Modul 1
Re-Entry, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration
a. Offender Characteristics and Needs
Nationally, an array of socioeconomic factors intertwines with the criminal
justice system, painting a complex portrait of the backgrounds of offenders. Statistics
reveal a landscape where employment, education, substance abuse, and mental health
intertwine with incarceration rates.
According to recent estimates, approximately 31% of offenders found
themselves unemployed before their arrest—a stark indicator of the challenges many
face in securing stable employment. This lack of employment not only affects
individuals' financial stability but also contributes to a sense of disconnection from
society, potentially exacerbating feelings of alienation and frustration.
Moreover, educational attainment emerges as a significant factor, with 40% of
offenders classified as functionally illiterate and an additional 19% categorized as
wholly illiterate. This educational deficit not only limits their opportunities for
personal and professional growth but also hinders their ability to navigate societal
norms and legal systems effectively.
The intersection of substance abuse and incarceration presents another critical
dimension. Studies consistently demonstrate that a substantial proportion of inmates
grapple with drug and alcohol abuse, compounding their challenges and often serving
as a driving force behind their involvement in the criminal justice system. Addressing
substance abuse within correctional facilities requires a multifaceted approach,
encompassing both treatment and rehabilitation efforts to break the cycle of addiction
and recidivism.
Furthermore, mental health emerges as a prevalent issue among incarcerated
individuals, with approximately 13% identified as facing some form of mental illness.
However, the actual prevalence of mental health issues within correctional settings
may be higher due to underreporting and inadequate access to mental health services.
This highlights the need for enhanced mental health screening and comprehensive
support systems within the criminal justice system to address the underlying factors
contributing to individuals' involvement in criminal behavior.
In addition to these systemic challenges, barriers to reintegration into society
post-release further compound the difficulties faced by former inmates. Limited
access to education, vocational training, and employment opportunities perpetuate
cycles of poverty and recidivism, creating significant hurdles for individuals seeking
to rebuild their lives and contribute positively to their communities.
In confronting these multifaceted issues, it becomes evident that effective
criminal justice reform necessitates a holistic approach that addresses not only
punitive measures but also the underlying social, economic, and psychological factors
that contribute to criminal behavior. By investing in education, mental health services,
substance abuse treatment, and reintegration programs, society can work towards
breaking the cycles of incarceration and fostering a more equitable and rehabilitative
justice system.
Certainly, the landscape of mental health within the prison system is
multifaceted and deeply concerning. The prevalence of serious mental illnesses
among incarcerated individuals, including schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar
disorder, and PTSD, is indeed notably higher compared to the general population.
This heightened incidence underscores the intricate interplay between mental health
and the criminal justice system, highlighting both systemic shortcomings and the
urgent need for comprehensive reform.
Schizophrenia, characterized by distorted thinking, hallucinations, and
delusions, presents unique challenges within correctional facilities. Individuals with
schizophrenia may struggle to navigate the rigid routines and social dynamics of
prison life, exacerbating their symptoms and increasing their vulnerability to
exploitation or mistreatment. Moreover, the lack of specialized psychiatric care within
many correctional institutions often means that individuals with schizophrenia do not
receive the tailored treatment and support they require, leading to further deterioration
of their mental health.
Major depression and bipolar disorder also pose significant challenges within
the prison environment. The pervasive stressors of incarceration, coupled with limited
access to mental health resources, can deepen feelings of hopelessness and exacerbate
depressive symptoms among affected individuals. Similarly, the fluctuating mood
states characteristic of bipolar disorder can be destabilized by the inherent instability
and confinement of prison life, potentially leading to increased instances of behavioral
disturbances or self-harm.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), commonly associated with exposure to
traumatic events such as combat, sexual assault, or childhood abuse, is another
prevalent mental health concern among prisoners. Many individuals entering the
criminal justice system have experienced significant trauma in their lives, yet the
resources for trauma-informed care and psychological support within correctional
settings are often inadequate. As a result, PTSD symptoms may go unrecognized or
untreated, perpetuating cycles of distress and dysfunction among affected individuals.
The staggering estimate provided by Wynn (2001) - that more than 265,000
mentally ill Americans are in prison - underscores the magnitude of the issue and the
urgent need for systemic intervention. Behind this statistic lie countless stories of
individuals whose mental health needs have been neglected or overlooked, resulting
in a cycle of incarceration that fails to address the underlying factors driving their
involvement in the criminal justice system.
Addressing the complex intersection of mental illness and incarceration
requires a comprehensive approach that prioritizes prevention, early intervention, and
access to evidence-based treatment modalities. This entails not only bolstering mental
health services within correctional facilities but also implementing diversion
programs that steer individuals away from the criminal justice system and towards
community-based treatment and support. By recognizing the humanity and inherent
dignity of all individuals, regardless of their mental health status, society can work
towards a more equitable and compassionate approach to justice that promotes
healing, rehabilitation, and meaningful reintegration into the community.
The assertion that "the correctional system has become the biggest psychiatric
hospital in the world" speaks volumes about the inadequacies of both mental health
care and the criminal justice system. It highlights a stark reality where prisons and
jails have, by default, become de facto institutions tasked with managing and treating
individuals with mental illnesses, often without the proper resources, training, or
infrastructure to do so effectively.
This paradigm underscores a systemic failure to address the complex
intersection of mental health and criminality. Individuals with untreated or
undermanaged mental health conditions are disproportionately represented within the
criminal justice system, a phenomenon often exacerbated by socioeconomic
disparities, limited access to mental health services in the community, and the
criminalization of behaviors associated with mental illness.
Upon reentering society, these individuals are expected to navigate complex
social systems, secure stable housing and employment, and reintegrate successfully
into their communities—all while grappling with untreated or undertreated mental
health conditions. However, the reality is that many face insurmountable barriers to
accessing the support and resources they need to thrive.
The transition from incarceration to community reintegration is fraught with
challenges, particularly for those with mental health concerns. Limited assistance, and
in some cases, no assistance at all, in addressing these challenges only serves to
perpetuate cycles of recidivism and perpetuates the revolving door of the criminal
justice system.
Moreover, the factors often associated with future criminality, such as
substance abuse, lack of education, unemployment, and housing instability, intersect
with mental health issues in complex ways. Without comprehensive support systems
in place to address these interconnected issues, individuals reentering society are left
vulnerable to relapse, homelessness, and further involvement in the criminal justice
system.
A paradigm shift is urgently needed—one that prioritizes holistic approaches
to justice, rehabilitation, and community support. This includes investing in mental
health diversion programs, expanding access to community-based mental health
services, and implementing trauma-informed care practices within correctional
facilities. Additionally, efforts to destigmatize mental illness and promote empathy
and understanding are crucial in fostering inclusive communities that support the
healing and well-being of all individuals, regardless of their past interactions with the
criminal justice system. Only through concerted efforts to address the root causes of
criminal behavior and support individuals' holistic needs can society move towards a
more just and equitable future.
The burden placed on offenders to navigate the myriad challenges of
reintegration into society, often while still incarcerated, represents a fundamental flaw
in the current approach to criminal justice and rehabilitation. From securing housing
and employment to accessing necessary support services, individuals reentering
society face a daunting array of tasks, many of which are beyond their capacity to
manage alone. This reality underscores the need for a more comprehensive and
supportive approach to reentry that recognizes the complex needs of individuals
transitioning from incarceration to community life.
The expectation that offenders should independently manage their
reintegration process reflects a systemic failure to provide adequate support and
resources for successful reentry. For many individuals, the challenges they face in
securing stable housing, meaningful employment, and essential services are
exacerbated by factors such as limited education, mental health issues, substance
abuse disorders, and a lack of social support networks. In such circumstances,
expecting individuals to navigate these challenges on their own is not only unrealistic
but also unjust.
The statement made by Martin Horn, the former commissioner of corrections
for the City of New York, calling for a shift in accountability from the facility to the
inmates, appears to overlook the systemic barriers and structural inequalities that
impede successful reentry. Placing the burden of responsibility solely on individuals
who have already faced significant challenges and hardships perpetuates a cycle of
marginalization and re-incarceration rather than fostering genuine rehabilitation and
community integration.
Moreover, expecting individuals to navigate the complexities of reentry
without adequate support can contribute to feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and
recidivism. Without access to the necessary resources and support systems,
individuals may be more likely to resort to survival strategies that increase their risk
of re-offending, perpetuating cycles of crime and incarceration.
Instead of shifting accountability onto individuals who are often ill-equipped
to succeed without assistance, there is a pressing need to reimagine reentry as a
collaborative and community-centered process. This includes investing in
comprehensive reentry programs that provide wraparound support services, including
housing assistance, job training, mental health treatment, substance abuse counseling,
and access to education and vocational programs. By addressing the root causes of
criminal behavior and providing individuals with the tools and resources they need to
rebuild their lives, society can work towards breaking the cycle of incarceration and
fostering meaningful reintegration for all individuals.
Specifically, Horn (in Wynn, 2001) argues that the correctional system should
reduce its expectations and responsibilities for correcting inmates; the inmate, not
corrections, should be held responsible for his or her own postrelease behavior.
b. The Paradox of Prison as an Agent of Rehabilitation and Reintegration
The assertion that prisons, in their current state, are ill-suited for rehabilitation
underscores a critical flaw in the prevailing approach to incarceration. Rather than
serving as centers for genuine rehabilitation and preparation for successful
reintegration into society, prisons often prioritize incapacitation over holistic support
and intervention. This model, which focuses primarily on confining individuals as a
means of punishment, fails to address the underlying issues that contribute to criminal
behavior and often exacerbates the challenges faced by incarcerated individuals.
The observation by Seiter (2004) that the current model of prison operations is
rooted in incapacitation rather than rehabilitation highlights a fundamental imbalance
in the goals of the criminal justice system. While incapacitation may serve to
temporarily remove individuals from society, it does little to address the factors that
contribute to their involvement in criminal behavior or equip them with the skills and
resources necessary to lead law-abiding lives upon release. As a result, many
individuals cycle in and out of the criminal justice system, perpetuating a cycle of
recidivism and societal harm.
Building on this perspective, Wynn (2001) argues that prisons often exacerbate
preexisting issues faced by incarcerated individuals rather than addressing them.
Rather than providing meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and personal
growth, prisons can become breeding grounds for further dysfunction, trauma, and
alienation. Factors such as overcrowding, limited access to education and vocational
training, inadequate mental health services, and pervasive violence within correctional
facilities can compound the challenges faced by incarcerated individuals, making
successful reintegration into society increasingly difficult upon release.
Furthermore, the punitive nature of the prison environment can undermine
efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration. The focus on punishment and control
may foster feelings of resentment, anger, and hopelessness among incarcerated
individuals, further hindering their ability to engage in rehabilitative programs or
envision a positive future beyond incarceration.
To truly address the shortcomings of the current prison system and promote
genuine rehabilitation, a paradigm shift is necessary. This shift entails moving away
from a punitive model of incarceration towards one that prioritizes rehabilitation,
restorative justice, and community reintegration. This includes investing in evidence-
based programs and interventions that address the root causes of criminal behavior,
provide opportunities for education and skill development, and support individuals in
overcoming barriers to successful reintegration.
Moreover, a rehabilitative approach to incarceration requires a fundamental
reevaluation of societal attitudes towards crime, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Rather than viewing incarceration solely as a means of punishment or retribution,
society must recognize the humanity and inherent dignity of all individuals, including
those who have committed crimes. By fostering empathy, understanding, and support
for individuals involved in the criminal justice system, we can work towards a more
equitable and effective approach to rehabilitation that promotes healing,
transformation, and positive change.
The contention that prisons fail to deter repeat offenders and instead
perpetuate a revolving door of justice underscores the urgent need for a reevaluation
of the current approach to corrections. Despite purported rehabilitation goals, the
reality is that many individuals released from prison find themselves back within the
criminal justice system shortly thereafter. This phenomenon speaks to the
inadequacies of traditional incarceration methods in addressing the root causes of
criminal behavior and equipping individuals with the necessary tools for successful
reintegration into society.
The observation by Walker (2006) that overcrowding within correctional
facilities often leads to the early release of offenders further exacerbates the
challenges faced by both incarcerated individuals and society at large. Early release,
while intended to alleviate the strain on prison resources, can inadvertently contribute
to increased rates of recidivism by releasing individuals back into their communities
without adequate support or preparation. This backfire effect highlights the need for
more effective strategies for managing prison populations and addressing the
underlying issues driving incarceration.
Moreover, the practice in the United States of disproportionately allocating
resources towards incarceration, often at the expense of evidence-based rehabilitation
programs, represents a missed opportunity to invest in long-term solutions to crime
prevention and community safety. The billions of dollars spent on locking up
offenders for increasingly longer periods of time have failed to produce meaningful
reductions in crime or recidivism rates. Instead, there is a growing recognition of the
need to redirect these funds towards initiatives that improve the success rate of
prisoners' reentry into society.
Investing in programs that support successful reintegration, such as education,
job training, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and housing
assistance, holds the potential to break the cycle of incarceration and promote positive
outcomes for both individuals and communities. By addressing the underlying factors
that contribute to criminal behavior and providing individuals with the support and
resources they need to rebuild their lives, society can work towards a more effective
and humane approach to justice.
Furthermore, prioritizing rehabilitation and reentry programs aligns with
broader goals of promoting public safety and reducing recidivism. By empowering
individuals to lead law-abiding lives upon release, these programs not only benefit
individuals directly impacted by the criminal justice system but also contribute to
safer and more resilient communities.
In conclusion, the recognition of the limitations of traditional incarceration
methods and the need for more effective strategies for managing prison populations
and promoting successful reintegration underscores the imperative for systemic
reform. By prioritizing rehabilitation, reentry support, and evidence-based
interventions, society can move towards a more equitable, effective, and humane
approach to justice that fosters positive outcomes for all individuals involved.
The persistent high rates of recidivism serve as a glaring indication that the
current model of "corrections" is not effectively addressing the underlying issues
driving criminal behavior. Instead of mitigating the root causes of crime, traditional
approaches to incarceration often contribute to a cycle of reoffending, perpetuating
the very problem they aim to solve. This paradox underscores the urgent need for
innovative alternatives and diversionary programs that prioritize rehabilitation,
address systemic inequalities, and promote community safety.
As discussed by Porter and echoed in multiple contexts, diversion programs
offer promising alternatives to conventional incarceration by providing tailored
interventions and support systems that target the specific needs of individuals
involved in the criminal justice system. Treatment courts, including drug courts,
mental health courts, and domestic violence courts, offer specialized approaches that
emphasize rehabilitation over punishment, guiding participants towards long-term
recovery and stability.
Similarly, programs such as Treatment Alternatives for Street Crime (TASC)
provide comprehensive support services, including substance abuse treatment, mental
health counseling, and vocational training, to individuals at risk of involvement in the
criminal justice system. By addressing the underlying factors contributing to criminal
behavior, these programs aim to break the cycle of addiction and recidivism, offering
participants a pathway to positive change and community reintegration.
Shock incarceration or boot camps represent another approach aimed at
reducing incarceration rates and promoting rehabilitation. These intensive, short-term
programs combine military-style discipline with educational and therapeutic
components, challenging participants to confront their behaviors and attitudes while
providing opportunities for personal growth and development. While the effectiveness
of shock incarceration programs remains subject to debate, they serve as examples of
innovative approaches to rehabilitation that merit further exploration and evaluation.
Moreover, the lessons learned from the implementation of diversion programs
underscore the importance of evidence-based practices, ongoing evaluation, and
collaboration between criminal justice agencies, community organizations, and other
stakeholders. By leveraging data-driven approaches and incorporating feedback from
program participants and practitioners, policymakers can refine and enhance
diversionary initiatives to maximize their impact and effectiveness.
In conclusion, the growing recognition of the limitations of traditional
incarceration models and the potential of diversion programs highlights the need for a
paradigm shift in the criminal justice system. By prioritizing rehabilitation,
community-based interventions, and alternatives to incarceration, society can move
towards a more equitable, effective, and humane approach to addressing crime and
promoting public safety.
c. Parole Discourse Effect on Reentry
Before the 1970s, the American corrections system focused on parole and
indeterminate sentencing for the purpose of rehabilitating the offender. However,
parole and indeterminate sentencing came under attack by a group of crime control
advocates in conjunction with several scholars who initiated change in the American
criminal justice system. For example, James Q. Wilson (in Walker, 2006) argued for a
revival of interest in deterrence and incapacitation. He wanted to abandon
rehabilitation as the purpose of corrections: “Wicked people exist. Nothing avails
except to set them apart from innocent people” (Walker, 2006, p. 22). Wilson and
others had a major influence on how America felt about parole and rehabilitation
programs; by 1995, only 26% of the American population surveyed thought that the
primary purpose of prison should be rehabilitation.
Kadela and Seiter (2003) maintain that the current model of prison and
prisoner reentry focuses on punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation in order to
prevent future crimes; rehabilitation and preparation for a successful release are not
recognized. Many states have opted to abolish parole. The federal government and 15
states have decided to deny parole boards the authority to make release decisions, thus
eliminating the major function of parole boards. Parole boards ensure supervision of
parolees and their attendance in treatment programs that benefit the offenders. Many
states still have a form of mandatory supervision under determinate sentencing;
nevertheless, it is less individualized and is based on risk rather than the needs of the
offenders, setting supervision levels based primarily on offenders’ history of criminal
behavior.
As a result, discretionary parole is no longer the mechanism used to determine
whether offenders will be released. Petersilia (2003) states that most inmates are being
released automatically on a mandatory basis without ever appearing before a parole
board, whereas previously parole release was considered an incentive for many
inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs. This provides a better understanding
of why some prisoners decide not to participate in programs offered at their
institutions. Preparing inmates for release has rarely been an organizational concern
for prison administrators at many institutions; the primary goal of such prisons is to
maintain order using the allocated funds provided by the legislature (Austin, 2001).
Moreover, an increase in prison populations caused by changes in sentencing
guidelines has resulted in a more punitive approach to crime reduction. As a result,
local and state governments are reallocating funds previously designated for public
health, employment, and education programs to construction and management of new
jails and prisons (Austin, 2001).
Consider this: In the 1990s federal spending on employment and training
programs was cut nearly in half while spending on correctional facilities increased by
521% (Golembeski & Fullilove, 2005, p. 1702), resulting in more prisoners being
released without individualized help in finding employment or housing argue that
longer prison terms do not produce a safer or healthier community and usually hinder
a successful reintegration into society. For example, Newman (2002) found that
length of incarceration does not have a positive effect on recidivism.
Prisons do not have the necessary funding or staff to facilitate rehabilitation
programs for offenders. In addition, lack of adequate program space results in classes
and counseling sessions being held in open dorms or recreation spaces that are not
equipped for such purposes (Austin, 2001). For these reasons, many facilities are ill
prepared to offer adequate treatment and rehabilitation programs, which may also
account for the inmates’ lack of motivation to fully participate in such programs and
services. In addition, with parole not being used as often as it once was, many
offenders are being released without supervision requirements. Most inmates are
released directly from the facility with no regard for their rehabilitation or concern for
the reentry process.
To further illustrate this concept, consider how Washington, D.C., and Nevada
deal with offender reentry. Washington, D.C., has been identified as providing the
most comprehensive prerelease planning effort in the country. As of July 1, 2000, the
Offender Accountability Act required all inmates released from their prison system to
be assessed for risks and needs.
Washington, D.C., is among the most active in terms of requiring offenders at
release time to spend time at prerelease centers, with at least 30% of offenders
adhering to this requirement. However, Nevada has no formal prerelease program.
The parole agency operated a small program until it was canceled because of budget
cuts. Inmates are given only $25 and transportation to the city in which they intend to
reside. They are further stigmatized by requirements to report to their local law
enforcement agency and to carry a card that identifies them as ex-convicts.
This comparison illustrates how different jurisdictions deal with released
offenders. Often offenders are expected to make as many arrangements as they can
before they leave prison. Critical tasks such as finding a home and employment are
left solely up to them, and for many offenders these tasks are beyond their abilities.
Similarly, studies have demonstrated that most inmates are poorly educated, lack
vocational skills, struggle with drug and alcohol abuse, and often suffer from some
type of mental illness, so programs to address these problems are crucial. The
incidence of serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar
disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder, is two to four times higher among
prisoners than in the general population. Despite these problems, offenders are still
released back into society, left to struggle to succeed, and expected not to revert to
criminality.
As mentioned previously, in its current state prison is not an appropriate place
for rehabilitation. Moreover, scholars argue that, even with rehabilitation goals in
mind, prisons still do not deter offenders; in fact, the corrections system creates a
revolving door of justice. Moreover, as prisons become overcrowded, many untreated
offenders are being released before the end of their sentence. This practice perpetuates
the notion of a punitive society that is guided by “getting tough on crime,” with public
safety policies that end up backfiring (Walker, 2006). Furthermore, recidivism data
show that most incarcerated people are not rehabilitated, and consequently a majority
of released prisoners are likely to be rearrested within 3 years after their release.
Specifically, about 75–80% of released prisoners are likely to be rearrested within a
decade of release (Freeman, 2003).
Additionally, Petersilia (2003) indicates that nearly one quarter of inmates
released from prisons in 1994 returned to prison for a new crime within 3 years of
their release. According to Hassin (1989) and Petersilia (2003), risk of recidivism is
highest in the first year after release. These recidivism rates suggest that our current
model for corrections is not solving the crime problem and may be perpetuating it.
Moreover, the practice of spending billions of dollars on incarcerating offenders for
longer and longer periods of time has been ineffective.
A new approach should be considered wherein such expenditures are used for
programs that improve the success rate of prisoner reentry. “It must be considered
whether such decisions are creating a revolving door of offenders who will be
committed to prison time and again, as they continuously fail in the community”
(Seiter, 2004, p. 87). The American corrections system is not aiding offenders in
rehabilitation, reentry, or reintegration efforts.
d. Offender Needs and Different Approaches to Rehabilitation
To demonstrate the need for educational and vocational programs, Wilson,
Gallagher, Coggeshall, and MacKenzie (1999) completed a meta-analysis comparing
nonparticipants with program participants. They found strong support for offenders
who participated in educational and vocational programs. The study concluded that
those who participated in correction-based education, vocation, and work programs
recidivated at a lower rate than nonparticipants. Tischler (1999) describes one
correction-based program at the Bath Institution in Ontario, Canada, where the
assistant warden was known for introducing the concept of offender rehabilitation at a
time when the focus of incarceration was simply to lock people up.
The program focuses on academic skills, teamwork, employment skills, and
personal management skills. “Bath Institution places a serious emphasis on being a
place for change and not just a warehouse for stagnant offenders” (Tischler, 1999, p.
74). In another example, the state of Texas created a separate school district to offer
education services to the prison population. Even with most offenders having low
levels of education and many being functionally illiterate, it was reported in 2000 that
nearly 5,000 Texas prisoners took the General Educational Development (GED) test;
67% passed, and most were enrolled in basic literacy courses (Austin, 2001).
Education programs open new doors for many offenders who want to rehabilitate
themselves and continue on a successful path in life.
Drug treatment programs are also in demand in many facilities. For instance,
almost 68% of jail inmates are dependent on drugs or alcohol. Unfortunately, only
15–18% of substance-abusing inmates receive treatment or participate in other
substance abuse programs after entering jail. Recent research studies suggest that
prisoners are more likely to reoffend if they are unemployed, use drugs or abuse
alcohol, and have extensive criminal histories (La Vigne et al., 2006; Petersilia, 2001,
2003; Travis, 2005). Similarly, Prendergast and Wexler (2004) assert that about 70%
of people in state prisons need substance abuse treatment, but 45% of them are not
being offered any kind of treatment; the lack of adequate substance abuse treatment in
many facilities may contribute to high rates of recidivism. In a study completed by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in 1996, it
was found that 70–85% of state prison inmates needed some level of substance abuse
treatment, but only 13% actually received any treatment.
TCs are especially effective in a correctional institution because they are
structured as total treatment environments isolated from the rest of the prison
population. The reason they are so effective is because they segregate prisoners from
the drugs, violence, and other aspects of prison life commonly associated with
ineffective rehabilitation efforts (see Gideon, Shoham, & Weisburd, in press; Shoham,
Gideon, Weisburd, & Vilner, 2006). The TC has been the modality most often
implemented in prison settings because of previous successes, and it has been the
focus of several large-scale studies in the past decade (Prendergast & Wexler, 2004).
For example, Wexler, De Leon, Thomas, Kressel, and Peters (1999) indicate that TCs
that provide aftercare produce large positive outcomes, whereas TCs alone only show
small and mostly nonsignificant effects (also see Shoham et al., 2006).
Similarly, Inciardi et al. (1997) studied prison TC evaluations to assess the
effects of prison TC substance abuse treatment followed by either work release or
aftercare treatment. Their findings suggest that treatment programs with some type of
postrelease aftercare decrease recidivism, as measured by arrests and lower levels of
drug use (Inciardi et al., 1997). Similarly, Wexler et al. (1999) indicate that inmates
who were randomly assigned to treatment as a condition of parole had significantly
lower recidivism rates than the nontreatment control group. Other studies examining
TCs also support the notion that TCs are most effective for those who remain in
treatment the longest (Simpson, Savage, & Lloyd, 1979). A study by Inciardi et al.
(2004) indicates that long-term treatment in correctional settings can have a major
impact on the potential for relapse and recidivism among drug-involved offenders.
This outcome could be surprising because these programs target the most difficult of
all substance abusers: “They are the most drug involved, the most criminally
involved, and the most socially dysfunctional. As such, positive changes typically
occur in small increments”.
These are inexpensive approaches to correctional treatment and have been
receiving increased attention. In recent years, faith-based programs have become
more interesting to corrections officials, although research on these types of prison-
based programs is just beginning to develop. However, studies suggest that religion is
one of the coping methods inmates may find useful in a harsh prison environment
(Clear et al., 1992; Clear & Sumter, 2002; Kerley, Matthews, & Schulz, 2005;
O’Connor & Perreyclear, 2002). Having a better understanding of the value of
religious programs can help a correctional administrator make more informed
decisions in difficult financial times. Religious programs have also served as a way of
dealing with the psychological and physical deficiencies that are often effects of
imprisonment (Dammer, 2002).
Kerley and colleagues (2005) conducted a study on faith-based prison
programs at one of the nation’s largest state prisons, in Mississippi. Their study found
that inmates who participated in the program were somewhat less likely to experience
negative emotions and were less likely to engage in fights with fellow inmates and
staff. Furthermore, they found a decrease in feelings of anger, bitterness, and
coldness, similar to the findings of Clear et al. (1992), who administered a self-report
questionnaire to a nonrandom sample of 769 inmates in 20 prisons from 12 states.
Clear and his colleagues were trying to determine whether an inmate’s religiousness
was related to prison adjustment and the number of disciplinary infractions for which
they were cited. Kerley and colleagues’ (2005) results showed positive effects on
offenders’ behavior. Likewise, an earlier study by Clear and Sumter (2002) found a
significant relationship between inmate religiousness and various measures of inmate
adjustment to the prison environment.
The study also found that higher levels of inmate religiousness are associated
with fewer self-reported disciplinary confinements. Additional findings suggest that
correctional theory and practice ought to include active religious participation to
reduce factors associated with prison infractions.
Clearly these programs are much needed to aid in prisoners’ rehabilitation and
reintegration initiatives. However, budget cuts and an overall lack of designated funds
have prevented many correctional institutions from establishing such programs. This
is practically inconceivable, but sadly true, even when $50 billion is spent on
corrections each year (Petersilia, 2003; Seiter, 2004). Petersilia (2005) indicates that
funding is spent on hiring more prison staff, constructing new prisons, and meeting
the rising costs of health care, leaving very little funding for treatment and work
programs. As a result, not enough money is left to fund these supportive programs.
Despite the knowledge that these programs can be effective, legislators continue to
withdraw funding for reentry initiatives, leaving prisoners to be released into a
situation that is many times worse than what they experienced before they entered
prison.
These cutbacks are legislative decisions that are supported by false
perceptions. Legislators sometimes wrongly assume that the public will have more of
a conservative outlook regarding how to handle criminals (Petersilia, 2003; Travis,
2005). “On the whole, we are people who do not really expect deviants to change very
much as they are processed through the control agencies we provide for them, and we
are often reluctant to devote much of the community’s resources to the job of
rehabilitation” (Adler & Adler, 2003, p. 17). Furthermore, it is believed that the
shortage of rehabilitative programs is largely the result of public dislike for these
programs, the belief these programs will not work, and the overall popularity of
punitive measures that are commonly associated with the public’s fear of crime
(Golembeski & Fullilove, 2005; Zimring, Hawkins, & Kamin, 2001). “Ultimately,
public opinion on crime and punishment is a complex mix of perception, reason,
emotion, and social ideals of justice, one that cannot be readily reduced to political
slogans or newspaper headlines”.
A study by the National Council of Crime and Delinquency (Krisberg &
Marchionna, 2006) examined a sample of 1,039 voters regarding public attitudes
toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry. It found that the overwhelming majority
supported rehabilitation as a major goal of incarceration. Additionally, participants
appeared to understand that current correctional practices are not working, that
prisoners are facing enormous barriers to successful reintegration, and that
rehabilitative services should be provided as means of reducing crime. For instance,
most thought that job training, drug treatment, mental health services, family support,
mentoring, and housing assistance were all very important services for rehabilitating
offenders. Also, participants thought that a lack of life skills, the experience of being
in prison, and obstacles to reentry are precursors to a return to criminality. Moreover,
the study found that 78% either “strongly support” or “support” the implementation of
the Second Chance Act (Krisberg & Marchionna, 2006). Similar results were found in
a recent study that used a nonrandom public opinion survey conducted by Gideon and
Loveland that examined level of punitiveness and support for rehabilitative endeavors
among New Yorkers and residents of the tri-state area.
Likewise, recent polls suggest that Americans are becoming more aware of the
hardships prisoners face during and after incarceration. In addition, they realize that
incarceration should be coupled with rehabilitation and reentry efforts to promote
successful reintegration into society. Unfortunately, budget constraints have kept
several prisons from fully implementing such programs. At the same time, “get tough”
policies are continuously marketed to support more punitive strategies to solve the
crime problem, counteracting efforts to revise penological ideologies that have
governed correctional practice for more than three decades.
e. Correctional Staff Attitudes Toward Inmates
Offenders’ reintegration and reentry has become a popular topic in recent
years. However, many may view it as a renewed discussion of treatment and
rehabilitation practices of the 1960s and 1970s. As Johnson (1960, p. 356) noted, “the
rehabilitation bureaucracy hopes to return its ‘clients’ to the outside world prepared to
play socially-approved roles.” Such discussion was violently put down by the
Martinson report of the early 1970s, and the work since then has attempted to
examine what works and what is promising in criminal justice practice.
Rehabilitation’s effectiveness in improving offender behavior has been
questioned—from Martinson’s (1974) “Nothing Works” article to the shift to truth-in-
sentencing. Corrections staff, the general public, and offenders must all be motivated
for a rehabilitation program to succeed. Specifically, replacing the traditional
custodial role with a new “humane enthusiast” role can improve success rates for
offenders (Johnson, 1960). This is contrary to most correctional practice; increasingly,
there has been a focus on “risk management” and the “new penology,” in which
offenders are addressed as a group, shifting away from their individual identities and
needs (Rhine, 1997). It appears that this approach has deep roots in the past. For
example, Hazelrigg (1967) compared self-report surveys from inmates with surveys
of staff perceptions and found that staff perceptions of incarcerated offenders are
governed largely by unfavorable, stereotypical images of the inmates. It is possible
that common stereotypes of the inmate population result from the conflicting nature of
the corrections job, as suggested by O’Leary and Duffee (1971), who developed a
typology of management control, including reform, restraint, rehabilitation, and
reintegration measures. Furthermore, they found that rehabilitation and reintegration
programs will be viewed by correctional staff as a necessary deceitful practice to
maintain institutional order while they prepare inmates for reintegration (O’Leary &
Duffee, 1971). This is especially true when it is time for prisoners to be released and
reintegrated back into society. A study of parole officers identified job training or
vocational rehabilitation, substance abuse treatment, and residential facilities and
halfway houses as essential ingredients of successful reintegration (Seiter, 2004).
However, Seiter (2004) also found that correctional staff see improving parolees’
chances of success as an aspect of their job as important as monitoring, supervising,
or controlling.
The revelation from a subsequent study, which surveyed prison staff about
their job responsibilities, sheds light on a critical gap in the current approach to
corrections. Despite the acknowledged importance of reentry and reintegration in
reducing recidivism and promoting successful community transitions, many prison
staff do not view these aspects as integral to their roles. This disconnect between the
perceived responsibilities of prison staff and the needs of incarcerated individuals
underscores a systemic failure to prioritize comprehensive rehabilitation and support
services within correctional facilities.
The findings of the study raise important questions about the overarching
mission and objectives of the corrections system. If the primary focus of prison staff
is not on preparing individuals for successful reentry into society, it calls into question
the effectiveness of current practices in addressing the root causes of criminal
behavior and promoting positive outcomes for both individuals and communities.
Without adequate support and preparation during incarceration, individuals reentering
society may face insurmountable barriers to successful reintegration, increasing their
likelihood of recidivism and perpetuating cycles of incarceration.
Moreover, the lack of emphasis on reentry and reintegration among prison
staff underscores broader issues within the criminal justice system, including limited
resources, competing priorities, and institutional resistance to change. Despite
growing recognition of the importance of rehabilitation and community reintegration
in reducing recidivism, entrenched practices and bureaucratic inertia may hinder
efforts to implement meaningful reforms within correctional facilities.
To address this gap, there is a pressing need for increased training, resources,
and support for prison staff to effectively fulfill their roles as facilitators of
rehabilitation and reentry preparation. This includes providing education and
professional development opportunities focused on evidence-based practices in
reentry programming, trauma-informed care, and effective communication strategies
with incarcerated individuals. By equipping prison staff with the knowledge and tools
necessary to support successful reintegration, correctional facilities can better fulfill
their mandate to promote public safety and reduce recidivism.
Furthermore, efforts to enhance collaboration and coordination between prison
staff, community organizations, and reentry service providers are essential in ensuring
a seamless transition for individuals returning to their communities after
incarceration. By fostering partnerships and leveraging resources across sectors, the
criminal justice system can better address the complex needs of justice-involved
individuals and promote positive outcomes throughout the reentry process.
In conclusion, the findings of the study underscore the importance of
reevaluating and realigning the roles and responsibilities of prison staff within the
broader context of rehabilitation and reentry preparation. By prioritizing these critical
aspects of corrections, society can work towards a more effective and humane
approach to justice that promotes successful reintegration and reduces recidivism
rates.
The American Correctional Association fully supports evidence-based
practices for reentry of ex-offenders. “Reentry programs enhance public safety, help
prepare offenders for transition to responsible citizenship, can help reduce future
criminal behavior, remove barriers that make it difficult for offenders to reenter their
communities, and develop necessary support for the community” (Anonymous,
2006b, p. 88). The association encourages agencies at the federal, state, and local
levels to implement certain policies to aid offenders’ reentry. Some of these policy
suggestions include advocating for the review and revision of existing laws that
inhibit successful reentry, initiating individualized transitional planning during intake
to the facility, and helping offenders access appropriate housing upon release.
f. The Second Chance Act
In his 2004 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said,
“America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the
path ahead should lead to a better life.” This statement paved the way for a renewed
discussion of prisoners’ rehabilitation and reintegration. For the first time in decades,
Congress was poised to pass a bill that aims to make current offenders’ and ex-
offenders’ lives easier by allocating federal funds to rehabilitation and reentry
programs. “Invisible punishments” (Travis, 2005) have been imposed on offenders
who are reintegrating back into their communities, putting a wall between the ex-
offender and society. For instance, ex-offenders are denied benefits such as student
loans, drivers’ licenses, welfare, food stamps, and public housing eligibility (Travis,
2005). Additionally, a lack of funds prevented the implementation of previously
proposed rehabilitation programs by correctional agencies, which could have provided
services to offenders with mental illness or substance abuse problems.
Furthermore, 31% of offenders were unemployed before arrest, 40% are
functionally illiterate, 19% are illiterate, and 13% have some type of mental health
problem (Petersilia, 2003, p. 35). If these problems are ignored during incarceration,
these offenders are more likely to be reincarcerated. Specifically, with an estimated
700,000 inmates being released from prisons back to their communities each year,
employment issues must be addressed before release. Furthermore, soaring recidivism
rates result from the fact that most inmates being released do not receive rehabilitation
services and therefore are likely to be rearrested within 3 years of release.
In light of these alarming data, both Democrats and Republicans decided to
sponsor the Second Chance Act of 2007, a unique proposal to expand reentry services
for people leaving prison and returning to society. (The bill was first introduced in
2005 but was returned to the House of Representatives for amendments before its
final approval by the president on April 9, 2008.) The Second Chance Act has been
deemed the first comprehensive legislation attempting to address the multifaceted
problems offenders face during and after incarceration. Additionally, it is striking that
members of the Republican Party are showing strong support for the implementation
of the act despite their more punitive approach to prison reform in the past. Senator
Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Joe
Biden (D-DE), were the lead sponsors of the bill. The bill was introduced to the
House (H.R. 1704) in April and the Senate (S. 1934) in October 2005. The Second
Chance Act has been supported by more than 200 organizations and has broad
bipartisan support, with 113 co-sponsors in the House and 34 in the Senate (Re-Entry
Policy Council, 2007).
Despite every effort to move the Second Chance Act through the 109th
congressional session, the legislation stalled in the Senate. The act faced opposition
from Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn (R). Senator Coburn objected to the bill on the
grounds that there is no federal role in prisoner reentry. Furthermore, he argued that
individual states have the resources to reduce recidivism and improve reentry on their
own. Because of these objections, he placed a hold on the bill to prevent it from
reaching the floor for further consideration. The 109th congressional session
adjourned leaving the act undecided. In January 2007, the 110th congressional session
convened, and the Second Chance Act was reintroduced to the U.S. House of
Representatives on March 20, 2007. The House bill (H.R. 1593) was passed by the
full Judiciary Committee only a month after being reintroduced.
Nevertheless, the Second Chance Act was postponed by the Democratic
leadership and placed on the suspension calendar in order to ensure enough
Republican votes for swift passage of the bill. Additionally, members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee completed a markup of S. 1060, the Second Chance Act of 2007.
The committee reviewed several different amendments to the act and accepted the
amendment introduced by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The amendment excludes sex
offenders from the early release program for elderly prisoners. A resolution was made
in December 2007 to address the Senate’s concerns. The resolution included new
language to change the match for state and local government reentry grants and
clarified the eligibility requirements for elderly release programs. Despite these minor
technical changes, after months of delay the Second Chance Act was finally passed by
the U.S. House of Representatives on November 13, 2007, with a 347–62 vote.
The Second Chance Act will provide $191 million for prisoner rehabilitation,
reentry, and reintegration programs, including $65 million in grants to state and local
governments for reentry initiatives, $15 million to nonprofit organizations to provide
mentoring and other transitional services, $1 million for state research grants, $10
million for reentry task forces and several drug treatment provisions, $5 million for
career training, $20 million for education at prisons and jails, and $20 million for
prison-based and family treatment programs (Re-Entry Policy Council, 2008).
Additionally, the Second Chance Act could eventually save American taxpayers
millions of dollars by reducing recidivism rates and consequently lowering arrest and
incarceration rates. Currently, the annual cost of incarcerating a prisoner exceeds
$20,000, a number that increased sixfold between 1982 and 2002. Former senator and
current vice president Joe Biden, co-sponsor of the act, stated that it is “a relatively
modest investment in offender reentry efforts [that] compares very well with the
alternative—building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are
unable to successfully reenter their communities. An ounce of prevention, as they say,
is worth a pound of cure”.
Furthermore, the Second Chance Act encourages collaboration of the criminal
justice, public health, and social service systems to allow access to resources and
opportunities to promote successful reentry. The partnership of these systems will
continue to reduce recidivism by providing tools to address multifaceted issues, such
as drug abuse and mental health issues. Additionally, the act calls for services such as
public assistance, public housing, health and mental services, education, and job
training; which are all associated with preventing further recidivism and allowing for
a smoother transition back into society (Pogorzelski, Blitz, Pan, & Wolff, 2005;
Wilkinson & Rhine, 2005).
Additionally, O’Hear (2007) points out that grant recipients are required to
“develop a reentry strategic plan not only containing measurable performance
outcomes, but must have a 50 percent reduction in recidivism rates over five years”
(p. 76). Similarly, performance levels are measurable through increased employment,
education, and housing opportunitiesto offenders who are released back into the
community. “In short, the Second Chance Act repudiates the notion that recidivism
reduction is best achieved through deterrent threats alone and calls for the delivery of
services to former prisoners, not in a minimal or grudging way but in a systematic,
proactive fashion” (O’Hear, 2007, p. 76). The Second Chance Act is a reentry
movement that could be classified as having a “harm-reductionist flavor e.g.,
therapeutic jurisprudence, restorative justice, and, to some extent, victim’s rights”
(O’Hear, 2007, p. 77). In other words, O’Hear suggests that the Second Chance Act
could weaken legalism’s hold on penal law and policy. He states that such legalism
has consisted of astonishing harshness in sentencing and a tendency to view offenders
as “undifferentiated, willful lawbreakers” and not as “individual human beings with
unique needs and limitations”.
These problems do not disappear while offenders are in prison. The Second
Chance Act provides for programs and services that will aid in rehabilitation efforts
and encourage positive participation in society upon release. In addition, the act
eliminates what Travis (2005) calls “invisible punishments” that continue to alienate
the prisoner from his or her community by excluding access to public benefits such as
temporary assistance for needy families, general assistance, food stamps, and public
housing. These types of assistance are needed by many in society who are in
transition, not just ex-offenders. It is reasonable to assume that ex-offenders need to
rely more on public assistance than the average person, but they are the ones
constantly denied access. The act will counter the effects of three decades of get-
tough-on-crime policies, which have made it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to
reenter the normative, noncriminal community and could explain why so many
recidivate (Pogorzelski et al., 2005). Farabee (2007) believes that the funding the
Second Chance Act provides to state and local correctional agencies could reduce
recidivism. Furthermore, Farabee states that “by requiring that these efforts be
independently evaluated using intent-to-treat, randomized designs, this legislation
could make history by putting us on the slow but solid path of real progress”.
g. Public Support for the Second Chance Act and Rehabilitation Initiatives
In a public opinion study that examined public attitudes toward rehabilitation,
punitiveness, and support of the Second Chance Act, a sample of 879 respondents
from various sectors in New York and the Tri-State Region (including parts of New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) was examined. The sample was drawn between
September 2007 and February 2008 from residents of these areas, resulting in a
sample that does not differ significantly from the actual population of New York and
the Tri-State Region. Self-administered questionnaires included five domains:
knowledge, feeling, hypothetical action, attitude, and legal compliance. The first four
domains were necessary to examine the dependent variable: attitudes toward
rehabilitation, punitiveness, and support of the Second Chance Act. The survey had 99
items and took about half an hour to complete on average.
The sample included slightly more females (about 54%), with about 61% of
the sample being single, divorced, or separated and 61% being Christians. In terms of
race, about half of the participants were White (50.8%), 15.2% were Black, and
11.7% were Hispanic. The majority of those who responded were employed full time
or part time during the survey (67.3%) and had a high level of education— 15.4 years
—on average. A plurality of the participants in the sample identified themselves as
Democrats (49.9%), with 17.5% Republicans and 23.2% Independent. Although this
sample is not representative of the entire U.S. population, it provides a substantial
review of public attitudes on rehabilitation, punitiveness, and support of the Second
Chance Act; this study may provide a good indicator of what the public thinks about
how released offenders should be treated.
The startling fact that nearly 700,000 inmates will be released from prison to
their home communities may explain why the public fears for its safety. Such concern
may be attributed to the fact that the public knows that recidivism rates are high and
that most offenders are not being treated while incarcerated. About 85% of
respondents reported being concerned about the fact that about 700,000 inmates will
be released from prison to their home communities. Such concern may also be
explained by the fact that most communities are ill prepared to accommodate those
released from jails and prisons, and they do not have the knowledge or support to do
so (Clear, 2007). In other words, the public understands the difficulties faced by
inmates and the receiving community. In fact, 68% of the inmates surveyed by
Braucht and Bailey-Smith (2006) reported being worried about their reentry needs as
their release date approached. Strangely enough, only 24% asked for help, including
assistance with finding housing.
The New York City and Tri-State Region survey found that about 83% of the
public is supportive of the Second Chance Act of 2007 and thus support offenders’
rehabilitation and reintegration. Such support indicates a weakening of the “penal
harm” movement that governed criminal justice policy over the past three decades
(Listwan-Johanson et al., 2008). “The persistence of rehabilitative attitudes among the
public, burgeoning doubts about harsh justice. . . . They make a formidable case for
guarded optimism that mass imprisonment is running out of steam both ideologically
and intellectually” (Downes, 2008, p. 420). Indeed, such a conclusion is indicated by
the fact that 93% of representatives from New York supported the act. The act
symbolizes a new era in how our society deals with criminals. As previously
mentioned, the act allocates funds to examine reintegration practices and thereby
allows for hope that the penal harm movement and its get-tough policies will be
reevaluated and, within time, will change to address the needs of offenders while
maintaining public safety.
Despite the public support for the Second Chance Act, lower levels of support
were observed for sexual offenders. When asked whether they support the Second
Chance Act for sex offenders, a majority of the respondents said they either “strongly
disagree” or “disagree” with the Second Chance Act. When it comes to sex offenders
the public is reluctant to support such policies as the Second Chance Act. In that
regard, it is important to note that sex offenders are characterized by extremely low
recidivism rates, as mentioned by Palermo (2009). In fact, Palermo (2009, p. 3) argues
that high recidivism rates—of more than two thirds of released inmates—were
observed for non–sex offenders, whereas only 5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested
for another sex offense in the 3-year period that followed their release.
Such results suggest that the public and policymakers should be educated
more about the risk posed by convicted and treated sexual offenders. Deal with the
risk and need assessments of such offenders. Findings of previous studies show that
knowledge and familiarity with offenders are statistically significant predictors of
punitiveness and support for rehabilitation: The more knowledge a person has, the
less punitive and more supportive of rehabilitation he or she will be. Stereotypical
attitudes toward offenders were found to have the opposite effect, which suggests that
stigma may result in less support for rehabilitation and more punitiveness. It was also
found, as in other studies (Brown, 1999; Cullen et al., 1985; Dowler, 2003; Lambert,
2005; Sundt, Cullen, Applegate, & Turner, 1998), that level of education was
significantly associated with support for rehabilitation (and thus for the Second
Chance Act). Consequently, one can argue that higher levels of education will reduce
stigma, which may increase support for rehabilitation and reintegration.
h. Gender, Race, and Political Affiliation
The exploration of gender and race in the context of public attitudes towards
criminal justice policies provides valuable insights into the intersectionality of
perspectives on punishment and rehabilitation. While the results from the New York
and TriState Region did not reveal a significant effect of gender on levels of
punitiveness and support for rehabilitation, consistent patterns emerged that align with
previous research.
Despite the lack of statistical significance, the trend observed in the data
indicates that women tend to exhibit less punitive attitudes and greater support for
rehabilitation compared to men. This finding resonates with previous studies,
including the research conducted by Applegate et al. (1997), which documented
similar patterns of gender differences in attitudes towards criminal justice policies.
The observation that women are generally less punitive and more supportive
of rehabilitation efforts suggests that gender plays a nuanced role in shaping public
perceptions of crime and punishment. These differences may be influenced by a
variety of factors, including socialization, cultural norms, and personal experiences
with the criminal justice system. Women's attitudes may also reflect a greater
emphasis on compassion, empathy, and rehabilitation, particularly towards individuals
who have been impacted by systemic inequalities and adversity.
Moreover, the absence of significant differences in attitudes based on race
highlights the complexity of the relationship between race, gender, and criminal
justice attitudes. While race undoubtedly intersects with experiences of inequality and
discrimination within the criminal justice system, the findings suggest that gender
may be a more salient factor in shaping individual attitudes towards punishment and
rehabilitation.
Moving forward, further research is needed to explore the underlying
mechanisms driving gender differences in attitudes towards criminal justice policies
and the implications for policy development and implementation. By understanding
the nuanced ways in which gender influences perceptions of crime and punishment,
policymakers can develop more targeted and effective strategies for addressing
disparities within the criminal justice system and promoting rehabilitation and
reintegration for all individuals, regardless of gender or race.
Findings from the New York and Tri-State Region suggest that race does have
a significant effect on attitudes toward rehabilitation and punitiveness. Specifically,
African Americans are more supportive of rehabilitation than Hispanics and Whites.
Whites had a strong positive effect when examined in regard to punitiveness and a
strong negative effect when examined in regard to rehabilitation. However, when race
was examined along with education it was found that education had a reverse effect
on level of punitiveness and support for rehabilitation. Specifically, White educated
respondents are less punitive than any of the other ethnic categories. This interaction
was found to be significant only for punitiveness.
The influence of political affiliation on attitudes towards crime, punishment,
and rehabilitation adds another layer of complexity to the discourse surrounding
criminal justice reform. Research findings suggesting that Republicans tend to adopt
tougher stances on crime, favoring punitive measures over rehabilitation, while
Democrats exhibit a more supportive stance towards rehabilitation efforts, highlight
the politicization of criminal justice policy and the divergent approaches to addressing
crime within different ideological frameworks.
The Republican emphasis on toughness on crime aligns with longstanding
narratives around law and order, which prioritize punitive measures such as
incarceration and mandatory sentencing. This approach reflects a belief in the
deterrent effect of harsh penalties and a skepticism towards rehabilitation as a means
of addressing criminal behavior. As a result, Republican lawmakers may be more
inclined to support policies that prioritize punishment over rehabilitation, viewing
incarceration as the primary solution to addressing crime and maintaining public
safety.
In contrast, Democrats tend to advocate for more nuanced and holistic
approaches to criminal justice, which prioritize rehabilitation, prevention, and
addressing root causes of crime. This perspective acknowledges the importance of
addressing underlying social and economic factors that contribute to criminal
behavior and emphasizes the role of rehabilitation programs in promoting successful
reentry and reducing recidivism. Democratic lawmakers may be more likely to
support legislation that invests in education, job training, mental health services, and
substance abuse treatment as alternatives to incarceration.
The passage of the Second Chance Act, with a majority of Democratic
support, underscores the bipartisan recognition of the need for policies that support
successful reentry and rehabilitation for individuals returning from incarceration.
While the act received some Republican support, the discrepancy in support between
the two parties reflects differing priorities and philosophies regarding criminal justice
policy.
However, it is important to note that political affiliation is just one of many
factors that influence attitudes towards criminal justice policy. Other factors, such as
personal experiences, socioeconomic status, and geographic location, also play
significant roles in shaping individuals' perspectives on crime and punishment.
Moving forward, bridging the partisan divide on criminal justice reform will
require efforts to find common ground and foster bipartisan collaboration. By
emphasizing evidence-based approaches, promoting dialogue, and prioritizing the
shared goal of promoting public safety and reducing recidivism, policymakers can
work towards enacting reforms that address the complex challenges facing the
criminal justice system and promote positive outcomes for individuals, families, and
communities impacted by incarceration.
Public attitudes toward correctional practices play a pivotal role in shaping
policy decisions, as evidenced by numerous studies examining the intersection of
public opinion and criminal justice reform efforts. Skovron, Scott, and Cullen (1989)
highlight the significant influence of public attitudes as a major obstacle to the
implementation of policies within the corrections system. Consequently, public
opinion surveys serve as valuable tools for policymakers and stakeholders in gauging
public sentiment and informing decisions regarding correctional practices.
The passage of the Second Chance Act, which aims to facilitate the successful
reentry and rehabilitation of individuals returning from incarceration, reflects a
growing recognition of the importance of public attitudes in shaping criminal justice
policy. Examination of public attitudes among New Yorkers and residents of the Tri-
State Region reveals a nuanced perspective characterized by concerns about crime as
well as support for rehabilitation initiatives. These findings align with broader trends
identified by scholars such as Cullen, Skovron, Scott, and Burton (1990), Krisberg
and Marchionna (2006), McCorkle (1993), Skovron et al. (1989), and Sundt et al.
(1998), who have documented widespread public support for rehabilitation efforts
aimed at addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and promoting successful
reintegration.
The consistency of findings across different studies underscores the robustness
of public support for rehabilitation initiatives within the criminal justice system.
Despite variations in methodology, geographic location, and sample demographics,
researchers consistently find evidence of public endorsement for rehabilitation
programs that prioritize education, job training, mental health services, and substance
abuse treatment as alternatives to incarceration.
These findings challenge conventional wisdom that public opinion is
uniformly punitive or resistant to rehabilitation efforts within the criminal justice
system. Instead, they suggest a more nuanced understanding of public attitudes that
reflects a desire for comprehensive and effective responses to crime that prioritize
prevention, rehabilitation, and community safety.
Moving forward, policymakers and stakeholders must continue to engage with
public opinion data to inform evidence-based decision-making and promote policies
that reflect the values and preferences of the communities they serve. By aligning
correctional practices with public attitudes and preferences, policymakers can enhance
the legitimacy and effectiveness of criminal justice reform efforts while addressing
the complex challenges facing the corrections system.
