Thursday, April 2, 2015

Humane Punishment?

by Michael S. Russo
Molloy College

I had always assumed that one of the main goals of our criminal justice system was to try to rehabilitate criminal offenders so that they could once again become productive members of the larger society.   This becomes a significant issue in a country like the United States, which incarcerates more of its citizens than any nation on the planet (see chart below).  We lock up more of our citizens per capita than even Russia or China—countries which certainly are not known for their enlightened social policies.
 


I’m not going to address the question of whether the reason for such high incarnation rates in the United States has to do with the fact that we’re one of the only countries in the world to turn our prisons into for-profit enterprises.  There are certainly those who argue that we have a “Prison Industrial Complex” in which there is unending need to maintain prison populations at elevated levels to ensure profits for the corporations that run them.   This is a question that deserves its own post, so I’ll put it aside for now.
Instead, I’ll assume that our elected officials are sincere in their desire to see fewer of their fellow citizens behind bars and to provide those who are imprisoned with the rehabilitation they need in order to succeed once they’ve served their prison sentences.  But, if rehabilitation is indeed the aim of our criminal justice system in the United States, then we are failing miserably at achieving this goal.  A recent study of recidivism rates in the United States shows that within five years, three-quartersof released prisoners are rearrested.  Any company that had a 76% failure rate would go out of business almost immediately, and yet we continue to use the same dumb approaches to incarceration year in and year out in our American prisons.
 
But is there another approach that we might want to consider instead, which might actually improve recidivism rate and provide those imprisoned with an environment that can serve them better when they are released into the larger society? A recent article on the approach taken in Norway’s Halden Prison seems to offer just such an enlightened alternative. 

The question that we have to ask is whether such an approach would work in the United States and would it lead to more preferable rehabilitation outcomes than the dysfunctional system we currently have in place. 

Read the article: 

30 comments:

  1. Of course the outcomes would be better if we followed an enlightened and humane approach to incarceration. But, as you pointed out, there's tons of money to be had in running prisons in the United States and you've got to keep the beds filled. So we target minorities for fucking stupid offenses like possession of pot and throw them into this shitty system for years. And then we wonder why black men--who are the worst victims of these insane policies--come out of prison embittered and without hope. The only way you solve this problem is by taking greedy corporations out of the running of our prisons. Then they'd be no economic incentive to lock as many people up.

    I don't know of any other country that privatizes its penal system. What you get in the United States when you have corporate mother-fuckers running prisons is a shitting, harsh environment that brutalizes inmates and that in turns leads to increased recidivism. So if you actually used Norway's model, treated inmates with respect, and gave them a decent environment with programs that could improve their lives, of course you'd get better outcomes.

    But you'll never get that in the kind of corporatocracy like the one we live in!

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you insane, Alex? People wind up in prison because they have violated the rights of others. The goal is not rehabilitation but retribution. When a crime has been committed a social imbalance occurred and that imbalance cannot be rectified until the perpetrator of the crime pays emotionally and physically for his crime. If anything our prison system is too lax. Murders have television, exercise rooms, therapy sessions, recreational activities, etc., which more than some law-abiding Americans have. It's no wonder that citizens of some God-fearing states (not New York or California) have brought back required manual labor for prisoners.

      If you want Socialism look to Europe for your examples (as Russo always seems to). If you want to return to the kind of America that rewards hard work and moral responsibility than look to Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. The prison systems in those states work just fine.

      Delete
    2. As always, Lance, you are a raving fanatic. I suppose that you'd prefer to have chain gangs operating again as well, right? The goal of incarceration in a civilized society should be rehabilitation, not retribution. What are you living in Old Testament times?

      As for my supposed Eurocentrism, I'd maintain that, if outcomes for prisoners are indeed better in European countries, then we should be humble enough to use Europe as a model for our own penal system. Definitely NOT Texas!

      Delete
  2. The U.S. has the greatest incarceration rate in the world because of our democratic government. In places like Russia or China there is very effective deterrence and harsh punishments for when laws are broken. It U.S. also imprisons more types of criminal offenders and judges do not have as much discretion as we think that they do. The U.S. teeters between punishment and rehabilitation and they are stuck in a juggling act. It is evident that the system we have is not the most effective in regards to rehabilitation depending on how that is actually defined. The Haden Prison spends much more on its inmates but its main goal and focus is to rehabilitate them and help them. There is lower incarceration rates and there is no death penalty or life sentences. They spend more money to achieve a clear goal and provide the appropriate support to do so.
    I like this system because it actually helps the prisoners which is something that is claimed to happen in the U.S. but really does not happen effectively. I support this but there are some concerns if this were to be used in the states. This doesn’t not take into account that some people are just inherently evil and that picking blueberries is going to do absolutely nothing for them and there is no retribution aspect like many Americans support. People may not act out in these low security prisons but how do you stop people such as terrorists or people coming in. The handshake and counseling method used to make inmates coexist would be extremely difficult with rivaling gangs living together. Group mentality would inevitably kick in. There is no deterrence factor because this prison would be nicer than some of the places people lived but then again our system doesn’t provide much deterrence anyways according to how many are incarcerated.
    -Krystal R. ( the first brave soul from ethics class :D )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for being the first to post...You brave soul!

      Delete
    2. Krystal,
      First off..thanks for taking one for the team and posting first! I agree with many of the points you bring up. Norway spends an exponentially higher amount of money on their prisoners, and provide much more support and goals for the inmates. However, the 75 out of 100,000 prisoners imprisoned in Norway versus the 700 in the US seems problematic. If the US was spending that amount of money on that many prisoners, would that have a negative affect on communities? The concept of rehabitating and reintegrating prisoners into society sounds more successful then incarceration and retribution, I'm not sure how communities and prisoners themselves would respond.
      -Kayla S.

      Delete
  3. The United States has incarceration rates that are significantly higher than those of many other countries, while the recidivism rates are not drastically better. There is a fine line between incarceration and rehabilitation that the United States has not successfully interpreted. A concept like Norway's Halden prison system seems to paint a pretty picture of an alternative to the current system we have in place here in the United States. Norway's Halden Prison focuses on rehabilitating prisoners and finding them a place to live and a job before they are released back into society. While this concept seems to be a more humane approach to imprisonment and incarceration, there are many flaws that would make this system unrealistic in the United States.
    While the violent crime in America is decreasing, the incarceration rates are drastically increasing. The rise of a prison industrial complex is a large factor in this. The United States attempts to find ways of saving money by outsourcing prisons to private corporations. These companies are proposing to prison officials to buy and manage public prisons to save substantial amounts of money for the states. All of that, in exchange for a 90 percent occupancy rate in the prisons for at least 20 years. What does that mean for the states? Increase jail terms, make sentences more severe, and incarcerate minor criminals as well as felony offenders. This concept does nothing for rehabilitation or recidivism, but focuses on increased incarceration for the sake of saving money.
    -Kayla S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see your point Kayla. This line particularly stuck out at me, "There is a fine line between incarceration and rehabilitation that the United States has not successfully interpreted.” There is a difference between incarceration and probation/parole, but do we make that difference hard to interpret. We may grant probation/parole to a certain individual but they are certainly far from being free. In many cases we watch their every move and only allow them in certain areas. We give them a limited area of movement and allotted time to be out of their residence. Doesn’t this sound similar to prison or jail?
      -JOVANNI O.

      Delete
  4. First, I would like to say you are wrong when stating that the aim of punishment is rehabilitation. There are other goals, such as retribution and deterrence, which unfortunately cannot be measured adequately. If an individual convicted of a felony murder is sentenced to life without parole, the aim of the punishment in this circumstance is retribution, just deserts, not rehab. Even so, would you feel comfortable releasing a “cured’ convicted murderer to society? Is retribution necessary for some people? Of course. Those who are imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses (a whole other topic) and some violent offenses can be treated. In order to address the recidivism rates, you must also note the lack of social services available to those who are released on parole. Many receive inadequate support, whether it is from his or her P.O. or the counseling services they require. Perhaps we should adopt a model similar to that in some socialist European countries. Then we may see the recidivism rates that the general population would like. The Haden Prison does have an interesting way to approach its inmates. However it also has a lower prison population, which means that these officials can spend more time and effort to help rehab each inmate. An additional factor that many seem to overlook is the homogenous societies of Europe. In majority of the cases, there is one culture which is understood by many, if not all. In the United States, you can have representation from more than a dozen countries and cultures in a single cell block. This makes it a little more difficult to properly treat and rehabilitate inmates.

    I have to agree with Krystal as well. In many of these countries where they tout low incarceration rates, the governments take care of criminals immediately. In North Korea and China, individuals who are SUSPECTED of crimes are grabbed in the night and never seen again. In America, although we have a large prison population, at least there is due process guaranteed through the 14th Amendment and other Bill of Rights.
    -Dan B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan,

      First off, your opening sentence is great. There are several goals of incarceration and certainly not everyone is deserving of, or capable of rehabilitation. I like the point you make about North Korea and China, which is actually referring back to what Krystal said. America prides herself on democracy and equality under that law. (Although it does not always turn out that way). It says a lot about a country that goes out of their way to ensure due process for all.

      Also, I like the point about the diversity in our country as an attribute that would not be ideal for success of a prison system like Norway. Take, for example, the American street gang, which has fundamentally been the same throughout America history. Given their strong sense of pride and personal culture, they could never find success in a prison system like this.

      Joe C.

      Delete
    2. Best answer simply because you quoted my thesis!
      Dan B.

      Delete
  5. I agree with your statement that i would not feel comfortable releasing a "cured" murderer into society at all however there are some people who have chemical imbalances or medical issues who could be cured. I believe that since the U.S likes a balance of both and there will not be a clear decision between rehabilitation and retribution the lack of social services provides certainly is an issue. If we apply the Hayden model to cases were people could be rehabilitated it could reduce future recidivism for at least those inmates who quite frankly need the help.
    Krystal R.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rehabilitation is certainly a main issue in relation the criminal justice system. Probation and Parole are the two most common forms of criminal justice related rehabilitation in the United States. It is no easy task to create a perfect system so it is expected that these two forms of rehabilitation are not flawless. I agree that part of the reason for the U.S. having such a high incarceration rate is due to financial gain, however I do not believe that it is the sole reason. Many other countries have much more strict laws that citizens must abide by. In other nations such as North Korea and Saudi Arabia, law enforcement officials will not hesitate to execute an offender. Since these other countries have such strict laws, it is less likely that citizens will commit crimes, as they are afraid of the repercussions.
    I don’t know if I would necessarily want to create a new system of rehabilitation. If law enforcement officials worked harder to help improve the current systems such as probation and parole, I honestly believe that the recidivism rate would decrease. If criminal justice professionals involved with parole boards and the criminal courts are not careful, recidivism rates could continue to increase and violent offenders could be allowed back into society causing danger to many innocent law abiding citizens.
    -JOVANNI O.

    ReplyDelete
  7. After making it through this article, I definitely found myself more than disappointed. To start, detailing the ways that Norway handles its prisoners, (at least in this prison) seems ridiculous. Nature walks and blueberry picking is not what should come of convicted criminals. I understand that one goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, but retribution is as well and this to me could possibly be considered incentive to go to prison!! If this was they way prisons operated in America, I feel confident in saying that incarceration rates would still continue to rise. There are plenty of people who commit crime not caring about going to prison because they’ll be back with old friends, will be able to work out, not pay bills, be given a warm bed and three guaranteed meals each day. If in America, we also offered dorm-styling living, nature walks and cooking lessons, prisons would be packed. That is just a personal opinion, obviously.

    The true measurement in gauging whether or not the Norway prison style is the best model of rehabilitation is to compare recidivism rates. By the end of the article, the author states that when actually comparing apples to apples, meaning a two-year release of recidivism rate, Norway has only about a 3% better rate of recidivism. Furthermore, that clearly shows this system of rehabilitating is barely better than that of the United States. Also, the U.S. is a completely different culture and is home to many, many different types of people and beliefs that are under one roof in prison. The same principles and beliefs the people of Norway are brought up with may be very different than that of Americans, which would cause different results of rehabilitation.

    Moreover, if this policy were effective, then I would agree to institute this in America. However, and a point that will never change, is that America is a capitalist society. Where there is money to be made, (in terms of private prisons, correctional officers, probation officers, etc.) America will do everything in her power to ride that wave and keep the money flowing. Spending excess amounts of money on more comfortable cells and better home cooked meals for prisoners will not happen when money can be spent on building new prisons and adding more prison beds to existing institutions. (Not saying I agree with that, it’s just a fact).

    Lastly to note, having a maximum prison sentence of 21 years (including a man who murdered 77 people) speaks volumes about the judgment of their society and public policy. The man killed 77 people and injured many others and will walk among society in just over two decades, there is something severely wrong with that. Overall, not only would I not recommend trying this in the United States, I certainly do not think it would ever work, nor would it even receive the approval and acceptance it would need to be enacted.

    Joe C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This article came across as both disappointing in a sense, of how the most vile criminal offender, can walk free after only twenty one years. However, key points such as availability of therapists, education, job training, and therapy, are all essential to the reintegration system. There is a strong need for balance of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence. I think our Courts need to be more lenient on those who commit minor offenses. Many who are incarcerated have committed only minor drug related offenses and are housed among more violent criminals. It can defeat the purpose of punishment and deterrence because, of the fact they may become a more hardened criminal once released. This method of incarceration in Norway works for them. We in the United States need to focus and stress emphasis on what works for us. How that can be achieved and attained remains to be seen.

      Delete
    2. I agree to the fullest extent. Culture's are a huge mitigating factor is deciphering whether or not rehabilitative practices will positively affect the individuals perception of moral judgement or the collective prison system as a whole. We need to remember that these people have done wrong! Yes, they should be treated with respect, but not as if they're all misunderstood creatures. They are criminals for a reason.

      Delete
  8. The outcomes would absolutely be better if there was a more humane approach to incarceration. America’s incarceration rates are extensively high due to the democratic government we have. The system we have is not as effective as it needs to be, because of the simple fact that as a justice system we go back and forth constantly whether we should rehabilitate or severely punish. In Norway, the main focus is to rehabilitate, and get the offender the necessary help needed. Many individuals who do offend majority of the time, come from broken homes, and that is not an excuse for offending, but how can you expect that individual to try and become a productive member to society upon release, if as a system in America we do not help to rehabilitate?

    I agree Dan, retribution is definitely needed in many offender cases but they way in which our justice system is they try and punish everybody regardless of crime (i.e non-violent drug offenses) as you also stated. I also agree in that Norway does have more funding, and can spend more time to rehabiliate their offenders, but it honestly wouldn’t be a bad idea to incorporate many of their habits into the justice system here in America. Another statement you made, which was very much accurate was the society in Europe verses America. When living in an area with dozens of other individuals, who can be a different race, gang member or whatever can definitely be harder to rehabilitate as well, because some of them already have that mindset of "i'm tough", " I don't need help", and they then block out any source of rehabilitative help they can receive. As Krystal stated many offenders do exhibit medical issues, or chemical imabalnces that can be rehabilitated.

    - Chenelle C

    ReplyDelete
  9. Collectively as a society, we can all agree, about the alarming incarceration rates we currently maintain within the United States. The amount of taxpayer dollars spent on maintaining and incarcerating these individuals is as equally alarming. Punishments should fit the crimes however it seems as though we are incarcerating individuals much more for misdemeanor offenses as opposed to felonious ones. It is in fact influenced and fueled by the very same corporations who invest millions of dollars building these institutions with the hopes of a successful return rate. However filling up vacated space with unnecessary incarcerations driven by unnecessary convictions, seems to be a major contribution to the current incarceration rates.

    The four goals of incarceration seem to be intertwined. There is a need for retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, if the crime calls for it. Each of these works in its own way with the hopes of decreasing incarceration rates. But, if they are not applied, practiced, or executed properly, then the incarceration rates will continue to be off the charts. Reform is needed there is no question about that but, where should the reform start, maybe at the beginning during an individual’s most impressionable years when he or she is a child. Intervention and prevention may be a way to drive down incarceration rates. Implementing programs and providing services in the beginning stages may create more of an opportunity for an individual not to offend.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hope this works because last time I wrote out my opinion it didn't post -.-

    Would the way that Halden treats and takes care of it's prisoners work if it used in an American prison system? Personally I don't feel it would work too well. Prison culture is deeply embedded in so many criminals and convicts that gradual rehabilitative practices don't phase or positively affect recidivism rates. With a rate of 75% after five years of release, criminals make it seem like they're stuck in limbo, forever forced to committing crimes because of constant labeling and lack of opportunity. Rehabilitation gives them that opportunity that they "wish" they had, where in actuality, in America, this allowance of space would give them opportunity to act more on their impulses, such as acquiring illegal contraband, carrying out altercations with fellow convicts, contacting criminals outside the prison walls, etc. No, I can't say the American prison system works in reducing recidivism due to the statistical evidence previously stated, but just because Halden's means of prisoner treatment works for their population doesn't mean it would work on the other side of the world where society is much more heterogenous then it is in Norway? America doesn't want to risk giving criminals freedom while incarcerated because they feel they were already given a chance to act responsibly before incarceration, and afterwards they don't deserve such freedom because of their inability to act accordingly with society's rules and regulations.

    -Frankie L. (Serpico)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree. America is the "melting pot" of the world and it is difficult to get people from all different cultures and backgrounds to agree and act in harmony under the same wave length. The Halden system wouldn't work in America. Our nation is way to large and has way too many priorities to focus so much attention of the lives of people who have already betrayed out system.

      Patty G.

      Delete
    2. I agree with the prison culture aspect of your opinion. I am adamant in my belief that the Halden system's humane approach to corrections would not change the prison culture that fosters in prisons throughout the United States. Inmates have already developed a way of life behind bars, which may mean gang affiliation for some. But does that mean as a society, we should just accept that inmates have already formed a prison culture? I think we should rise against this prison culture due to the hardships it causes for both weak inmates and correctional officers, but does that entail adapting to Halden standards? I just have no faith in our criminals. How can we be sure that the criminals won't take advantage of the humane approach system? It sounds ideal, but I cannot trust someone who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy and capable of criminal and sadistic tendencies.

      Allyson P.

      Delete
    3. Great points Frankie. Individuals indeed view themselves lacking the opportunity to once again live the "American Dream". Individuals out of prison are constantly scrutinized by others. I believe if there are more opportunities for convicts that recidivism would decrease. There are individuals who deserve second chances.
      - Melanie Rodriguez

      Delete
  11. The outcomes would absolutely be better if there was a more humane approach to incarceration, but realistically the American government along with law enforcement needs to work more effectively in bettering the two main forms of rehabilitation they have in place. These are known as Probation and Parole. The financial gain that America benefits from is extremely disturbing as well. Yes, in other countries there are more severe ways of punishment such as beheading, the chopping off of hands for thefts, and much more. I personally believe, that once the rehabilitation aspects in the American justice system are revaluated, the high recidivism rates will drastically plummet.
    It’s extremely unfortunate that the American system continuously just has the mindset of “We need to fill vacant spaces in these institutions, so let’s arrest everybody even if they have non-violent crimes”. With having such mindset, there won’t be a positive change in recidivism rates. The American government also feels that by offering rehabilitative services, they are risking the criminal’s freedom. The government can feel this way because they ultimately feel like why should we offer this individual help if they didn’t think about the consequences of their actions prior to being incarcerated. Another negative aspect of the U.S penal system could be the integration of all inmates together in one big area. This isn’t necessarily a good thing in terms of rehabilitation, because you’re mixing violent offenders with non-violent and that can cause stabbings, and even deaths potentially.
    In Norway because the officers are forced to be in close confines with the inmates, it ultimately then builds an effective relationship, which will help them once released. The exclusion of camera’s in the cells, and around the compound of Norway’s facilities can be viewed as something effective, because the inmates have multiple ways to commit crimes, or escape and they’ve chosen not to. The number of offenders incarcerated in Norway is extensively lower than America, which gives more fund to help offenders, but America can gradually began implementing different forms of rehabilitative services into the penal system.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The outcomes would absolutely be better if there was a more humane approach to incarceration, but realistically the American government along with law enforcement needs to work more effectively in bettering the two main forms of rehabilitation they have in place. These are known as Probation and Parole. The financial gain that America benefits from is extremely disturbing as well. Yes, in other countries there are more severe ways of punishment such as beheading, the chopping off of hands for thefts, and much more. I personally believe, that once the rehabilitation aspects in the American justice system are revaluated, the high recidivism rates will drastically plummet. It’s extremely unfortunate that the American system continuously just has the mindset of “We need to fill vacant spaces in these institutions, so let’s arrest everybody even if they have non-violent crimes”. With having such mindset, there won’t be a positive change in recidivism rates. The American government also feels that by offering rehabilitative services, they are risking the criminal’s freedom. The government can feel this way because they ultimately feel like why should we offer this individual help if they didn’t think about the consequences of their actions prior to being incarcerated. Another negative aspect of the U.S penal system could be the integration of all inmates together in one big area. This isn’t necessarily a good thing in terms of rehabilitation, because you’re mixing violent offenders with non-violent and that can cause stabbings, and even deaths potentially.
    In Norway because the officers are forced to be in close confines with the inmates, it ultimately then builds an effective relationship, which will help them once released. The exclusion of camera’s in the cells, and around the compound of Norway’s facilities can be viewed as something effective, because the inmates have multiple ways to commit crimes, or escape and they’ve chosen not to. The number of offenders incarcerated in Norway is extensively lower than America, which gives more fund to help offenders, but America can gradually began implementing different forms of rehabilitative services into the penal system.

    Chenelle C.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Norway’s Halden Prison is a brilliant system that functions more on psychology than physicality. The facility constrains its inmates with trust, rather than steel bars and constant violence. It allows inmates to repent for their crimes and take responsibility for their actions. Unlike the United States’ prison system, where inmates are threatened with violence and must enter a hierarchy of dominance, the Halden Prison system allows inmates the actual possibility of rehabilitation. It empowers the inmates. It allows them to sit, think and say to themselves, “Okay, I commit a crime and I deserve to be here, so let me do my time, leave and never go through this again.” It gives them the ability to change themselves rather than forcing them into commission.

    The idea is excellent and the results are undeniable, but the Halden Prison system is impossible in the United States. America has an overabundance of greedy, self-centered and inhumane people. We are too set in our ways. Although, good people all over the country, with foundations, organizations, bureaus, etc., are trying for genuine change, like this, the evil outweighs the good. Money trumps mercy every single time. The idea of a safe and perfect society is just an idea and until out society is scrubbed of corruption, this system will never happen.

    Patty G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In an effort to reply to Patty, I would agree that many Americans are greedy and have selfish motives. I do believe that this affects the way in which we incarcerate our society. This is because most Americans are focused on how they can be safer rather than how they can rehabilitate offenders which would in turn make them safer. They are also focused on the amount of money being spent on prisoners. This money would most definitely not be willingly put towards a prison system that allows for more freedoms.
      -Amanda Carlson

      Delete
  14. Halden Fengsel, which is a Norwegian maximum-security prison that is considered to be the “most humane” in the world, aims to rehabilitate prisoners “through education, job training and therapy.” This focus differs from the American correctional system, in that it has been criticized over the years for the “the harshness of its sentences, its overreliance on solitary confinement, and its racial disparities.” In Norway, the maximum sentence a prisoner can serve is 21 years; capital punishment was abolished in 1902, with life sentences being banned shortly after, in 1981. In the Norwegian correctional system, they foster an environment that prepares prisoners for life after incarceration, which explains how the government spends $93,000 per inmate per year; in the United States, it costs $32,000 per inmate per years.

    This humane approach to the corrections system sounds ideal; however, I do not think it would have an impact on the dysfunctional system that the United States currently has in place. Rehabilitation should be the focus of any correctional system, but I believe those who commit crime should get their just deserts, and the way in which Halden Fengsel operates isn’t consistent with that belief. A policy which focuses solely on rehabilitation sounds nice, but I believe some prisoners should serve life sentences, or even get the death penalty as a result of the heinous crimes they have committed. I believe every correctional policy should have some sort of rehabilitation aspect to it, but some prisoners aren’t worth the time; for example, serial killers who prey on innocent people do not deserve to be treated as if they would someday be released. Some people deserve to be locked away forever, without the government having to spend money and resources reintegrating them back into society.

    However, I do think that the United States “for profit” correctional system is unjust. The author nailed it on the head when he stated that “prison privatization is neither fiscally responsible nor in keeping with principles of justice.” Criminals who have either committed a minor crime or a non-violent offense are basically being sold to these private corporations. Millions of families have to cope with losing their loved ones to the correctional system as a result of the government’s greed. There should be alternatives to incarceration set in place for those offenders who commit non-violent and minor crimes. Rehabilitation can be accomplished for these individuals through community service and programs that encourage the individual to give back to society; incarceration is not the solution for every criminal. Rehabilitation and decreasing recidivism should be the main focus for the American correctional system, but it is far from it. Money should not be the driving force behind our correctional system. Making positive changes should be the focus of any correctional system, but how do we encourage this? Is it too late for the American correctional system to change course now? Will it always be a dysfunctional system? For the sake of our future success as a Nation, I hope not. We should not have 2.2 million people incarcerated right now, it is unacceptable. Incarcerating individuals for minor and non-violent offenders prevents them from becoming an active member of society. The labeling-theory provides support to this argument, since it suggests that labeling individuals at such a young age or individuals who aren’t as bad as the label would suggest, only fosters a criminal environment. Our system needs to focus its attention on rehabilitation and recidivism, and realize incarcerating individuals “for profit” is unjust and unethical, and only encourages the growth of the criminal environment in our country.

    Allyson P.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the imprisonment of minor violations does not help our recidivism rates. Many who have committed a minor offense and have completed jail time tend to be labeled a trouble d soul. There are many jobs out there today that even minor offenses will turn you away. This can lead to the individual becoming frustrated and viewing crime as a way for easy money. I have personally met individuals that have committed offenses and have been turned down from jobs even though they have not committed any crime or had any trouble with the law for years.They tend to find work but cannot land career jobs in what they desire. -Melanie Rodriguez

      Delete
  15. Recidivism rates are an excellent tool in terms of deterring the success of a certain form of corrections. If recidivism rates are low, this most likely means that offenders are being rehabilitated and that the community is a safer place. These two points are most likely the two main goals of corrections systems in most countries throughout the United States. This being said, the Halden Prison in Norway has a recidivism rate of about 20 while the average recidivism rates among United States’ prisons is about 70. This would make it evident that the systems in Norway are more successful than the systems within the United States. Even with the vast difference in incarceration rates, the recidivism rates should still prove that Norway’s system is more successful.
    At Halden Prison in Norway, offenders are allowed much more freedoms and treated with much more respect than they would be in any prison facility within the United States. This is obviously seen to be working within Norway due to low recidivism rates. This approach could be compared to probation and parole approaches here in the United States. This is because, although not incarcerated, offenders are given more freedoms and treated with more respect while at the same time being rehabilitated. The question here for most Americans would most likely be where is the punishment?
    I find it very hard to believe that the majority of Americans would agree with having a murderer only put away for 21 years in order to “age out” of crime. This being said, I do not believe that this approach would be able to take place in the United States. Most Americans believe in a lock them up and throw away the key approach, which would not be seen within a prison like Halden. Instead, I would suggest a shift towards probation and parole approaches within the United States. I feel as if most Americans would be more inclined to agree to an approach like this and with lower recidivism rates than incarceration, this approach would prove itself more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The rates of recidivism are quite alarming compared to other countries. This means that we need to make changes to our justice system. There is no perfect system and there can be room for improvements. Reading the article on Norway does not convince me that the style of their prisons is truly any better than of the United States. Norway is portraying that if you’re a criminal and sent to prison not to see it as deterrence but as a rehabilitation center. My view is simple you commit a crime you need some type of punishment. If I were in Norway I would view their prison as an incentive rather than punishment. It seems Norway does not balance punishment and rehabilitation. If Norway’s Halden prison was in the United States criminals would view prison as a sanctuary.
    I cannot see how the maximum prison sentence of 21 years will be effective in the United States. Life sentences and the death penalties should be implemented. If this would ever be considered I highly doubt the victims families would agree. The United States are made up of different cultures and beliefs. It will be difficult to implement Norways idea of an ideal prison system. This would be great for half-way houses that are in the United States. Inmates that have completed their time should be re introduced into society by exposing them to Norway’s Halden prison idea. There has to be deterrence and quite frankly this is not it.
    China and Russia have a different approach to crime, which are never favorable for the criminals. They have a strict death penalty and people in these countries fear the justice system. Our country is built under a bill of rights. Decisions are not as clean and cut like in other countries. People in the United States have rights and they exercise those rights to the max. The issue with the United States is that they rather make money off the prison system then to help criminals transition back into society. Many on parole do not get the proper assistance and it become difficult for them to find decent homes and jobs. If offenders come out to society and are not helped the chances of recidivism are high. I feel that recidivism would decrease if inmates have a better support system coming out of prison.

    Melanie Rodriguez

    ReplyDelete