Ringoringa
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:18:29 +0000
Recidivism: "A tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior; especially : relapse into criminal behavior." The recidivism rate of a country is, for those unaware and who don't feel like Googling it, the rate at which criminals end up back in prison after having served time already.
In the United States, the recidivism rate is an astounding two thirds. In other words, about two thirds of people who end up in a U.S. prison will be back again. Clearly, there's a problem, here. The purpose of prison isn't just to incarcerate people who commit crimes; if that were the case, we would never release them. At the end of the day, we want them to come back into society and never commit crimes again. It's not just for their own good, but the good of society. Unfortunately, it seems we're not doing a very good job of rehabilitating these people. This is a huge problem, because we spend billions of dollars annually keeping prisoners locked up.
For a little perspective, let's look at some other countries. Canada's recidivism rate is less than half. In Norway, it's a mere one fifth. There are a multitude of factors to take into consideration, here. Culture, population density, the laws themselves, and so on and so forth. No one is suggesting that we just copy-paste the entire system and call it a day. However, there are certain elements that I think we should look at to help us reevaluate our current policies.
One of them is punitive procedures versus rehabilitative procedures. In the U.S., we tend to lean towards punitive policies. "If we punish them hard enough, they won't do it again, because they won't want to come back to prison." This is known as the rational choice theory. However, this idea is flawed. For one, not everybody who commits a crime is a rational person. Even if they ordinarily are, there are people who commit crimes of passion, where they aren't going to think to themselves, "Hmm, if I do this thing, what are the odds that I'm going to go to prison?"
There's also the issue of prison "creating hardened criminals out of first-time offenders." I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that this problem is the greatest at the medium-security level, where a lot of gangs tend to form, and most fights tend to occur. Solitary confinement is probably the worst in terms of actually changing people for the better. A lack of contact tends to seriously impair their social skills, and can lead to mental health problems like depression.
In general, we've come to adopt a "toughen up on crime" approach, even though the rehabilitative one has proven itself more successful time and time again. About 15-20% of all prisoners are mentally ill, and though we've slowly come to realize the importance of mental healthcare, we're still reluctant to put resources into hiring more psychologists and psychiatrists. Those who are employed in prisons are frequently overwhelmed with caseloads. Those who get out and want to live honest lives are in for a rude awakening, too, because businesses don't want to hire ex-criminals, perhaps with good reason. However, now you run into the problem of these people not being able to get a job, which has the potential to push them back into a life of crime just to get by.
Conclusion/TL;DR Version: It seems that the statistics don't seem to matter; people in the U.S. demand to see prisoners in unpleasant conditions because we have a strong belief in retribution, even if it's causing more harm than good in the long run. So for this reason, I ask ED for opinions on the matter. You don't have to answer the questions; I'm just asking them to get you thinking, in case you're feeling uninspired.
1. Do you place more value on retribution, or rehabilitation? Theoretically speaking, which would you choose if you had to pick one exclusively? Does your opinion on this matter change depending on the crime?
2. On the same note as the above, if a rapist went to prison, but they could guarantee that they would never offend again after a mere three two or three years in rehab, would you be satisfied with letting them out to live ordinary lives so early?
3. Do businesses have a right to know whether or not the people they're hiring have a criminal record? Why or why not?
4. What do you think needs to be changed, if anything, to lower the U.S. recidivism rate? Do you believe it's just policy that needs to be changed, or do you think we're in need of a complete cultural overhaul?
Plus anything else you feel is worth mentioning, of course. I post this with an open mind; no one will be set to ignore for disagreeing, no matter what their reasons. Closing yourself off to new ideas - however ridiculous they may sound - is just a slippery slope into a cesspool of ignorance.
In the United States, the recidivism rate is an astounding two thirds. In other words, about two thirds of people who end up in a U.S. prison will be back again. Clearly, there's a problem, here. The purpose of prison isn't just to incarcerate people who commit crimes; if that were the case, we would never release them. At the end of the day, we want them to come back into society and never commit crimes again. It's not just for their own good, but the good of society. Unfortunately, it seems we're not doing a very good job of rehabilitating these people. This is a huge problem, because we spend billions of dollars annually keeping prisoners locked up.
For a little perspective, let's look at some other countries. Canada's recidivism rate is less than half. In Norway, it's a mere one fifth. There are a multitude of factors to take into consideration, here. Culture, population density, the laws themselves, and so on and so forth. No one is suggesting that we just copy-paste the entire system and call it a day. However, there are certain elements that I think we should look at to help us reevaluate our current policies.
One of them is punitive procedures versus rehabilitative procedures. In the U.S., we tend to lean towards punitive policies. "If we punish them hard enough, they won't do it again, because they won't want to come back to prison." This is known as the rational choice theory. However, this idea is flawed. For one, not everybody who commits a crime is a rational person. Even if they ordinarily are, there are people who commit crimes of passion, where they aren't going to think to themselves, "Hmm, if I do this thing, what are the odds that I'm going to go to prison?"
There's also the issue of prison "creating hardened criminals out of first-time offenders." I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that this problem is the greatest at the medium-security level, where a lot of gangs tend to form, and most fights tend to occur. Solitary confinement is probably the worst in terms of actually changing people for the better. A lack of contact tends to seriously impair their social skills, and can lead to mental health problems like depression.
In general, we've come to adopt a "toughen up on crime" approach, even though the rehabilitative one has proven itself more successful time and time again. About 15-20% of all prisoners are mentally ill, and though we've slowly come to realize the importance of mental healthcare, we're still reluctant to put resources into hiring more psychologists and psychiatrists. Those who are employed in prisons are frequently overwhelmed with caseloads. Those who get out and want to live honest lives are in for a rude awakening, too, because businesses don't want to hire ex-criminals, perhaps with good reason. However, now you run into the problem of these people not being able to get a job, which has the potential to push them back into a life of crime just to get by.
Conclusion/TL;DR Version: It seems that the statistics don't seem to matter; people in the U.S. demand to see prisoners in unpleasant conditions because we have a strong belief in retribution, even if it's causing more harm than good in the long run. So for this reason, I ask ED for opinions on the matter. You don't have to answer the questions; I'm just asking them to get you thinking, in case you're feeling uninspired.
1. Do you place more value on retribution, or rehabilitation? Theoretically speaking, which would you choose if you had to pick one exclusively? Does your opinion on this matter change depending on the crime?
2. On the same note as the above, if a rapist went to prison, but they could guarantee that they would never offend again after a mere three two or three years in rehab, would you be satisfied with letting them out to live ordinary lives so early?
3. Do businesses have a right to know whether or not the people they're hiring have a criminal record? Why or why not?
4. What do you think needs to be changed, if anything, to lower the U.S. recidivism rate? Do you believe it's just policy that needs to be changed, or do you think we're in need of a complete cultural overhaul?
Plus anything else you feel is worth mentioning, of course. I post this with an open mind; no one will be set to ignore for disagreeing, no matter what their reasons. Closing yourself off to new ideas - however ridiculous they may sound - is just a slippery slope into a cesspool of ignorance.
