Rehabilitation of Violent Juvenile Criminals

As I promised, during this blog I am going to talk about rehabilitation for violent criminals, in this case juvenile criminals.

The Violent Juvenile Offender (JVO) program was begun in 1980 by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It was in response to the inadequacies of the present ways that the justice system deals with repeatedly violent juveniles. The JVO was based on well-established criminology theories about the root causes of violent youth. It was designed to "strengthen the bonds that linked youths to 'prosocial' institutions - their families, the workplace, the school, and 'straight' peers." The JVO approached these objectives through an individualized and intensive approach.
The program included 3 phases: 1. pre-release training inside the institution
2. aftercare in a transitional living situation outside of prison
3. reentry into self-sustaining life in the community
The youth were helped through each of these phases by skilled case managers.

This program was attempted in Boston, Detroit, Memphis, and Newark. Boston and Detroit were the most successful due to the consistency of their implementation while Newark hardly got off the ground. Boston and Detroit had extremely successful results. They greatly reduced the rate of recidivism in their chronically violent youth population. Even those who did commit another crime took longer to re-offend.

These results were mainly attributed to the tangible opportunities that the case managers opened up for these youth such as job placements with subsidized salaries. The managers approached each case individually and holistically looked at their situation and place in the community.

Some critics have accused the juvenile justice system of being too focused on rehabilitation due to its claim that they are based on rehabilitation principles. Yet when closer examined, you see that those who makes these claims often have weak rehabilitation implementation and short-lived programs. Of course resulting in ineffective results.

Without true rehabilitation, these youth are being robbed of a normal and healthy adulthood. The rest of their life depends on how the justice system choses to deal with them today. We must choose carefully.

What Else is Out There?

For those of my readers who feel especially excited about the subject and not quite fulfilled by the information I have given, here are some other sites that you can visit:

The blog "War on Drugs" is a good site to visit to get a broader understanding of the criminal justice system today. The War on Drugs accounts for a large percentage of those imprisoned today and they are some of the most in need of rehabilitation and would probably be some of the most responsive as well.

The Associated Content has a very informative article on Rehabilitation vs. Punishment and also has links to other related topics. It also gives high lights to the articles, allows for blogger comments, and is easily organized and understood. The author has a more rehabilitation focus.

The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) has an interesting page on Rehabilitation vs. Retribution. It gives background information on the issue, gives multiple pro and con arguments, it summarizes motions of the House, and provides links to other useful books and links. I very much recommend this site. The site is unbiased due to the presence of information from both sides of the argument.

Another debate focused site is Debatepedia. It gives similar information as the IDEA but gives more pro and con arguments. It is a little more clearly organized but seems somewhat unfinished. Once again, this site is unbiased for the same reasons as IDEA.

This police forum might not be particularly informative but I do think it is thought provoking. It is a site where police officers answered a few questions on their opinion on rehabilitation and its effectiveness. Most of the comments are focused on punishment.

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment - Judge for Yourself is an extremely interesting blog. A site was created to allow the public to decide what they think is the most suitable sentence for virtual offenders. Judge for Yourself shows the results of what the public thought based on different characteristics such as age, gender, etc. Check it out.

To get some basic background information on the United States criminal justice system it would be wise to visit U.S Department of Justice website. It gives statistics about prisons, prisoners,and the justice system today so you are able to make an unbiased decision on how effective you feel it is based on the facts.

This may seem futile but the Encyclopedia Britannica's discussion of punishment and the theories and objections of it is very enlightening. Another helpful Britannica article is the one focused on the prisons - their development, use, and alternatives. Britannica is a good site for an unbiased response to the issue.

ProCon.org is a site that provides the reader with information on politicians views on specific issues, including rehabilitation vs. punishment. Not only does it give the stance of current presidential candidates but also those who have dropped out of the race. Its information is based on quotes and campaign sites.

What Other People Have to Say

From the mouth of others . . .

"We, the imprisoned, are America's shame. Society has no use for [us] outside, so it pays to lock [us] out of sight, without opportunity or spiritual rehabilitation...Building bigger and better...prisons does not begin to [resolve] the reasons behind the problems and madness"
- Prisoner George Dismukes

"Prison stops crime in two ways: deterrence and incapacitation. The JFA Institute report misses both points. A longer prison term deters some would-be criminals from committing crimes to begin with. For those criminals who are not stopped by the threat of prison, at least they are taken off the streets and locked up, preventing them from committing yet more crime."
- Fox News reporter John Lott

"You must not deal only with the symptoms. You have to get to the root causes by promoting environmental rehabilitation and empowering people to do things for themselves. What is done for the people without involving them cannot be sustained."
- Wangari Maathai

"I feel like the majority of the people who are sent to prison are beyond help. I find character to be one of the most enduring qualities, and most resistant to change."
-Blogger


"Before we can diminish our sufferings from the ill-controlled aggressive assaults on fellow citizens, we must renounce the philosophy of punishment, the obsolete, vengeful penal attitude. In its place we would seek a comprehensive, constructive social attitude - therapeutic in some instances, restraining in some instances, but preventive in its total social impact . . . But the punitive attitude persists. And just so long as the spirit of vengeance has the slightest vestige of respectability, so long as it pervades the public mind and infuses its evil upon the statute books of the law, we will make no headway toward the control of crime. we cannot assess the most appropriate and effective penalties so long as we seek to inflict retaliatory pain.
- Karl Menninger, The Crime of Punishment, Viking Press, 1969

"Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant. It is fashionable to be tolerant - but mostly tolerant of evil - and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good."
- Fox News

"today's prison system should be abolished because it is a system pre-designed and constructed to warehouse the people of underdeveloped and lower economic communities"
-If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance


Which quotes resonated with you? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with? Let me know!

Polarized Views

Most public figures and politicians have a very middle-of-the road opinion on the issue of rehabilitation vs. punishment in the prison system to reduce recidivism. Most people say that rehabilitation is necessary, there are just various degrees of importance it holds. But there are those who take extreme opinions on the issue. There is one side that views the purpose of the prison system as a device to instill fear in people to keep them from committing crime. The Hard Core Truth which holds these extreme view, believes that fear is the only way to deter crime. On the website it says:

1. Laws are most effective when the consequences of breaking them are Feared.

2. Consequences will be feared only if they involve stringent punishment.
3. The incarceration of today is not a stringent enough punishment to effectively deter crime. If it were we would not have so many new offenders and so many repeat offenders.

The other side of the extreme is the belief that rehabilitation should be the focus and that prisons are not right for all convicted criminals and should only be used when necessary (although “when necessary” is not specifically defined). Organizations that have this view include CURE – Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants. This organization is made up of prisoners, former prisoners, families of prisoners, and other concerned citizens. As stated on the website, there two main goals are:

1. To use prisons only for those who have to be in them

2. and for those who have to be in them, to provide them all the rehabilitative opportunities they need to turn their lives around.

Extreme opinions often rise from personal experiences and biases rather than accurate statistics and research. The member s of CURE are clearly biased because almost all of them have been directly affected by the prison system from the prisoners side. They are looking to advance the rights of prisoners and change the system to make a positive impact on prisoner’s lives rather than a negative one. Those who hold the opinion of The Hard Core Truth are also influenced by personal bias. Some who believe that the prison system should be focused on punishment and fear clearly are looking out for the interests of victims and law-abiding citizens. Maybe they were victims themselves at one time. The simple influence of the news and media which often build fear within the public just by airing stories that they know will be more popular. Sociologists have examined the way the news portrays crime. In the process of creating a news-worthy story, the media exaggerates and dramatizes the crimes they cover. Certain crimes are covered to a much higher proportion than they actually occur. This causes many people to see prisons and extreme punishment as a necessity for the safety of the average citizen.

Both sides of the argument are trying to find a solution to our high rate of recidivism; they are simply taking opposite approaches to reduce it. To minimize extreme and polarized views opinions must be based on the facts.

Justice is Served

We live in a society that is very forgiving. To some.

In the United States, I am sure in other countries as well, celebrities are a different breed of human. We trust them, look up to them, and are influenced by them whether they are logically deserving of this or not. We devote magazines to follow their every move. As a country, we are obsessed. This is why it is not surprising that we hold different expectations for them when it comes to punishment for their crimes.

We will look at the example of Robert Downey Jr. The image to the left is his mug shot (one of his many). Downey has been arrested with cocaine, heroin, marijuana, Valium, and sundry pills. He has been caught violating his parole several times, has been arrested for drunk driving, been caught in possession of an unloaded pistol, and the list continues. Despite his long list of criminal acts, Downey has been to jail twice - once for four months and a second time for one year (out of a three year sentence). Despite his history of parole violations, courts continuously put Downey on parole instead of sending him to prison. In his second jail sentence he was released early so that he could shoot a film. But his lack of serious sentencing isn't what interests me most or what really says something about our society.
This is: In 2008 he was ranked #60 in Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the world. He starred in the outrageously popular movie Iron Man and has been referred to as "everyone's lovable screw-up."

Robert Downey Jr. is certainly not the only one to be quickly forgiven, even embraced, by America after spending time in prison or committing a crime. Martha Stewart went on to start a reality tv show after she was found guilty and sentenced to house arrest for obstructing justice and lying to investigators. Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsay Lohan have also had their fare share of run-ins with the law.

The point I am trying to make is, why can we happily embrace our former criminal celebrities and still consider ex-convicts a nuisance to our society? Why do we let celebrities out of jail to make movies, but won't hire formerly incarcerated people to allow them to get back on their feet? How are we able to quickly allow these celebrities back into our hearts and allow them to influence our lives (as Downey's high ranking of influence shows) while we disenfranchise ex-convicts by not allowing them to vote?

Like I said before. We are a forgiving nation. To some.

By the way - I love Robert Downey Jr. I'm not trying to hate on him or anything.

Is America Going Insane?

The world will not fall apart if the criminal justice system does not shift from being a punishment focused institution to being focused on rehabilitation. It will continue to be ineffective at reducing the rate of recidivism. The female prisoner population will maintain its steep increase as it has since the 1980s. Prisons will go on being a breading ground for violent behavior and continued criminal activity. We will keep on waisting tax payer's money incarcerating people who once released will only return. And Americans will continue to look at criminals and the crimes they commit as a problem that should be put out of sight and out of mind instead of as a issue that must be solved.
Yes, the world will not fall apart, but we will continue to see ineffective treatment of criminals producing the same ineffective results. The criminal justice system is in such clear need of reform that to deny it would be a crime in itself. This isn't an issue that only matters to those committing crimes, it influences to the society as a whole. This includes each and every person within our society, that means YOU too. We have all been or know someone who has been a victim of crime, by reducing recidivim you are reducing criminal activity. We cannot continue this pattern of ineffective punishment without expecting the same results.
Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Let's keep America out of the loony bin.

Banks . . .

To get a bit off subject . . .

There has been a change of plans. $250 billion of the $700 billion set aside for the US banking bailout plan will now be invested directly into banks. In other words, America (yes, America) is partially nationalizing their banks. This new plan was created by England. Many other countries, including the US, have adopted it. There has been opposition to the plan but no one can deny that on Monday the Dow Jones industrial average gained 936 points (11%) and 300 more points on Tuesday morning. This is the largest single-day gain in American stock market history since the 1930s and it happened only days after the greatest decline yet. This inconsistency seems unsettling to me. Along with the government putting money into the banks, it includes guaranteeing new debt issued by banks for three years (to encourage interbank and costumer lending) and an unlimited guarantee by the F.D.I.C on bank deposits in accounts with no interests and the Federal Reserve would begin a program to become the buyer of last resort for commercial paper (to help businesses get money for basic everyday needs). President Bush says that all of these programs are “limited and temporary” and protects taxpayers.

On Monday, the major banks Citigroup Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Comp., Bank of America (which is obtaining Merrill Lynch), Wells Fargo (which is acquiring the Wachovia Corporation), Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of New York agreed to take $125 billion worth of investments. These ranged from $25 billion to $2 billion for each bank. The banks agreement to accept the governments investments was the only option they were given. As Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put it, it was for the good of the American financial system. The last $125 billion dollars in the plan is to be distributed to thousands of smaller banks.

It is ironic the quick change that has occurred. The Treasury had opposed taking equity stakes in banks just weeks ago. Now that is what we are doing. The US is trying to catch up to Europe and keep our investors from bailing out. We will have to see where this new road, lined with bricks of socialism, will lead.

Women behind bars

I think that The Nation did a really good job of revealing the situation that incarcerated women are in once released from prison. By understanding their background it puts the reason why they return to prison in perspective. This clip from the article "Time to End Recidivism" breaks down the situation of the 177 women who are released from prison every day in the United States. For women, the recidivism rate is 58% and women are an fast growing part of the prison population.

"Of these 177 women--on average, they will be 35 years old--fifty-seven will be white, eighty-two will be black and twenty-nine will be Hispanic. Fewer than forty-four will be married, and 118 will have minor children. Of those with children, twenty-six will have an alcohol dependence problem and thirty-seven will have a diagnosed mental illness. Seventy-four will not have finished high school, and more than half were unemployed before arrest. For those who were working, fifty-eight had incomes of less than $600 per month and fifty-three were on welfare.

With little more than the proverbial bus ticket and pocket money, the women will be released from prison and told to stay out of trouble. Not surprisingly, the net result is that within three years of leaving prison, 101 will commit a new offense and sixty-nine will go back to jail. But this doesn't have to be."

People do not commit crimes for no reason. We must look at the root of the problem to find a real solution but when punishment is the main focus in prisons we are only seeing the branches. Rehabilitation programs have the purpose of dealing with root issues - drug addiction, source of income, and more. Although this article is mainly about women, I am sure men face many of the same problems as these women.

The image to the upper left is of a group of female inmates on chain gain duty in Phoenix, Arizona.

A topic unanaylized is a topic not worth blogging about

The main purpose of rehabilitation programs in our prisons is to reduce the rate in which incarcerated people return to prison or their former lifestyle of crime once released. The issue of the high recidivism rate in our prison system today has not been a hot topic for the presidential candidates, but it should be. The recidivism rate has been growing for the past few decades. It jumped 5% between 1984 and 1993. Today, the national recidivism rate is 67%. This percentage is outrageous. How have we been able to reduce crime on the streets but not been able to reduce the rate in which formerly incarcerated people return to crime? It is largely because of the “tough on crime” attitude of the 1990s. This big talking approach to crime made major cut-backs on rehabilitation programs around the country. In the mid 90s only 6% of the $22 billion budget states used for prisons was spent on in-prison programs that educated, empowered, and prepared inmates to reenter society.

Although neither McCain nor Obama have focused on rehabilitation as a means to reducing recidivism in their campaigns, they do have clear stances on criminal justice, much of which plays a large role in the punishment vs. rehabilitation topic. Their past also gives us some insight into how they stand on this issue. ProCon.org asked the question to the candidates that I have wondered myself– “should the US develop programs that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment in order to reduce its rate of incarceration?” This is what Barack Obama’s Civil Rights article on his official website says about the issue. It states as follows:

"Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior."

This, along with other statements regarding Obama’s platform indicate his agreement that rehabilitation more than punishment needs to be our main focus. As of July 2008, ProCon.org was unable to find McCain’s stance on this issue. McCain’s campaign was emailed and asked this question directly but there has yet to be a reply. This does not mean he is for or against a focus on rehabilitation above punishment, but there is no direct statements telling us his view. However other platforms and his past give us insight into where he stands on relating issues.

Past Positions:

In Obama’s one term as senator of Illinois he co-sponsored the Second Chance Act of 2007, which provided greater support for inmates reentering society through programs and state requirements. He was also the cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 which included voting rights of individuals convicted of criminal offenses. Although this act does not specifically relate to rehabilitation, it shows support for greater acceptance of formerly incarcerated people into our society. McCain was also in support of the Second Chance Act of 2007.

In 2004 about 20% of state prisoners and 53% of federal prisoners were sentenced with drug offenses. One of the major parts of rehabilitation is drug rehab. Because of this, drugs play a large role in the issue of rehabilitation and recidivism. Both Obama and McCain have substance use tied into their pasts. Obama has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his youth and McCain admits to heavy drinking. McCain’s wife Cindy struggled with an addiction to prescription drugs that resulted in a DEA investigation but did not lead to a criminal charge. This information from their pasts might give us better insight into their positions today.

What they say today:

The 2008 presidential campaign has caused the candidates to define more clearly the differences between their future plans and opinions on criminal justice policy.
McCain supports stricter penalties for violent felons and laws that make sure violent criminals serve their full sentence without parol. He supports a larger budget to build more federal prisons. In regards to rehabilitation, McCain supports programs that teach inmates vocational and job-related skills, job-placement programs for released inmates, and drug and alcohol addiction treatment programs.
Obama has focused more on civil rights issues regarding the war on drugs (probably a result of his history as a Civil Rights lawyer). He is also a strong supporter of rehabilitation. In his “Blueprint for Change” Obama’s platforms are laid out. It states that Obama will provide ex-offenders with access to job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities (this is similar to John McCain). One of the specific programs he plans to create is a prison-to-work incentive program that will reduce barriers that former inmates have faced when finding employment. Rehabilitation has been Obama’s main plan for reducing crime. McCain hopes to reduce crime by increasing the funding for community policing programs.
Another issue in which McCain and Obama differ is mandatory minimum sentencing. McCain supports mandatory minimum sentencing, which have most notably been used in drug-offense sentences. Obama proposes abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing.

I know that I just loaded a lot of information on you. Not all of it was in regards to rehabilitation but I believe it is important to get a broader understanding of the candidate’s platforms on all criminal justice issues if you want to make your own judgments on how realistic or how committed they are to rehabilitation programs.

After reading a lot about both candidates and gaining a fairly holistic view on their platforms regarding the justice system, I feel more confident that Obama will follow through with his rehabilitation plans. We have had the programs that McCain mentions for the past decade and yet our recidivism rates are still through the roof. Everyone will say that rehabilitation should be involved in the prison system, but it is the funding and the focusing on rehabilitation that really says something about their commitment to rehabilitation programs. Obama’s desire to abolish mandatory minimum sentencing shows that he is choosing a different direction for our criminal justice system – one that is more based on individual cases and less on the isolation and punishment ways of the past. Many of McCain’s platforms propose stricter sentences and prison time with no parole without any suggestion that rehabilitation would be involved.

But like anyone else I do bring my own biases to the table. I am against mandatory minimum sentences and many of the other aspects of the war on drugs that Obama also opposes. I also am for ex-convict voting rights. I agree with Obama more than McCain on many issues like this that do not particularly have to do with rehabilitation, which has caused me to trust Obama’s stances more than McCain’s. This is my interpretation of the candidate platforms, but I would love to hear how my readers view Obama and McCain’s different stances.

The United States has the largest prisoner population in the world, with some 2.1 million currently incarcerated people in our prisons and jails. Since the 1970s the number of inmates in state and federal prison has increased more than six-fold. States spend more money on prisons than they do on education! What do these statistics tell us? Something must change, and we cannot wait another four years for the change to begin.

Taking a Step Back

I think I got a bit carried away by jumping into rehabilitation programs such as La Programa de Segunda Oportunidad. I should begin by giving some basic information about the prison system today.

Conventional punishment for law-breaking is being sent to prison. There, inmates are isolated from society, confined to cells, restricted of certain freedoms, watched closely, and follow strict rules of behavior. This is often seen as retribution for the crimes they committed.
Once in prison there are means by which we attempt to rehabilitate inmates. Many prisons provide resources such as vocational and educational programs, psychological counselors, programs in which inmates can improve their skills and self-concept, programs to help reintegrate prisoners into the community and society at large, and work-release/study-release programs. These programs are all designed to prepare prisoners to re-enter society.

All of these programs seem just fine and dandy - so why aren't they working?
There are many reasons; the social structure of prisons being a major one. By isolating inmates together it breeds attitudes and knowledge that can strengthen a person's desire and ability to commit crime. Prison environments are also very different from normal society. They are void of the rights and responsibilities of society making it harder for a person to readjust to societal norms once given the opportunity. In this isolated institution, prisoners also establish rules amongst themselves that are often more important to the inmates than the institutional rules. If this prison subculture does not have the same goals as the prison institution (which it rarely does) than inmates are much less likely to accept these goals, such as rehabilitation, on an individual basis.

Programa de Segunda Oportunidad

It is easy to find examples of successful rehabilitation programs.
One example is the Second Chance program. It is a prison-based rehabilitation program that has shown dramatic results since its beginnings in 1995 working with the Department of Prisons for the State of Baja, California in the Mexican Government. I was especially impressed by this program because of its creative and holistic approach to rehabilitation.

There are six steps laid out as followed:
Drug Withdrawal and Rehabilitation -
* Drug-free Withdrawal
* Therapeutic Training Routines
* Body Detoxification
* Communication and Perception Course
Education -
* Literacy Tutoring
* Learning Improvement Course
Self-Respect & Criminal Rehabilitation -
* The Way to Happiness
* Rehabilitation of Self Respect
Life Skills -
* Ups and Downs in Life Course
* Personal Values and Integrity Course
* Conditions in Life Course
Job Training and Placement -
Community Crime Prevention Programs -
* Crime Prevention in Schools

When this program was used in the Ensenada Prison in Ensenada, Mexico, the results were astounding. During a 4 1/2 year period 1450 inmates participated and of those, 1006 were released. For those who took part in the initial rehabilitation steps the recidivism (a habitual relapse into crime - take note of this word, it will be used repeatedly) rate was less than 10%. For those who completed the entire three months of the program, the recidivism rate was dropped below 5%. Before the Second Change Program was instigated the recidivism rate for the Ensenada Prison was at 70%. The crime rate in the city of Ensenada itself dropped 55% and government sources attribute this entirely to the Second Chance Program.

These results cannot be overlooked. The Second Chance Program attacked the issue of prisoner rehabilitation from several angles. It dealt with roots issues to the problem of crime like drug use and lack of education. It empowered inmates to rejoin the community with a purpose and a skill. If the United States adopted a program such as this it would also be fiscally beneficial. By reducing the recidivism rate you would dramatically reduce the amount a criminals put in prison.
I would love to hear any reason as to why a program like this is not in the direction that the United States Justice System should be heading.

The Common Good

The United States Justice System has four acknowledged objectives - punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. But from the beginning, we have focused most of our resources on punishment. Is this method succeeding in deterring criminals from committing crimes again? Most evidence points towards no. 63% of incarcerated people once released from prison have a habitual relapse into crime. With numbers as high as this, it is clear we need a change.

Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We must acknowledge the problems with our current justice system and find a way to fix them. By removing criminals from society we are only hindering their ability to become better citizens. Without therapy, direction, and encouragement we are not giving incarcerated people the means to change their lifestyles. This is not to say that we must pamper those who commit crimes, but we do need to shift our focus from punishment to rehabilitation.

With the mind set that change must occur, in this blog I will be exploring ways that we can improve our justice system for the common good for all - the victim, the criminal, and our society as a whole.