The Pros And Cons Of Prison Reinforcement Programs

Crime rates in the United States are increasing annually, and this is a problem which affects every citizen, whether directly or indirectly. The fact is that 1 in every 31 adults is being held under some type of correctional control in either prison, on parole, or on probation. Of those individuals, 52% are likely to be repeat offenders after being released from the correctional system. Some people may be quick to quip “once a bad egg, always a bad egg,” but I believe that if society were able to encourage and enforce a solution, these prisoners could be rehabilitated and turned into well-rounded citizens. Reform needs to start in the prison system as positive reinforcement programs for prisoners and implemented through the terms of the
release with halfway houses, re-entry work programs, and rehabilitative services. Prison facilities should provide positive reinforcement programs, such as educational or vocational training programs, to help prisoners develop new skill sets, assist in their moral development, and promote their emotional wellbeing.
A prime example of this type of program, that I found particularly moving, is the Lionheart Foundation’s Houses of Healing. This is a literary-based program that provides classes for incarcerated men and women focusing on educational, rehabilitative, and re-entry support. The program inspires prisoners to take sole responsibility for their past criminal injustices, understand their mistakes that have brought them to their present circumstances, and give them the right tools necessary to make the right choices going into the future. “Corrections professionals have reported that Houses of Healing is the most effective program they have seen for prisoners’ growth and transformation” (lionheart.org). Another excellent program, available in some prison systems, is a locally sponsored dog training program that allows inmates to become puppy trainers pending they meet the criteria of a behavioral analysis test. These inmates train puppies to be NEADS (National Education for Assistance Dog Services) certified dogs, used for disabled and deaf Americans. By training dogs, inmates dedicate their time to something productive and fulfilling. While support should begin during incarceration, it needs to also continue upon the prisoner’s release, starting
with the provision of stable shelter. Halfway homes are residential homes that provide supervised housing to recently released prisoners embarking on their reintegration with society. The goal here is to keep these people off the streets, minimizing the likelihood of repeat offenders and substance abuse relapse. In these homes, prisoners have mandatory requirements including curfews, maintaining jobs, and rehabilitative and/or counseling program participation. These beneficial programs help these men and women achieve stability within their lives by learning how to effectively manage time, money, and responsibility. In order for these halfway homes to truly be successful, they need solid re-entry work programs in place to help releasees establish employment.
Re-entry programs help the newly released individuals adjust to their community, as well as, assist them with finding employment. These programs start while the prisoner is still incarcerated and continue upon release. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides informational classes on prepping for job interviews, developing professional resumes, and teaching work ethics and proper etiquette. In many circumstances, the BOP also helps provide proper clothing and transportation services to help these people attain gainful employment. These programs are critical for prisoners to start with a clean slate with the hope of a positive future. However, to have a future these prisoners must be all in, and for addicts, that means they also need to lead a sober lifestyle. Statistically, roughly half of the current prison population has a substance abuse background. The majority of these criminals are in prison for drug crimes or for crimes that they have committed while under the influence of drugs. The unfortunate reality here is that due to prison corruption, drugs are easily obtainable in prison, so many prisoners leave prison with ongoing problems with addiction. Thus, addiction rehabilitation programs should be a requirement for every prisoner with a history of drug abuse. Sadly, however, this is not the case. It is in my strong opinion that all prisoners, both current and former addicts, will benefit through participation in these programs. Rehab programs are constructive for prisoners by treating their addiction and offering the chance of sobriety for those who may have had no chance at all. Such programs should be required, not just voluntary because many addicts have trouble making the right choices for themselves and some need a little encouragement along the way. Although, it is clear that there are many positive attributes to these programs, there are many who will still disagree in terms of their potential value. Many people will argue that “once a bad egg, always a bad egg,” meaning that prisoners will never change. The fact is that while it is true that 52% percent of past offenders are now repeat offenders, it is also true that majority of them were never offered nor required to be involved in any of these kinds of programs. Not to mention, some of these underprivileged people were housed in correctional facilities that faced wild corruption issues. When an individual is involved in corruption, they have compromised personal integrity and morality, and this is typically accompanied by some form of bribery, blackmail, or intimidation. A majority of people would assume that prison officers are the ones being corrupted by the prisoners convincing them to bring in contraband, but what about when the prisoners are being corrupted by the officers? These officers signed up for this job to promise society a safer community, but they instead are bribing the inmates to provide them with their commissary money or have their families illegally send money to get access to unauthorized cellphones, drugs, and other prohibited items. In 2008, a special metropolitan unit of officers was instilled to address the problem with prison officer corruption. In 2011, 92 officers were dismissed from duty, 167 workers were no longer allowed to work on prison cases at all, and 78 have since been convicted for rape, bringing in illegal contraband, or misusing their power. This is an ongoing problem that needs to be continuously addressed. Another issue, for many naysayers, would definitely be program funding. In just Georgia, taxpayers are paying at least $1 billion each year towards federal correctional services (AJC Journal). That is an absurd amount of money to keep people locked up and away from society. Understandably, it is necessary that crimes go unpunished, but it is also necessary to do our best to help reduce the impact of repeat offenses. A portion of that $1 billion could be used to enforce these positive prison-programs, halfway homes, re-entry programs, and rehabilitation programs. Instead of complaining and just throwing around money to keep these facilities afloat, there needs to be better education on crimes and more ways to keep these offenders from going back to their addictions and old ways. Then again, how are judges and police officers going to be able to enforce the prisoners to participate? Studies show that some prisoners purposely commit crimes in order to go back into jail because they felt that they had better lives while in the facilities. Why wouldn’t someone want a warm place to stay, 3 prepared meals a day, and somewhere to sleep? After long term incarceration, many prisoners have trouble adjusting to outside life, their families have most likely left and given up on them, and sadly so has society; but, this is where we can make a change. When appropriate, especially in terms of non-violent criminals, judges can give shorter prison sentences while mandating other requirements such as time in halfway homes, job requirements, and enforcing rehabilitation. There should be measures put in place to assure that these requirements are being met and to verify the individual’s progress. How do we come in agreement in reference to these proposed ideas?
No one wants to spend half a million dollars to fund a program that will not decrease the crime rates. So, the next best option is to work with the programs that are currently in place and go from there. There are already many halfway homes, rehabs, re-entry programs, and prison programs in place; however, they are being severely underutilized and lack enforcement. These programs should be analyzed and room for improvement should be addressed. I think that the judicial system should require prisoners who were incarcerated for over six months to undergo at least two of these programs in order to have the best chance of being reintegrated within society. Instead of shaming these people, we need to accept them for who they were and who they can
become. In conclusion, society has to decide to make a change. These people chose to make their mistakes, but do we continue to degrade them and turn them into bigger monsters, or do we support them in every way possible? Each one of these programs has the potential to help these past offenders live better, sober lives. So, put away the horrible judgments and find a way to motivate these people to change into better people and positive members of society.