Incarceration – Can Criminals Be Rehabilitated?

The preamble to the United States Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general WelfareâÂ?¦” In order to continually form a “more perfect union,” society must constantly protect itself from itself. There are individuals who have addictions, compulsions and psychiatric problems. Some of these individuals are able to get by and function day to day; they may be your insurance salesperson, your bartender or maybe even your mother. Other individuals addictions, compulsions and psychiatric problems lead them toward committing crimes. People are raped, robbed and murdered everyday. No gender, no race, no religion, no small or large town is discriminated against; crime does not discriminate. The Constitution insures my tranquility, and it provides the common defense of all people, including alleged criminals and convicted criminals. This nation has an obligation to keep itself safe, but we have criminals; what do we do with them? Is it best to remove them from society so that they cannot wreak havoc on society? Or does society have a responsibility to rehabilitate criminals?

Not all criminals are sentenced to life in prison. Some robbers, rapists and murderers: they do walk the streets after serving their prison sentences. According to Iain Murray, Director of Research, Statistical Assessment Service in Washington D.C., 70 percent of offenders will re-offend; however, only 50 percent of offenders who have participated in a rehabilitation program will re-offend again.
If the rehabilitation of offenders prevents as many as 20 percent from re-offending, don’t we have an obligation to society, the offender and the offender’s loved ones to mandate rehabilitation programs for those doing hard jail time? Murray claims, “Offending is, at base, an individual choice. Truly effective rehabilitation actionâÂ?¦must be taken at the individual level.” My choice to go over speed limit cost me a ticket. It was my choice to disobey the law, because I had a four hour drive I wanted to shorten, even if I was just shaving minutes off the time. What about felonies; what are a felon’s reasons for committing awful crimes? What motivates a rapist? How can we ever be certain the rapist will not rape again? We will never be certain in knowing if an offender will re-offend? What we do know is that offenders are more likely to commit crimes than the general population, but that does not mean we can imprison all offenders for life.

In the state of Ohio, the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) Dr. Reginald Wilkinson, believes family involvement is crucial for the successful reentry of an offender to life outside of prison. The DRC seeks to lessen the strain of offenders returning home to find the stigma of Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ex-convict’ existing within their own family by the implementation of family-oriented and faith-based programs offenders and family members can participate in while the offenders are still incarcerated.

In 2002, Dr. Wilkinson commissioned the University of Cincinnati to evaluate and compare recidivism rates to the affectivity of community-based corrections programs. The results signify rehabilitation programs do work and reduce recidivism by 10-30 percent, particularly among moderate to high-risk offenders.

Society only stands to gain from the use of rehabilitation programs. Each offender deserves the opportunity to better oneself, so that when one is released from prison, one can be part of a family, part of a workforce and part of a community. If we choose not to give prisoners a chance to be rehabilitated and live a Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½normal’ life, the offender’s neighbors, friends and family may not give the offender a chance either and that could send the offender back into the arms of crime.

Why should prison systems be responsible for rehabilitation of prisoners? Is therapy or a particular program like Scared Straight for juvenile offenders really going to make a difference? A criminal is a criminal; discussing one’s hopes, fears and repressed childhood memories to a support group will not change the mind of a criminal.

In 1989, Supreme Court Judge Justice Blackmun stated, “âÂ?¦the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed.” Society is far better when criminals are incapacitated in prison and remain there for as long as possible.
Why shouldn’t we demand retribution from offenders? Robert James Bidinotto, editor and writer, claims “retribution is the only premise fully consistent with justice and individuality.” Retribution means payback at the expense of the offender. How can retribution not act as a future deterrent for offenders?

The thought of incapacitation deters most of society from committing crimes. Think about those imprisoned. Some prisoners are raped and beaten. Prisoners are unable to eat what they want, visit with family and friends when they want. Their whole day is a carbon copy of the previous day, and inmates lose control of their life. Anyone incarcerated who has experienced the violence and loneliness of prison should not want to revisit it. Offenders have choices once they are released from prison. In order to remain free from an environment filled without choice (prison), offenders need to search within oneself and make the choice not to re-offend.�¯�¿�½

Works Cited

Bidinotto, Robert James. “Justice or Utility.” 5 November 2004. Online. http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3245.

Murrat, Iain. “Making Rehabilitation Work.” 4 November 2004. Online. http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:AyQOmCxr26MJ:www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter03/polwin03-9.pdf++incapacitation+versus+rehabilitation&hl=en.

Wilkinson, Dr. Reginald A. “Can Rehabilitation Succeed and Reentry be Successful.” 5 November 2004. Online. http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Articles/article92.htm.