In the 1980s, prison expansion began all over the United States. Politicians began to talk of prisons as simply “places for punishment”. Our own former governor, William F. Weld said that “prisons should be ‘a tour through the circles of hell’  where prisoners should learn only ‘the joys of busting rocks’.” (Worth, 1995) However, our prison system just isn’t working. Crime rates are rapidly increasing, even as incarceration rates rise. On any given day, there are 1.2 million people in American jails, nearly quadruple since 1980, and yet, the crime rate is not considerably lower. (Gest, 1992) Also, too many former criminals repeat their crimes and return to jail. In California, nearly 75% of paroled prisoners are re-incarcerated. (Butterfield, 2001) With these statistics, it is obvious that our penal system is not up to par. “The justice system is eating its young…It imprisons them, paroles them, and rearrests them with no rehabilitation in between.” (Gest, 1992) In recent years, some states have been taking steps toward reforming for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is badly needed, and could really change our penal system for the better. The idea behind rehabilitating prisoners is that we need to change convicts so that they, when released, can go back into society as productive, worth-while people. Some facilities around the country have already taken giant steps in this direction. Many states are reworking laws to better educate and train their prisoners. Their hope is to lower the crime rate by changing the criminals.
One example of a rehabilitation prison is the McKean Federal Correctional Institute in Bradford, Pennsylvania. Its clean, carpeted corridors and air-conditioned classrooms lead visitors to often compare it to a college campus. While it is badly over-crowded and holds many violent criminals, McKean has very few occurrences of violence within the prison. Within the last six years, there have only been six assaults on inmates, and three on staff members. (Worth, 1995) Comparable prisons often see this kind of violence in a week. Critics of McKean have called it a “resort” believing that it treats its inmates too well. There are quite a few federal institutes like this springing up around the country. One Oregon plan requires prisoners to work 40 hours a week, as much as the tax payers who finance their jailing. (Butterfield, 2001) Inmates are allowed to choose from a variety of classes. One prisoner in an Oregon institute is “in an advanced computer class, building customized computers for state agencies, and says he expects eventually ‘to walk out into the world with a real job,’ making more than $50,000 a year.” (Butterfield, 2001) Some inmates in McKean even teach classes to other prisoners. These prisons hope to be “teaching on the inside what works on the outside” (Butterfield, 2001), by showing prisoners the work ethic. This will break bad habits which lead to crime, and therefore, help inmates to lead better lives once they are released. McKean Institute centers on the idea of having respect for its inmates. They have 28 “beliefs”, posted around the prison, from which its unique atmosphere is sprung. Some of these beliefs include: “Inmates are sent to prison as punishment and not for punishment. … You must believe in a man’s capacity to change his behavior. … [and] Most inmates will respond favorable to a clean and aesthetically pleasing physical environment and will not vandalize or destroy it.” (Worth, 1995) However, McKean, in some ways, is a quite strict prison. It holds its prisoners in very high regard, holding them to high expectations. Any minor incidences can lead to restrictions and expulsion from classes. This system also seems to be working. Inmates who tended to be violent, and have been transferred to McKean often began to settle down. Also, parolees from this prison are re-incarcerated much less than average. By educating its prisoners, these institutions hope to give its inmates better lives once they leave. They will be more competent and confident, as well as receive an extensive résumé, so will be able to land better jobs. The many prisons around the country like those in Oregon and McKean are paving the path toward rehabilitation for prisons, and they seem to be working. There has also been a completely different idea of rehabilitation prison proposed, which has not been put into effect yet. This system, put forward by Secretary of the State for the Home Department, David Blunkett, is an idea taken with skepticism in the United States. The idea comes from a system in Germany,  where some offenders are allowed to work during the week, and are imprisoned only on the weekends. Blunkett stresses that this system could work here in the United States, but we’d have to be very careful. Convicts could spend the week with their family, while holding their job, attending classes or rehabilitation, or doing community service during the day. They would be under firm supervision and held to strict curfews. Tagging and voice recognition would make it possible to keep track of convicts while they still live in their communities. This would be an especially good program for women with children. There are extensive effects on children whose mothers are in prison. An estimated two-thirds of female prisoners have children under 18, whom they would be able to care for if this system were to be implemented. Anyone who did not follow curfew or misbehaved could possibly be sent to a traditional prison. This system would deny prisoners freedoms, but still allow them to lead fairly normal lives. Many of the criminals who could be eligible are those who are not in prison long enough for rehabilitation, but are in prison long enough to lose everything important to them: their family, friends, jobs, homes, and money. Of course, Blunkett stresses that any criminal who could pose a threat to society would never be allowed in a program such as this. A convict would need to undergo rigorous evaluations before being entitled to this system. This system of imprisonment may seem lenient and radical, but it could bring great changes to our society, showing us drops in crime.Along with being good for our inmates and for society, these rehabilitation programs can be very economical. While some critics say they do not want to waste money on inmates by educating them, it is completely the opposite. Classes give inmates something to do, so that they need less supervision. This means less staff, and therefore, less money. Recreation does the same thing. “You [could have] three to five hundred men in this rec yard, with three staff. If you had less recreation, you’d need more staff. That’s a clear economic advantage,” said a staff member from McKean. (Worth, 1992). Even Blunkett said that “Prison is an expensive way of denying people liberty.” (Blunkett, 2002). The federal average cost for an inmate is $21,350 a year, while it is estimated that prisoners at McKean only cost the government $15,370. (Worth, 1992) By rehabilitating prisoners so that they will not return to prison again, we would save our country billions of dollars. In California, re-incarcerated parolees hold 20% of prison beds, costing the state $1 billion a year. (Butterfield, 2001) Also, through training, inmates can take the place of some workers. In one program, inmates train to be telemarketers, and work the telephones in the prison, answering questions for callers. This saves money because fewer staff are needed. With Blunkett’s plan, you would oversee the cost of prison altogether, saving thousands of dollars a year per convict. Alternative and rehabilitation prisons could save the nation billions of dollars, allowing money to go toward other things that are currently being cut down, like education and health care. 
In the end, our country needs to work more rehabilitation into our prisons. Right now, few prisons are getting the programs that they need. In California, two-thirds of the prisoners have a drug problem, but fewer than one-tenth get necessary treatment. Even less get job training. (Gest, 1992) Educating our inmates would allow them to lead normal lives after their release, so that they will be less tempted to commit crimes again. These systems could lower the crime rate, and vastly improve our penal system. As Steve Doell, president of the Crime Victims United of Oregon said: “The thing people need to know is that most of these folks in prison are eventually going to come out again. So we think its smart policy to try to change them while they’re locked up, so that when they return to society there will be fewer victims on the street.” (Butterfield, 2001)
Blunkett, D. (2002, February 3). Radical reform so prison can rehabilitate. The Observer. Butterfield, F. (2001, May 20). Inmate Rehabilitation Returns as Prison Goal. New York Times. Gest, T. (1992, May 4). The Prison Boom Bust. U.S. News & World Report, 112(17), 28-31. Hinsliff, G. & Bright, M. (2002, February 3). ‘Soft touch’ plan to end jails crisis. The Observer. Worth, R. (1995, November). A Model Prison. The Atlantic Online. URL http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/prisons/prisons.htm |
