Effectiveness of Prisons and Jails to Rehabilitate

On January 18, 1989, the abandonment of rehabilitation in corrections was confirmed by the U. S. Supreme Court. In Mistretta v.

United States, the Court upheld federal "sentencing guidelines" which remove rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing offenders. Defendants will henceforth be sentenced strictly for the crime, with no recognition given to such factors as amenability to treatment, personal and family history, previous efforts to rehabilitate oneself, or possible alternatives to prison.The Court outlined the history of the debate: "Rehabilitation as a sound enological theory came to be questioned and, in any event, was regarded by some as an unattainable goal for most cases. " The Court cited a Senate Report which "referred to the 'outmoded rehabilitation model' for federal criminal sentencing, and recognized that the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed. " The question of whether people can be rehabilitated while incarcerated have been an re-current interest and have been on the minds of the most popular academies and criminologist for some time.Over the year’s criminologist have stated that being incarcerated has little if any rehabilitative impact.

Furthermore some criminologist insists that prisons or jails might just do the opposite, instead of producing actual changes they have contributed to criminal behavior. Even some popular literature have raised some questions about the effects of imprisonment and gone as far as to denounced them and comparing them to schools for crime.Ramsey Clerk for example writes “jail and prisons in the United States today are more often than not manufacturers of crime. Of those who come to jail Undecided, capable either of criminal conduct or of lives free of crime, most are turned to crime.

” The rate of re-arrest for American convicts is astoundingly high and continually growing proving that the American corrections system is failing in its effectiveness on re-habilitation of the prison and jail populations.It has been said that inmates have a little less than a fifty-fifty chance of a successful probation period upon discharge from a prison or jail (The Washington Post). The primary objective of this paper will asses the effectiveness of prisons and jails rehabilitate inmates. The two articles used in this paper are as follows, the first is by Mathew T Mangino. "Doing Time.

.. ; And Doing it Time and Time Again. " the Second one is by Tamar Lewin "Inmate Education is Found to Lower Risk of New Arrest. Article number one written by Mathew T.

Mangino of The Washington Post, discusses the current situation in prisons and jails due to the high rate of recidivism among parolees in the American corrections system as well as the failures of corrections in prisons and jails because of the lack of rehabilitation programs available to inmates. For example, according to Mathew T. Mangino, of The Washington Post, "Inmates in federal prison who receive residential drug treatment are seventy- three percent less likely to be re- arrested" (The Washington Post).Mangino’s article also highlights the issue on money, expressing that it could ideally be spent on rehabilitation programs instead its being dumped into "tough on crime" laws, in essence allowing parolees or former inmates to be "dumped on the street to fend for themselves" (The Washington Post), which is one of the main reasons for such sad numbers when it comes to the success rate among parolees.

Mangino states that as of "2003 fewer than forty- seven percent of former inmates were making it through their parole period, according to national averages for state prisons.Furthermore those who violated their parole and are re- incarcerated account for thirty- five percent of all prison admissions- the fastest growing area of incarceration" (The Washington Post). The second article written by Tamar Lewin, of The New York Times highlights some information and several studies that shows that education programs in prisons and jails help reduce the rate of recidivism. according to a study for the Department of Education "Inmates who receive schooling- through vocational training or classes at the high school or college level are far less likely to return within three years of their release, " (The New York Times).The article also points out those schooling aids in public safety by getting more parolees to be active and healthy members of society.

A source for The New York Times, Stephen J. Steurer, says and I quote "We found that for every dollar you spend on education, you save a dollar by avoiding the cost of re- incarceration" (The New York Times). Nonetheless, the article is so eagerly notes that even though it has been proven cheaper to educate and rehabilitate than to consistently re- incarcerate former prison and jail inmates “it very difficult to get public financing for such classes" The New York Times). Lastly, the article touches on the state of affairs of the "educational opportunities" given.

It describes the situation as "Varying widely by state, with half or fewer prisoners getting some form of education in most states, and, increasingly, waiting list of others who want classes" (The New York Times). In comparing the two articles, the general both articles agree on the fact that rehabilitative programs, whether it was, drug, mental health or educational, has a considerable effect on whether the parolee will be successful upon release.While The New York Times article is less enlightening about the precise numbers or success rates among educated former inmates, The Washington Post article I think elaborates more on the numbers, costs, and other programs in question. Despite the differences in the effectiveness of the two articles, both articles seem to reach the same conclusion and stated some excellent point’s, one being that rehabilitation and educational programs are effective in reducing the rate of recidivism, and ironically agree that to enough resources or money is set aside for these programs to be used effectively in society.

Bibliography Matthew T. Mangino. (2004, December 19). Doing Time .

. . ; And Doing It Time and Time Again: [FINAL Edition]. The Washington Post,p.

B. 02. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from ProQuest National Newspapers Core. (Document ID: 768230571).

Tamar Lewin. (2001, November 16). Inmate Education Is Found To Lower Risk of New Arrest. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A. 22.

Retrieved March 20, 2011, from ProQuest National Newspapers Core. (Document ID: 90175083).