discussion post reply
As relates to generic prison rehabilitation programs; research indicates, successful rehabilitation programs improve education, job skills, self-esteem, interpersonal skills, self-awareness, and reduce drug use and contact with criminal peers (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). However, as indicated by Gideon & Sung (2011), the debate over prison treatment programs effectiveness as a means of rehabilitation, are questionable due to a continuously high rate of recidivism. “Although the public and policymakers may support treatment in theory, very few people are vocal advocates for it” (Gideon & Sung, 2011, p. 60).
According to Reid (2015), “Each prison has its own warden and team of administrators who have significant discretion as to how the individual prison is run.” (p.251). As such, while it is easy enough to apply the hardline evangelical rationale of “a sin, is a sin, is a sin”, to the context of criminality and/or criminal behavior; the simple fact is, “many administrators feel changes should be made but are unsure what should be changed or how the changes should be implemented” (Reid, 2015, p. 252). In my opinion, the idea of adapting “generic” prison rehabilitation programs to meet the needs of various offender populations can be effective. But! For such an adaptation to be truly effective, there will have to first take place a mass and virtually complete restructuring of our federal, state and local criminal justice system; with a particular focus on detentions and corrections. “Teachers and school administrators are held accountable for how effectively they educate students, even disadvantaged and high-poverty students” (Reid, 2015, p. 291, para. 2 top). As such, “there is no reason why the criminal justice system, like the public education system, should not be held accountable for the safety, security and rehabilitation of inmates” (Reid, 2015, p. 291, para. 2 bottom).
Most rehabilitation programs are designed to address an individual’s (i.e. offenders) specific problem (i.e. crime); however, they may not effectively address an individual’s overall criminality. For example; there are drug addicts who have been in and out of jail and/or prison repeatedly for a variety of drug related offences, to include assault, robbery, solicitation, breaking and entering and so on. Yet, these offenders have perfectly clean driving records, and know and understand the dangers of driving under the influence [DUI] and/or driving while intoxicated [DWI] and would not dream of endangering the lives of other people by getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle when they are high. They are almost completely oblivious to the fact that while committing any one of the other crimes, they could kill someone, or be killed themselves. Meanwhile, there are habitual (alcohol related) DUI/DWI offenders who have also been in and out of jail/prison, and despite the apparent similarities; feel they are less criminal than the “drug addicts”, because they would never think of “resorting to crime” to get a drink; and they to seem almost completely oblivious to the fact that, they could kill someone, or be killed themselves.
Often times offenders, regardless of their offence, like to play what I call the “not me” game. Of course the “not me” game is not exclusive to criminals, but as they are the key subject focus, I will isolate them. As demonstrated in the above example, offenders have a tendency to want to minimize and marginalize their criminal behavior. As such, when they are subjected to problem focused rehabilitation alone, they can and will look for any gap/loop hole to separate themselves from the responsibility of having committed that particular crime. By adapting rehabilitation programs to meet the needs of various offender populations (i.e., males, females, sex offenders, mental health); the criminal justice system can look to address, reform and rehabilitate offenders entire criminality, as well as, addressing their specific crime. As Gideon & Sung (2011) posit, “treatment prevents recidivism by making the offenders responsible for their own actions, providing them the tools to restrain themselves from committing further crimes (p. 59). “The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice” (Proverbs 12:15, NIV).
As far there being a need for gender specific programing; I feel there is. Research on criminal behavior indicates that there is often an underlying developmental cause for certain individual criminality. Many times, especially in women, and particularly hostile and violent men, there is a history of abuse and/or victimization by an authoritative member of the opposite sex. As such, “it stands to reason that gender-specific issues warrant attention in a clinical evaluation” (Gideon & Sung, 2011, p. 53).
References
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2015). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law, 2nd Edition. Worth Publisher. ISBN: 978-1464138904
Gideon, L., & Sung, H. E. (2011). Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 9781412970198.