending can be traced to underlying mental health issues, but for those offenders who do require treatment, it is the single most effective way to reduce reoffending. For other forms of offending, a financial penalty may be more effective than a prison sentence.
Public naming and shaming, hefty fines and bans on certain forms of professional practice are more likely to deter white-collar offending than prison. Moreover, victim-centred alternatives to standard prison sentences can provide empowerment for victims of crime. Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large.
This can involve victims being able to confront their attackers, seek financial restitution and to have a say on the programs the offender must undertake. While not suitable for all forms of offending, restorative justice measures have been shown to provide healing outcomes for both victims and offenders. The potential for these offences to result in imprisonment is only going to result in a negative result for society as we turn harmless individuals into repeat — potentially violent — offenders.
In direct response to calls to abolish prisons and defund the police, state prisons should move away from focusing on incapacitation to rehabilitation. To assist in this change, federal funds should be tied to embracing a rehabilitative mission to transform prisons.
This transformation should be rooted in evidence-based therapeutic programming, documenting impacts on both incarcerated individuals and corrections staff. Prison good-time policies should be revisited so that incarcerated individuals receive substantial credit for participating in intensive programming such as Cognitive Communities. With a backdrop of an energized rehabilitative philosophy, states should be supported in their efforts to implement innovative models and programming to improve the reintegration of returning citizens and change the organizational structure of their prisons.
As the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, current U. Openly punitive incarceration policies make it exceedingly difficult for incarcerated individuals to successfully reintegrate into communities as residents, family members, and employees. A long-term policy goal in the U. Given this steady decline in the prison population and decline in prison building in the U.
Alternative development for rural communities is important because the most disadvantaged rural communities are both senders of prisoners and receivers of prisons with roughly 70 percent of prison facilities located in rural communities.
Public safety and public health goals can be achieved through Community Justice Centers—these are sites that act as a diversion preference for individuals who may be in a personal crisis due to mental health conditions, substance use, or family trauma. Recent research demonstrates that using social or public health services to intervene in such situations can lead to better outcomes for communities than involving the criminal justice system.
To be clear, many situations can be improved by crisis intervention expertise specializing in de-escalation rather than involving the justice system which may have competing objectives. Community Justice Centers are nongovernmental organizations that divert individuals in crisis away from law enforcement and the justice system. Such diversion also helps ease the social work burden on the justice system that it is often ill-equipped to handle.
Researchers and corrections agencies need to develop working relationships to permit the study of innovative organizational approaches. In the past, the National Institute of Justice created a researcher-practitioner partnership program , whereby local researchers worked with criminal justice practitioners generally, law enforcement to develop research projects that would benefit local criminal justice agencies and test innovative solutions to local problems.
A similar program could be announced to help researchers assist corrections agencies and officials in identifying research projects that could address problems facing prisons and prison officials e. Some existing jail and prison correctional systems are implementing broad organization changes, including immersive faith-based correctional programs, jail-based to day reentry programs to prepare individuals for their transition to the community, Scandinavian and other European models to change prison culture, and an innovative Cognitive Community approach operating in several correctional facilities in Virginia.
However, these efforts have not been rigorously evaluated. New models could be developed and tested widely, preferably through randomized controlled trials, and funded by the research arm of the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice NIJ , or various private funders, including Arnold Ventures. Correctional agencies in some states may be ready to implement the Cognitive Community model using a separate section of a prison or smaller facility not in use.
Funding is needed to evaluate these pilot efforts, assess fidelity to the model standards, identify challenges faced in implementing the model, and propose any modifications to improve the proposed Cognitive Community model. Full-scale rigorous tests of the Cognitive Community model are needed which would randomly assign eligible inmates to the Cognitive Community environment or to continue to carry out their sentence in a regular prison setting.
Ideally, these studies would observe the implementation of the program, assess intermediate outcomes while participants are enrolled in the program, follow participants upon release and examine post-release experiences in the post-release CBT program, and then assess a set of reentry outcomes at several intervals for at least one year after release. Prison culture and environment are essential to community public health and safety.
Incarcerated individuals have difficulty successfully reintegrating into their communities after release because the environment in most U. Normalizing prison environments with evidence-based programming, including cognitive behavioral therapy, education, and personal development, will help incarcerated individuals lead successful lives in the community as family members, employees, and community residents.
States need to move towards less reliance on incarceration and more attention to community justice models. Eason, John M. Travis, J. Orrell, B. Rethinking Reentry. Mitchell, Meghan M. DOI: Haney, C. Level Setting. Christy Visher Professor - University of Delaware. Footnotes Eason, John M. Carson, E. Prisoners in NCJ
0コメント