It takes a great deal of effort to trust, and once that is lost then it takes a monumental amount of effort to get it back. The committing of a crime against another is a betrayal not only to an individual but to society in general, as it proves that the perpetrator cannot be trusted to exist in an ordered manner among their fellow citizens. In breaking that trust it is often seen that criminals will be labeled for the rest of their days as convicts, untrustworthy and unable to be seen as anything other than a lawbreaker and malcontent. Rehabilitation exists to recondition and reunify convicts with the society they have wronged.
There are many methods by which rehabilitation is enacted, all of which have their own level of success and failure, and several that are quite possibly among the worst ideas available. The most commonly discussed are deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and community restraints. Rehabilitation itself is a useful method and can take many forms, while rehabilitation and restraint combined also make a useful tool. No matter the method used, the act of rehabilitation is the preferred method of many individuals, as well as the continual point of contestation made by many others.
Many people when asked would state that rehabilitation is a fanciful word used to describe whatever people wish to hear. There are those that would claim that the act of rehabilitating a convict is as useful as teaching a wolf to become a vegetarian, and that any forward progress is increased by the continual and dutiful monitoring of each and every high-risk convict. While it is true that lower-risk convicts are less likely to repeat the actions that landed them in jail or prison, the act of rehabilitating the serious offenders can vary in the outcomes (Monnery, 2015). The act of rehabilitation is an exercise at best, a method of denial and deterrence that seeks to change an individual and their more criminal desires.
It is necessary in order to decrease the occurrence of recidivism however, as the
propensity for going back to the criminal life is a danger that many convicts face upon being
released. While rehabilitation works for some it is not as effective for everyone, especially
considering the ease of living that is experienced in performing criminal acts as opposed to that
of a law-abiding citizen. Deterrence will only go so far, as simply denying a convict access to
what or whoever stimulates their high-risk behavior. Typically if an individual is told not to do
something they will go ahead and at least try to commit the act they are being denied. For
criminals the pull towards repeating their crimes is often worse, as they possess the knowledge of how to commit such crimes.
Retribution is just as contested, as it is by far the most decisive and brutal form of rehabilitation to ever be included into the justice system. It is essentially the “eye for an eye” doctrine, in which a convict is expected to suffer in some manner for the crime they have committed. The problem with using retribution as a means of rehabilitation is that it is harsh to the point of being cruel and unusual, no matter how basic and instinctive a need it is for the human psyche. There is little than be done to rehabilitate a prisoner through continual punishment and what might amount to torture. If anything, it will make the chance at rehabilitation worse, and possibly create an even more dangerous, or broken, criminal.
Incapacitation is another manner of rehabilitation that can take the form of
rehabilitation. However this too can be viewed as just another method of punishment, taking
away an individual’s freedom in order to remind them what they have lost, and to deny them the
chance to continue their crimes. Many upon many individuals would prefer this type of
rehabilitation, but would likely as not think of it as such. A good many would claim that
incapacitation does not make a model citizen any more than any other method. Jails and prisons
do not seek to make model citizens, though in the current day such institutions are changing.
There is a myth that convicts have an easier time in prison and jail than people who are free to go about their own lives on the outside. While incapacitation is horrible to think about, there is at least a shred of truth to the matter. Convicts are afforded a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, and limited responsibility for their lives. They are in other words cared for, fed, and housed thanks to the taxpayers, who in turn tend to think that convicts have a better life inside than out.
The reality of this is that convicts, while given three meals a day and a place to rest their head, are not better off. To start with they are housed in a location that no one in their right mind would prefer. Added to that is the fact that their freedoms are forfeit once they enter the penal system. They are told when to eat, when to sleep, and when to go from one place to another. They do not get the choice of what they eat, how they spend their time, or even when they can step outside for a breath of fresh air. Incapacitation is a means by which to take offenders from the street, not rehabilitate them.
A popular method of rehabilitation that has been increasing in the past several years is the re-educating of convicts, teaching them a trade or allowing them to better themselves through higher learning. Some convicts have even gone so far as to obtain their GED, Associate’s, and Bachelor’s degrees while still imprisoned (Sellers, 2015). While this isn’t a failsafe manner by which to assure that they will become hardworking, fully functioning members of society, it gives individuals a greater reason to not return to the criminal lifestyle. In teaching convicts what life can offer aside from easy money and another jail sentence or worse it is possible to reach individuals on a much more personal level.
There is no doubt that recidivism must be halted and even stopped, but the methods that
have been practiced for so long have ceased to work as efficiently as before. In order to decrease recidivism new ideas and methods must be devised so as to give convicts a need to excel and become a part of society once again, not just ex-cons forever looking in from the outside. There are obstacles to be overcome of course, one of the worst being that which occurs when a convict becomes institutionalized. When some convicts have spent enough time in prison they begin to depend upon the order and structure of the penal system, and once allowed their freedom cannot handle themselves adequately, preferring the stability of incarceration.
In order to make rehabilitation work and reduce recidivism it is necessary to slowly work ex-cons into the world once more, to help them assimilate to an environment where their personal choice has been restored, but at a cost. Felons are often denied certain privileges that law-abiding citizens still retain, though for the good this does in some areas it causes more harm in others. The mere fact that many businesses do not wish to hire ex-cons for appearance and safety purposes is contradictory to the rehabilitation process. While restoring all freedoms to an ex-con is not feasible, allowing them to prove their worth through any chosen field they desire might be a better option (Nally, Lockwood, Ho, Knutson, 2014) than relegating them to wage-earning jobs that are in essence dead-ends that will entice them to return to a life of crime.
In order for rehabilitation to work ex-cons must be allowed to regain certain freedoms that allow them to better themselves so as to become functioning members of society. Obtaining a degree, desiring to become gainfully employed, and living up to the debt they owe society are noteworthy goals that serve to facilitate rehabilitation. The only roadblocks at that juncture would be the decision of where to work, what to do with a degree, and the availability of the individual seeking work. All else, deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation are methods by which to continue punishment and thereby perpetuate the cycle that is already in place.
References
Monnery, B. (2015). The determinants of recidivism among ex-prisoners: a survival analysis on
French data. European Journal of Law and Economics, 39(1): 37-56.
Nally, J.M.; Lockwood, S.; Ho, T.; Knutson, K. (2014). Post-Release Recidivism and
Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders: A 5-Year follow-up Study in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1): 16-34.
Sellers, M.P. (2015). Online learning and recidivism rates. International Journal of Leadership
in Education: Theory and Practice.
Doi: 10.1080/13603124:2015.1028462
