Prison Life and Strategies to Decrease Recidivism upon Inmates Release - Research Paper Example

?RUNNING HEAD: PRISON LIFE AND STRATEGIES TO DECREASE RECIDIVISM UPON INMATE’S RELEASE FROM PRISON Prison Life and Strategies to Decrease Recidivism upon Inmate’s Release from Prison Student Name School Date Prison Life and Strategies to Decrease Recidivism upon Inmate’s Release from Prison Introduction The traditional school of thought on imprisonment propounds that the criminal offender must be punished for the crime committed against society. The newer theorists propose that incarceration enables the convicted person to realize one’s infraction and reform. Thus, imprisonment is an opportunity for the person to reform and rehabilitate. However, the law also considers the situation wherein the convicted person commits the same or related crime after ones release from prison. Such person who has propensity of committing crimes after release from prison is a recidivist. Different jurisdictions have different laws, definitions and coverage on what recidivism should be but they are more or less similar. Since prisoner rehabilitation is part of the program of reforming the convict, the government has to devise strategies in order to avert recidivism among ex-prisoners. Correctional officers and staff though must function according to the goals of reducing recidivism. Tewksbury and Demichele (2003) said that prison personnel generally view that the correctional process is more on “incapacitation, deterrence and retribution” (p. 4). Implementers should revisit the support given to the program since it generally varies at according to time and place (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). It was posited that such variation may be attributed to the substantially fast turnover rate of 20 to 50 percent, which means that many are new to the job, or that the prison system are hiring lesser personnel (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). While the prisoners are deprived of the right to liberty as part of the sentence imposed upon them, they should not be deprived of their right to health, medical care, and other rights that would enable them to live humanely inside the prison cell. Providing the best care and management of the prison system may be taxing with the increase in inmate population. By 2003, the US has around 7 million inmates, a three-time increase in the population since 1980 (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). With the ballooning recidivism, it was suggested to better leave out abstract values in mission statements and instead focus more on end-goals of the operation. This paper will show that socially and humanitarian based interventions in the prison system will lessen the propensity of a released prisoner toward recidivism. Medical Care One of the concerns that a person encounters upon entering prison is the lack of freedom to seek the health care provider one desires. The condition inside prison cells, such as congested spaces, limited movement, mixture of cultures, etc. might have a toll upon the mental and physical health of an inmate. Thus, adequate health service must be provided inside the prison so that the health of the prisoner can be adequately managed. The Bureau of Prisons provide four levels of medical care to which inmates are assigned by the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) based on the information gathered from the investigation report (Ellis, 2008). Upon arrival at the facility, the provisional care for the inmate is reviewed by the prison clinicians (Ellis, 2008). Non-provisional care is assigned depending on the needs of the inmate, which takes into consideration the ability to function without assistance from another (Ellis, 2008). Provision of medical care to inmates also varies depending sentence or status of the case. Thus, inmates whose sentence has not been read, those with sentence below 12 months, or pre-trial inmates are not eligible to “medically appropriate-not always necessary” health service, “limited medical value,” as well as “extraordinary” service (Ellis, 2008, p. 44). Some categories of illnesses such as cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc. may also determine the type of care that may be given to the inmate (Ellis, 2008). The following are the designations for the CARE levels: a) CARE level 1 inmates (DSCC identifies the inmates below 70 years old; generally healthy; with limited medical needs; assessed every 6 months; afflicted with diabetes controlled by diet; includes mild asthma or HIV), b) CARE level 2 inmates (DSCC assigned; inmates are stable outpatients; require clinical evaluation every 3 months; may require more medical tools; include emphysema, epilepsy and diabetes controlled by medication), c) CARE level 3 inmates (the Office of Medical Designation and Transportation [OMDT] of the Bureau of Prisons make the designation; inmates are fragile outpatients; regular evaluation is necessary to prevent hospitalization; may need assistance of others for self-care such as bathing or eating, includes cancer, end-stage liver disease, etc.), and d) CARE level 4 inmates (OMDT makes the designation; inmates need services that only BOP Medical Referral Center can provide; needs limited inpatient care; severe impairment of functioning; needs skilled nursing care for 24 hours; includes quadriplegia, stroke, high-risk pregnancy, etc.) (Ellis, 2008). The medical services provided by the Bureau are determined by the following levels of medical intervention: a) medically necessary-acute or emergent (immediate otherwise health or function would deteriorate), b) medically necessary-non-emergent (not immediate or life threatening, but non-maintenance could result to death), c) medically acceptable-not always necessary (treatment can improve quality of life, e.g. joint replacement), d) limited medical value (little medical value, for inmate's convenience, e.g. cosmetic surgery on eyelids), and e) extraordinary (affects another's life, e.g. organ transplant) (Ellis, 2008). Categorizing the medical and health services to be given to inmates according to specific needs will hasten delivery of appropriate services. Establishing a system for the continuity of medical care and services for ex-prisoners using government social funding is aimed at reducing recidivism (National Council, n.d.). This is part of the attempt to remove the barriers to successful re-entry into society of the discharged prisoner (National Council, n.d.). The Medicaid benefits of a person are terminated upon entry into prison, and thus, eligibility also stops (National Council, n.d.). Reform Programs The use of intervention to make the inmates “less criminal” was employed as early as the 1800s in US prisons (de Beaumont & Tocqueville, 1964, 1833; Rothman, 1971, as cited in Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). The American correctional system has always been introducing reform programs for the inmates. For instance, the 1900s saw energetic implementation of criminal justice programs that include application of indeterminate sentence, probation and parole, as well as provision of a different system for juvenile offenders (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Some interventions have not reduced criminality while others have substantially reduced recidivism by as much as 25 percent (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). California State Prison, Los Angeles County is reported to have the highest recidivism rate with two of three incoming inmates as parolees, and only one for every five parolees are able to complete the parole term (Hartman, 2007). Of the estimated 120,000 inmates discharged from state prison annually, around 70 percent goes back within one year (Hartman, 2007). And 10 percent of them will go back to prison six times or higher within a seven-year period (Hartman, 2007). The Bureau of Jail Statistics confirmed the same trend in its report stating that 44.1 percent of prisoners released are being rearrested within a year (Langan & Levin, 2002, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). The California State Prison implements the honor program which is intended to enhance healing of the inmate and create an environment that would induce positive change for everyone (e.g. inmates, guards, community, etc.) (Hartman, 2007). The Honor Program implemented by the facility is voluntary and requires registration of the inmate to participate in the program (Hartman, 2007). To be accepted, the applicant must be screened and should declare abstention from racism, violence, taking drugs and joining gangs (Hartman, 2007). The participants will be required to make an “Individual Development Plan” that specifies the self-improvement end-goals (Hartman, 2007). They will also assume the responsibility for transformation and growth, and should participate in activities geared toward emotional, social, psychological and health upliftment (Hartman, 2007). The success of the honor program can be gauged from the outcome – no big violent incident has occurred within six years of its operation (at CSP-LAC), and during the first year, weapons offenses had decreased by 88 percent, violence by 85 percent, drug-related and drug trafficking by 43 percent, work-related offenses by 84 percent, and alcohol use by 41 percent (Hartman, 2007). The program was established by prisoners and non-custody personnel of the prison in 2000 to lessen crime, violence, racism and use of drugs (Hartman, 2007). It is a platform where prisoners show that they want to help their fellow inmates (Hartman, 2007). The four principles of the Honor Program are the following: a) testimonial approach in disseminating the program, b) positive reinforcement, c) personal accountability, and d) higher expectations (Hartman, 2007). Socio-civic groups also take responsibility to help inmates avoid recidivism once they return back to society. One approach implemented by the Peaceful Solution Character Education Inc. is by providing moral education to inmates, that includes giving respect to fellow human beings, development of moral character and behavior, and becoming morally responsible in one’s actions and thinking (Basic Inmate, n.d.). Its Peaceful Solution Character Education Program is reported to make a positive change upon the thinking and behavior even to inmates who have been violent, abusive and disruptive (Basic Inmate, n.d.). Such type of persons have been able to transform themselves into “peaceful, productive and socially stable” citizens (Basic Inmate, n.d., para. 4). They learn to manage conflicts without resorting to violence (Basic Inmate, n.d.). The organization Virginia Cares is providing a holistic service toward recidivism reduction and help the ex-prisoner transition in the outside world (Virginia Cares, 2011). Its services include job training, job search assistance, self-awareness training, documentation assistance, family bonding, life skills curriculum classes prior to release, etc. (Virginia Cares, 2011). Reforming inmates through the use of religious conversion and indoctrination inside the prison cells and even after release to imbibe Christian love continue to be experimented (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Other programs that would help in decreasing recidivism are religion-based activities (Kennedy, 2003, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003), learning and education initiatives (Brooks, 1992, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003), anger management (Wang, Owens, Long, et al., 2000, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003), work release programs (Turner & Petersilia, 1996, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003) and numerous others. Conclusion It has been proven by studies that the traditional approach of incarcerating a criminal offender based on punishment alone is not a deterrent to recidivism. Statistics from the California State Prison – Los Angeles Country revealed a high 70 percent of released prisoners annually return back to prison. This is a reflection that serving the sentence and the experience of the inmate inside the cell had not affected his or his resolve in not committing the same or another crime after discharge. With the substantial number of ex-prisoners returning to prison after release, it becomes dubious whether the correctional programs being implemented are able to reform and rehabilitate the inmates (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). With this limitation, different strategies must be implemented in order that inmates could imbibe a strong resolve to restrain oneself in committing crime after release. It may also be deduced that the reform goal for inmates can be attained if they are treated well by the officers and staff of prison facilities. Tewksbury and Demichele (2003) said that an officer is “experienced” if he or she does not support incapacitation and retribution but that of inmate rehabilitation, and has four years of experience in the same capacity. The punitive, managerial and warehouse style of handling correctional facilities result from the perspective that “nothing works” (Martinson, 1974, as cited in Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003, p. 5) or that innovative development is restricted by budgetary constraints (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). There may be programs that have not successfully molded the mind and behavior of the inmate inside the prison walls. This may be attributed to the limitations of the program itself or the mindset of the inmate who would prefer to live under the influence of criminal thoughts than lean toward becoming a socially responsible individual after discharge from prison. However, many programs have successfully molded inmates from that of violent a person into one that has respect for the rights of others. The programs are being implemented by private groups, socio-civic organizations, prisoners or prison staff themselves, alone or in collaboration with others, and enjoin others to participate in the activities so that total reformation can be attained. Corollary to such programs, the inmates must also feel that they are being treated humanely, respected and provided other services proper for a human being. Implementers of the program for reform cannot expect to transform an inmate who is not given medical care or whose food is not appropriate for a person. In order to reform an individual to the extent that he or she would restrain oneself to commit another crime after release, the program must address the holistic needs of the inmate, one that would provide an approach to stabilize emotions, modify behavior, transform perspective toward other people and society, along with provision of suitable living quarters, health care, recreation, and opportunity to learn. The prison system must be designed according to one that addresses inmate needs and not merely as a “dumping ground and warehouse for society's castoffs” (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003, p. 5). Prison administrators admit that they are limited in knowing what program really works. This concern is aptly described by Director Nancy Gist in the 1997 US Department of Justice report stating that administrators must be informed by researchers on what system will work to establish a safe and less violent community (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). Providing a worthy life inside prison walls and programs can, to a certain degree, lessen recidivism among released inmates. Those who succumbed to recidivism despite receiving all the benefits and programs inside the prison can be attributed to the thinking, mindset or behavior peculiar to the person and cannot be blamed on the program or activities geared toward reformation. Programs that will help lessen recidivism should be implemented while the prisoner is still incarcerated and be continued after the release. There should be programs designed for those inside the prison, and programs that would be implemented once the inmate has been released. However, to achieve the overall goals of recidivism reduction, several stakeholders should participated, including policy makers, administrators and scholars, and not just one or two organizations (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2003). References Basic Inmate: Stop Recidivism. (n.d.). Peaceful Solution Character Education Incorporated. Yisrayl Hawkins. Retrieved 24 July 2011, from http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peacefulsolution.org%2Fliterature%2Fprison.pdf&ei=V_E3TrbPMdHjmAXRm_yWAg&usg=AFQjCNGdh5NteQSumodP4NYB-72ve_NrAw Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Justice, 3, 109-175. Retrieved 24 July 2011, from http://learn.uci.edu/media/SP06/99015/Assess Rehab Cullen 03d.pdf Ellis, A. (2008, Summer) Health care in the federal prison system. Criminal Justice, 23(2), 43-44. ProQuest. Hartman, K.E. (2007, January). The Honor Program: Road to a rehabilitative prison system. The Steering Committee for the Honor Program. California State Prison-Los Angeles County. Retrieved 24 July 2011, from http://www.prisonhonorprogram.org/HONOR PPT/manual.pdf National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. (n.d.). Continuity of care for justice involved individuals with mental illness. Retrieved 25 July 2011, from http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/galleries/policy-file/Continuity of benefits for justice involved individuals with MI.pdf Tewksbury, R. Demichele, M.T. (2003, Fall). The good, the bad, and the (sometimes) ugly truths: American penal goals and perspectives [dagger]. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(1), 1-14. ProQuest. Virginia Cares. (2011). Lynchburg Community Action Group, Inc. Retrieved 28 July 2011, from http://www.lyncag.org/pages/virginiacares.html Read More