Writer Biography

Katee Hansen is from Smithfeld, Utah. She graduated with Honors from Sky View High School and is currently a sophomore at Utah State. She is a Family Consumer and Human Development major with an emphasis in Family Finance. In her spare time, Katee enjoys being with family and friends, reading, camping, and cooking. She loves music and particularly enjoys attending concerts. She also loves to travel, meet new people, and explore new places. Katee feels that one of the best things about college is that there is always something new to learn, and she is eager to seize every new opportunity available to her.

This essay was first published in the 2016 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

America’s prison systems have reached overcrowding of epidemic proportions. This country holds more than 2.4 million people in a conglomeration of state, federal, and military prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and local jails. That number, 2.4 million people, crowns America the winner with the highest incarceration rate in the world (Williams). Is that something to be proud of? Not by a long shot. This is where the principles of restorative justice come in with plans of cognitive restructuring, behavioral therapy, and the opportunity for inmates to learn the skills to be constructive and contributing members of society. Over time, this will lead to a decrease in crime, incarceration, and recidivism rates. For example, just take another look at Norway. After more than three decades of implementing restorative justice programs in their prison systems, Norway boasts one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world: 75 per 100,000 people compared to 707 people in the United States. Clearly, Norway is doing something right in the criminal justice department. Few people go to prison, and even fewer go back. Less than one-quarter of convicts are re-arrested within five years in Norway. In the United States prison system, more than three-quarters—76.6% of criminals will be arrested and convicted again within five years of release (Gilligan). If you ask me, this number is way too high. With more than 75% of released criminals coming back into the system within a few years, plus all the new offenders, it’s no wonder we are suffering from congested and overflowing prisons.

The key to solving the overcrowding problem lies in solving the problem of recidivism; we can lower the rates of people coming back. If there was a way to help career criminals want to change and aid them in starting down the path to a better life, our incarceration rates would decrease. The good news is that there is a way to do this: cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation. An interesting study into recidivism, done by the U.S. Department of Justice, shows that facilities with strict incarceration practices increase offender recidivism, while those with cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation programs are the most effective way to keep criminals from coming back for more (Sterbenz). So rather than harsh treatment, we need to provide ways for the inmates to choose to change and teach them skills that will help them not to re-offend. Only then can we start to lower the overall incarceration and relapse rates of our prisoners.

In terms of recidivism, America is doing everything wrong. Three of every four released inmates are back in the system only a few years later. This is because the goal of our very single-minded justice system is punishment. Somehow our prisons have come to the conclusion that if you punish the inmates hard enough, they won’t come back. If you make their prison stay as uncomfortable and demeaning as possible, it will somehow make them change their criminal ways (Hooley). This just isn’t true. Incarceration without rehabilitation teaches them nothing and prepares them for nothing more than the same criminal life they have been living.

James Gilligan, a professor of psychiatry, has devoted his life to solving this problem. He states, “The only rational purpose for a prison is to retain those who are violent, while we help them to change their behavior from that pattern to one that is nonviolent and even constructive so that they can return to the community” (Gilligan). Where in this statement does he tell us to make their stay unpleasant? Where does he promise lower crime and recidivism rates if we belittle and debase our inmates? Hard punishment without anything else does next to nothing in persuading criminals to change.

Let’s reflect on an age-old parenting secret: the more severely a child is punished, the more violent they become; teach by love, not anger. Yet, this is very effective with children, but surprise! It is just as effective with adults. If you treat them like criminals, they will behave like criminals. If you treat them as adults deserving of responsibility and provide them with the skills to live a productive and constructive life, they will rise to the challenge. This is the goal of rehabilitation.

A look at the groundbreaking Norwegian prison, Bastoy, confirms this. On Bastoy, home to 115 criminals, inmates live in a sort of self-contained city. They each have their own room in small, six-person bungalows. Each person uses a small food allowance to purchase and prepare two meals a day, with the third being served in a group setting. The inmates all have jobs, starting at 8:30 a.m., and are allowed time to relax at the end of the work day. Bastoy provides workshops and vocational training for the inmates to help provide them with useful skills (Erwin). This sort of prison helps the convicts to “practice” for life on the outside by giving them responsibilities and respect. By giving them a sense of purpose, Bastoy and prisons like it, are giving inmates the ability to choose a better life, and in the process are actually lowering the country’s crime and prison reentry rates. This healthy approach to justice, with an eye on fixing the problem, not just containing it, has proven much more effective than America’s current “punishment over rehabilitation” style.

Norway’s approach to incarceration aligns with the five goals a prison should have. According to criminologist Bob Cameron, prisons should be working toward five main things: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restoration, and rehabilitation (Sterbenz). In other words, punish the criminal for the crime, prevent them from committing other crimes, and teach them how to be better. The problem in America is that we base our prison stays on revenge first, and rehabilitation later, if at all. Somehow, as a country, we think that this revenge philosophy will give peace of mind to those who have been victimized.

We’ve all heard the age-old adage, “An eye for an eye leaves the world blind,” and that’s exactly where America is headed. We use prison solely as punishment, as retribution for the crimes committed, but without the restoration and rehabilitation part, we aren’t really accomplishing anything, Sure, putting a criminal behind bars does a little to satisfy the needs of victims for justice, but there are other things we could be doing, in addition to prison time, that are more effective and prove better overall for both criminal and victim.

One groundbreaking new program, known as the Insight Prison Project (IPP), is aiming to prove that retribution and rehabilitation can go hand in hand. Jill Suttie spent time observing the IPP and came to the conclusion that there could be nothing more effective for prisoner rehabilitation than the opportunity to build bridges and form bonds with survivors of crimes similar to those they previously committed. The IPP brings inmates and survivors together in something called victim-offender mediation to help heal the damage that has been caused.

Dionne Wilson, widow of a murdered cop, can attest to the effectiveness of these programs on both herself, as a survivor, and on the inmate. Wilson regularly volunteers in this program, saying, “[W]hen you’re sitting across from a person who has pulled the trigger and ended another person’s life, and you are telling them about your child attending their father’s funeral, you see the impact on that man. That helps to heal me” (Suttie). With her husband’s killer behind bars, Dionne does feel a bit of peace, but through the efforts of programs such as this, she feels more at ease, knowing that there is help for his killer, knowing that there is a chance he can change for the better. That is the benefit of the IPP and programs like it. It helps not only the inmate but also victims, to accept the past and to move on.

On the other side of the table sits Robert Frye, a man on year 26 of a 25 years-to-life sentence for armed robbery with homicide. He decided to participate in this Victim Offender Education Group (VOEG) after taking a trial meditation course offered at the San Quentin prison and felt interested in the introspective, self-confrontative idea of the project. It helped him, and many of his fellow inmates, to cope with and come to terms with the damage that they had done (Suttie). Just as it helped Dionne Wilson, a victim, this program has helped Frye, a perpetrator, and countless other inmates, to want to change and start down a better path in their lives.

VOEG programs like the IPP put inmates through a year-long program to help them learn to open up to and trust one another, and to take responsibility for the harm they have caused. They look at crime’s impact on the community, not just on the victims but on everyone around them as well. They participate in empathy training, anger and stress management, and emotional regulation. After completing this program, Frye was released and still helps to facilitate the mediation process. “I’ve seen guys that were coming with almost no insight into themselves…, but being able to share their story of victimization with the direct survivors of a similar crime…, you just see the positive change that happens, and it’s reciprocal” (Suttie).

Studies into restorative justice projects like VOEG show that these programs are effective at not only lowering recidivism but also in an increase of victim/survivor satisfaction. In other words, they help the inmates to become better people, and they also give more peace of mind to victims than the traditional incarceration approach. This program at San Quentin Federal Prison is one of the only restorative justice programs being readily implemented in our country, but seeing the progress it has made in this one facility is astounding, prompting the question, “Why are we not doing this kind of thing more often?”

The real answer to why we don’t have more programs like this is money. Yes, a dramatic shift from our current prison system to ones like Bastoy and Halden would be expensive. If we are looking solely at cost efficiency, a type of restorative justice that is seeing great success in places like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia may be exactly where the United States can start its rehabilitation journey. This six-part program is based on basic human needs and the ability to change, and would not have near the dramatic cost of many rehabilitation programs. Though some of the steps may seem counterintuitive to the purpose of incarceration, they align with the aforementioned five goals of a prison system.

This program starts off with a risk/needs assessment to determine the chance of reoffending and to assess the inmate’s criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are the components of an offender’s life that give to their criminal acts but aren’t considered physiological needs. These are drug/alcohol abuse problems, a lack of self-control, or an antisocial peer group. These are elements that are not generally considered basic needs but nonetheless contribute to a person’s criminality. Once they have been assessed, the best course of treatment can then be decided. Knowing what will work best for each inmate is the key to helping them overcome their criminal tendencies.

The second step is to identify individual motivators, things that are specific to the person being helped. Some people may be intrinsically motivated and driven by a power within themselves. Most people that end up in our prisons are not going to be intrinsically motivated, but rather, extrinsically motivated. Offering them some form of motivation for good behavior and for making progress toward their goals is one of the most important steps in this process because it gives them something to look forward to and to work toward. They need to rely on increased yard time or extra privileges to motivate them. This would be a relatively easy and inexpensive way to prompt personal change in the inmates, warranting only a few extra guard shifts to cover the additional yard time, or a small budget increase to cover the expense of external rewards.

Then we target an appropriate form of intervention. This means figuring out what will work for that specific person. While mediation might work for one person, another might turn to religion to help change their actions. It does more harm than good to put them in a treatment that they don’t need, so this is very specific to the individual. If they have a drug abuse problem, put them in a rehabilitation group to help break that dependency. If they are prone to violent outbursts, help them channel and control their anger through meditation and anger management. Find what they need help with and allow them access to that help. Implementing this step would be costlier up front, with a need for trained professionals to lead these groups and perhaps even individual counseling for some inmates. However, when we compare the initial medical costs for those with a drug habit to housing for extended/life-term prisoners, the cost is very little.

Following intervention, we have the fourth step: to “rewire the brain.” Using cognitive and behavioral shaping strategies can be successful when skills are not only taught but are repeatedly practiced, ingraining them in the brain. This helps to break bad habits through repetition of a new, better one. Practice might not make perfect, but it does indeed make permanent, so through reiteration of better habits, the brain can form new neural pathways and be trained away from ingrained criminal tendencies. This does, however, require repetition. This step takes dedication both on the part of the inmate, who hopefully at this point has found a desire to change, but also on the part of the guards, warden, and whoever else is aiding in the rehabilitation process.

Step five is to increase positive reinforcement. While repeated punishments quickly become meaningless, the brain responds quickly and powerfully to positive reinforcement. For every punishment, there should be four rewards. For an inmate, a reward can be as simple as a vocal appreciation of good behavior or may be paired with the motivators from step two. The best option for the implementation of this step is to use oral approval with an added benefit, such as extra yard time. Then the prisoner can learn to associate the good deed with not only good things but also approval from others. This can help solidify the development of morals in inmates who may not have been raised to know right from wrong.

All of these steps must be followed up by the sixth and final step: ongoing support upon the inmate’s release. This can take the form of a support group, religion, or even participation in this same program with other inmates upon release (Hooley). They need to keep up the habits that they have formed and continue to make good choices when they are living on their own again and not within the confines of a prison. The best way to do this is to establish a system of support on the outside. These six steps, working with one another, have been proven successful at rehabilitating inmates and giving them the desire to live a healthy and constructive life upon completion of their sentence. Implementing this process would be relatively easy, cost-efficient, and take moderately little time, all while putting in motion a program to limit recidivism and help criminals to get out and stay out. Really, when we weigh the benefits of these types of programs against the cost, it’s not hard to see that spending a little upfront to save a lot in the future is more than worth it.

As simple as the steps above are, the United States is still hesitant to implement them, mostly due to the fear of a bad reaction among civilians. With more prisons in America than universities, using Norway as an example may be a bit extreme, especially for the conservative side. I’ll admit letting prisoners all but roam free doesn’t sit well with most people, but everyone can tell that our current prison situation isn’t the best option either. Through the incorporation of programs like VOEG’s Insight Prison Project at San Quentin, meditation and mediation groups, victim outreach initiatives, and the simple six-step program, we can lower re-offense and re-entry rates in our prisons, and bring greater peace of mind and closure to victims and their families. These programs have been proven to work in countries around the world, so why not the United States? Why are we lagging behind in making our justice system a more humane and constructive place? Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to work toward a lower recidivism rate, to help these criminals see the error of their ways and actually want to change? These are questions that I know the answer to and readers will have to decide for themselves. Whether we accept the ideas of restorative justice or not, something has to change because our current system is not covering it anymore.

“People think there are circumstances where one may deal with human beings without love, but no such circumstances ever exist. Human beings cannot be handled without love. It cannot be otherwise, because mutual love is the fundamental law of human life” (Tolstoy, 450). Our current criminal justice practices remove love and replace it with punishment, prompting such phrases as “hardened criminal” to describe those who exit our justice system. When we appeal to our criminals with love and respect, we teach them that they are capable of leading productive lives. By giving them the means to do so while in prison, whether that be with tangible skills or through the process of cognitive and behavioral restructuring, we give them the confidence to make those same choices upon release and to become constructive and committed members of their communities. I am not proposing that we do away with prisons and give all of our criminals a life of luxury; I just ask that we shift to a more rehabilitation-friendly style of justice. Implementing restorative justice ideals into our prisons, on whatever scale, is proven to not only reduce recidivists but also to bring satisfaction to the survivors of crimes committed. Let’s build a system of love and respect, not just punishment and rejection.

Works Cited

Gilligan, James. “Punishment Fails. Rehabilitation Works.” New York Times. NYTimes, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Grimsrud, Ted. “8. Putting Restorative Justice into Practice.” Peace Theology. N.p., 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Hooley, Doug. “6 Evidence-based Practices Proven to Lower Recidivism.” CorrectionsOne. CorrectionsOne, 29 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

James, Erwin. “The Norwegian Prison Where Inmates Are Treated like People.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

“Site Sections.” Frequently Asked Questions. Nova Scotia Canada, 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Sterbenz, Christina. “Why Norway’s Prison System Is So Successful.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Suttie, Jill. “Can Restorative Justice Help Prisoners to Heal?” Greater Good. Berkeley, 9 June 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Tolstoy, Leo. Resurrection. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1966. Print.

“What Is Restorative Justice?” Restorative Justice. Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2016. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Williams, Audrey. “Prison Overcrowding Threatens Public Safety and State Budgets.” American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC, 8 Apr. 2014. Web.18 Feb. 2016.