Special Problems/ Intermediate Punishments

Prison inmates, are some of the most disturbed and unstable people in society. Most of the inmates have had too little discipline or too much, come from broken homes, and have no self-esteem. They are very insecure and are at war with themselves as well as with society. Most inmates did not learn moral values or learn to follow everyday norms. In order to rehabilitate criminals we must do more than just send them to prison.

Of the 600,000 criminals that are released into society each year, 70% of them are re-arrested within 3 years of their release from prison. These statistics are so surprising, but it's because we mostly hear about the huge number of rehabilitation programs there are, how much they cost, their design and intended outcomes, but seldom do we hear about the results these programs produce. Since these programs are continually funded, since we hear about what they are supposed to do, rather than what they do, the public at large assumes they work. In fact, of the few programs that have shown any detectable positive effect on their participants, the best result was a mere 10% reduction in recidivism. Many suggest we can do better.

Most of today's correctional institutions lack the ability and programs to rehabilitate the criminals of America. Often their life in crime will resume in weeks after their release. Although the best prisons and programs in the world will not cure the problem totally, improvements still must be made.

In analyzing the problems with these programs a major trend emerges; the shift, over the past 40 years, away from prison as 'punishment' toward prison as 'rehabilitation' or therapy. Punishment implies the responsibility of the offender, while rehabilitation is more suggestive of the offender-as-victim-of-circumstances and, further, it implies that we know what's to be done to 'fix' the problem.

Plainly we do know what the problem is; the offender's anti-social behavior. Analysis of the results of rehabilitation programs indicates that we have only the faintest idea of how to correct the problem.

Rehabilitation programs started in the 1960's. The therapeutic approach to crime is based on three assumptions. First, that the criminal mindset is the result of a single cause, usually a "dysfunctional family." Second, that rehabilitation programs in themselves can create lasting behavioral changes. Finally, the assumption seems to be that recidivism is the result of insufficient exposure to rehab programs. Most of the time, offenders are "denied access" to rehabilitation.

So, what can be done? Findings over the years have pointed to increased monitoring of released criminals joined with instant punishment when a violation of parole is noted. A few of the current programs might help, but positive outcomes seem to be dependent on the attitude of the individual offender rather than the content of the program. In other words, the released criminal must take responsibility for his life.

What researchers who study rehabilitation have begun to see through a glass darkly is that there is no such thing as an ideal program, one that can be cut out and pasted in anywhere. Instead, what researchers have found is that successful rehabilitation programs share certain characteristics, most of which relate either to treating offenders according to their individual circumstances or to the program's administration. There is a form of an ideal program, but all successful programs merely reflect this form rather than represent it. The important issue is not whether something works but what works for whom. There should be three values that are applied in all cases of a successful rehabilitation programs.

First is what we would define as the 'risk of offending again'. It has been proven in research that programs that seek to treat all offenders, regardless of their likelihood of re-offending, often miss their target. Successful programs match the level of treatment to the risk that the subject will offend again. Higher risk offenders need and require much more intensive treatment. Lower risk offenders may require little or none. While this may seem like common sense, it has been found that when intensive treatment was given to a lower risk offender, it either had no effect or even increased recidivism. Therefore, it is extremely important that not only should programs be arranged so that differing and conflicting levels of treatment are offered, but that the offenders are accurately assessed for their risk of re-offending.

The second is 'who needs what'. Each offender usually has a set of problems that need to be addressed in his or her life. These needs come in two forms, criminal and personal. Personal needs are problems that treatment programs often address but which have been shown to be less indicative of future criminal behavior. Anxiety or low self-esteem is examples of needs that can be addressed, and, in many cases, should be addressed, but which are likely to cause future criminality. This is likely why general counseling programs fail. They concentrate on addressing personal needs and therefore do not address the crime issues. They may even make the criminal a more confident criminal.

The third is to 'motivate' the criminal. For example, many offenders are simply not motivated to engage with rehabilitation programs, although they seem to be more willing to address their problems as they prepare for parole hearings. Clinicians therefore have come to focus on motivation as