---

We should consider reevaluating and reforming the current system to a more educational and rehabilitative approach.

---

This essay was composed in October 2024 and uses MLA documentation.

---

Introduction

The United States has held the title of having the highest number of prisoners since 2009. This high number is due to the “tough on crime” approach adopted in 1972, which focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. It’s clear that our prison system desperately needs a change. Psychology Today, the APA, and the Office of Justice Programs agree that we need to shift towards a more rehabilitative approach that acknowledges the potential for positive change within individuals. The current punitive system not only neglects this potential but also has a devastating ripple effect on families, particularly children, as highlighted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). The National Institute of Health (NIH), the documentary The New Asylums, and The American Action Forum show how this system does not give the help and support that those with disabilities need, as well as perpetuates economic inequality, making it even harder for people to break free from this cycle. It’s also incredibly difficult for people to successfully reintegrate back into society after being incarcerated. Both NPR and the Harvard Political Review explain the fundamental challenges prisoners face, such as housing and job placement, including common issues we don’t always see. Issue like poor living conditions and a lack of mental health support often go unnoticed. This evidence, from the impact on families to the difficulties of reintegration, shows how flawed our current prison system is and why we desperately need to change it.

Arguments for Our Current System

The Deterrence Effect

The deterrence effect is a common principle underlying criminal justice systems, and it underpins many people’s perceptions of the justice system in the US. In a general context, the deterrence effect is where negative consequences for an action are so high that doing that thing doesn’t make sense. For instance, someone who is lactose intolerant would be unlikely to consume products with lactose after experiencing their adverse impacts: the outcome is not worth the reward. When looking at this more general application of the principle, the deterrence effect might appear to be a promising solution to prevent criminal behavior; however, studies by Yale University offer us a different perspective. The study by M. Keith Chen and Jesse M. Shapiro addresses the key problem with harsh prison sentences. They underline how harsher prison conditions may lead to more crime after release due to factors like lower job opportunities and the potential for prison life to encourage a more violent mindset after release. The study acknowledges that even though research has shown the deterrence effect to have an immediate impact on incarceration and crime rates, it proves ineffective in the long-run. They explain, “[O]ur findings suggest that inmates harsher prison conditions cause higher rates of post-release criminal behavior… Our results suggest these reductions may come at the cost of future crimes” (Chen and Shapiro). With these consequences being the case, it doesn’t make sense to maintain the current harsh punishment if the outcome does not act as a true deterrent for crime and has severely negative impacts on people when they are released. Surely a better solution exists, and I think this is one of the main reasons why we so badly need to reform and rebuild our prison systems.

Free Will

While Chen and Shapiro demonstrate the the long-term negative impacts when harsh punishments are meted out as part of deterrence, we must acknowledge that free will and personal responsibility play a role in the justice system. A philosophical paper published by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the significance of free will with both pro and con arguments about whether it truly exists. In one part, they explain, “In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert” (O’Connor and Franklin). This perspective provides valuable context for the claim that we are continuously weighing the consequences of our actions, as purported by the deterrence effect. We typically have a good idea of the consequences when we do something: If you commit a crime, it is highly possible that you will be identified and have to face the consequences, similar to “you do the crime you do the time.” The article raises a philosophical question: “The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?” (O’Connor and Franklin). Put into simple terms, because of the structure of society, are we truly free to do what we want? Because of the structure and rules within society, it can be implied that we do not have free will—instead, our actions are constantly being shaped by this structure rather than our own desires (or free will). Sure, we could do what we wanted, but because of the outcome—i.e., harsh prison sentences—people’s brains and morals won’t let them do it, which, in a sense, negates free will. The argument of free will and personal responsibility provides helpful backing to shaping the prison system around the deterrence effect because it demonstrates how large a role potentially negative consequences play in decision-making. It provides a deeper understanding of the reasoning for why our current prison system relies so heavily on deterrence.

Rehabilitation

To complicate the deterrent effect and discussions of free will, it is also important to discuss the effectiveness of rehabilitation in prison systems. In an article by The Guardian, a former director general of the Prison Service in the UK, Sir Martin Narey, has concluded that “the things we did to prisoners, the courses we put them on, the involvement of charities, made little or no difference” (qtd. in Taylor). Narey’s conclusions show a disturbing trend that current rehabilitation programs within prisons may not be effective. However, he further explains that even though prisoners receive short courses on rehab, these measures do not change some of the mitigating factors some prisoners are facing, like difficult childhoods. Narey states that “decent prisons in which prisoners are respected seem to provide a foundation for prisoner self-growth. Indecent, unsafe prisons allow no such growth and further damage to those who have to survive there” (qtd. in Taylor). This idea provides a basis for the understanding that we cannot change the pasts that people have had to live through. Instead, if we can respect them, it can foster them to grow as people in the hope that the recidivism rates will decline. Rehabilitation within the prison systems can only be effective when it is funded with resources that target all parts of the individuals rather than focusing only on deterrence. Rather than letting prisons devolve into places of violence, which the study by Chen and Shapiro supported Narey’s comments and showed that prison violence only increased crime when prisoners were released, rehabilitation can be effective within the prison system if it is underpinned with respect and humane practices.

The deterrence effect, personal responsibility, and the lack of rehabilitation effectiveness are all interconnected arguments that contribute to the support for our current prison system. The argument of personal responsibility and free will provides a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the current prison systems, as it suggests that individuals are capable of making choices and should be held accountable for their actions. This also goes along with the deterrence effect because it posits that if we have harsh punishments for crime and are “tough on crime,” fewer people are likely to do so. While the deterrence effect suggests that harsh punishments can deter crime, studies have shown that harsh prison conditions may lead to more crime after release due to factors like lower job opportunities and the potential for prison life to develop a taste for violence. The lack of rehabilitation effectiveness also makes a concerning argument about the ability that prisons have to change inmates’ behaviors and reduce the rates of recidivism. These reasons help us recognize the need for an in-depth approach to our justice system that includes punishment and rehabilitation to create a system that promotes public safety while allowing inmates to grow and develop.

Consequences of Our Current System

Impacts on Loved Ones

Not only does our current justice system fail to adequately deter criminal behavior and has the potential to perpetuate this behavior in the long-term for offenders, it has far reaching consequences on those who are connected to incarcerated individuals. We don’t always realize the effects on a family when they have a member, especially a parent, incarcerated. In an article by Eric Martin at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), he classifies the children of incarcerated parents as “hidden victims” (Martin). These hidden victims do not receive the support they need. Martin also states, “Children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice system, in particular, face a host of challenges and difficulties: psychological strain, antisocial behavior, suspension or expulsion from school, economic hardship, and criminal activity” (Martin). This critical issue cannot be overlooked: the same people who commit crimes might be in a loop because one of their parents was not present. This cycle becomes an even bigger problem when we realize that approximately 2.3 million people are imprisoned today. It is also important to mention that “1.7 million to 2.7 million” is the range of children who have experienced their parents being imprisoned at least once in their lives (Martin). That leaves lots of openings for those issues to develop. Martin also states that “the most common consequence of parental incarceration appears to fall under the umbrella of antisocial behavior, which describes any number of behaviors that go against social norms, including criminal acts and persistent dishonesty” (Martin). Let’s ask ourselves: do we want a society where the people who did not commit a crime are affected negatively just because of the things separate individuals did?

Mental Health of Prisoners

When I was in high school, I decided that I wanted to take AP Psychology. In this class, we learned about all of the components of the brain and body. One thing that stuck out to me was the portion on mental disabilities, more specifically, with the prison systems. We watched a documentary called The New Asylums, which talked about how, since the US disbanded the asylums, the prisons have taken their place. This point brings me to my second piece of supporting evidence: the link between incarceration rates and disabilities. Helen Gómez-Figueroa and Armando Camino-Proaño address the trends related to inmates having mental disorders, saying that “up to 90.7% of the inmates present at least one mental disorder; substance abuse was present in 87% of the inmates; suicidal ideation was present in 36.4%; and suicide attempts in 55.6%” (Gómez-Figueroa and Camino-Proaño).

Addressing the mental state of our prisoners is important. We should have a focus on empathy and understanding the individual needs of our inmates; after all, there are over 2 million in the US today, and they are not all bad people; many of them will rejoin society after serving their sentences, and it is essential that they are empowered to lead better lives. Gómez-Figueroa and Camino-Proaño discussing resources and the problems, explaining, “These results highlight the need to design pragmatic intervention programs that have the potential to improve access to mental health services in prisons, which are often riddled with delays or are inadequate. They also highlight the lack of psychiatric professionals trained to treat and prevent mental disorders in the prison setting, which means that providing incentives for academic and professional training in this field would be a positive step since the population in question has considerable mental health needs during their sentence and reinsertion into society” (Gómez-Figueroa and Camino-Proaño).

The Loop of Poverty

Compounding issues of mental health resources and rehabilitation are financial burdens. People can get stuck in a perpetual loop of poverty. Tara O’Neill Hayes and Margaret Barnhorst at the American Action Form outline the significant issue of the financial burden of crime that does not serve as an effective deterrent:

[A]nother significant share of the incarcerated population consists of individuals who have been arrested for a failure to pay debts or fines owed for minor infractions. Many legal infractions are punished through the imposition of fines. Courts also require defendants, guilty or not, to pay fees for myriad necessary services, such as court clerk fees, filing fees, DNA database fees, jury fees, crime lab fees, and late fees. Forty-three states require defendants to pay for their court-appointed lawyer, sometimes even when the accused is found not guilty. At least 41 states charge ‘room-and-board’ for time in prison, and every state, excluding Washington, D.C., requires wearers of home monitoring devices to pay for their use. Failure to pay these fines—or rather, failure to comply with a court order—can result in imprisonment, despite the fact that imprisoning an individual for inability to pay has been ruled unconstitutional. (Hayes and Barnhorst)

This issue is important because the going rate for accepting plea deals and not fighting a crime because they can’t afford to fight it is over 95%. This is a significant flaw within our system and, honestly, also needs to be changed.

Recidivism

Reintegrating people into society is not an easy task when they have adapted to the conditions of prison. One of the things that contributes to the challenges is the stigma related to having a criminal record. In an article by Harvard Political Review, Liz Benecchi explains that “when prisoners are released in Norway, they stay out of prison. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The U.S. has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are rearrested within five years.” We do not have to have this struggle for our prisoners. However, we still have not done anything about it. Benecchi also explains how it is hard for American prisoners to successfully reintegrate because of

an employer’s hesitancy to hire someone with a criminal record or the discouraging complexities and bureaucratic inefficiencies of occupational licensing. The process of obtaining an occupational license is long and tedious and, for those who were previously incarcerated, extremely difficult. Both federal and state governments have enacted more than 20,000 licensing restrictions on those with criminal records, and many don’t require any connection between a person’s offense and the duties of the licensed job. The states with the strictest licensing requirements tend to have the highest recidivism rates, so we must make occupational license applications available to those who are incarcerated to expedite the process. (Benecchi)

We so desperately need a change and reform.

Conclusion: Looking at Revisions and the Path Forward

Since the 1970s, we have become tougher on crime, started the war on drugs, and created harsher sentencing guidelines. With these all in place, we have shifted to a very negative and punitive approach to crime. Etienne Benson, a psychologist at the American Psychological Association (APA), argues in the article “Rehabilitate or Punish?” that a rehabilitative approach that promotes education, skill-building, and therapy, that way we can be more likely to change long-term behaviors (Benson). This point of view on the subject is also supported by William Kelly at Psychology Today. Kelly states that evidence demonstrates that harsh punishments don’t deter people from committing crimes; instead, these punitive measures can increase them. He also talks about how, instead of simply warehousing individuals, we should promote a system that invests in their rehab and provides certain tools for the individuals; that way, they can become productive members of society once they have completed their sentences (Kelly).

There is so much that I have covered in this essay, and it is important to know the positives of this system as well as the many outweighing negatives that arise. The logic that states that we need to be tough on crime for people to fully deter and limit crime is not effective. We have had this system in place for the past 50 years, and we have the highest imprisonment rate, mental health issues, and recidivism rates in the world. We should consider reevaluating and reforming the current system to a more educational and rehabilitative approach. What we also need is similar to Norway’s approach, where the community is very accepting, welcoming, and empathetic; therefore, we can lower our recidivism rates and keep people out of prisons and as hardworking individuals who might have some real successes. It is also apparent that our system is based on an oligopoly state where only the people who can afford good lawyers, good forensic analysts, good detectives, and the time of the court have a chance to come out on the other side instead of being wrongfully convicted. We have a long road ahead of us, but it does not go without mentioning that if we achieve it, we might have the same success Norway has with its society.

Works Cited

Anstiss, Brendan. “Just How Effective Is Correctional Treatment at Reducing Re-Offending?” Ara Poutama Aotearoa Department of Corrections, 5 Dec. 2016, www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/the-effectiveness-of-correctional-treatment/just-how-effective-is-correctional-treatment. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.

Benecchi, Liz. “Recidivism Imprisons American Progress.” Harvard Political Review, 8 Aug. 2021, harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Benson, Etienne. “Rehabilitate or Punish?” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, July 2003, www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

Chen, Keith M. and Jesse M. Shapiro. “Does Prison Harden Inmates? A Discontinuity-based Approach.” Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, no. 1726, 2004, https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cowles-discussion-paper-series/1726.

Delaney, Ruth, et al. “American History, Race, and Prison.” Vera Institute of Justice, 10 Oct. 2018, www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-web-report/american-history-race-and-prison. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.

Gómez-Figueroa, Helen, and Armando Camino-Proaño. “Mental and Behavioral Disorders in the Prison Context.” Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria, vol. 24, no. 2, 22 June 2022, pp. 66–74, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9578298/, https://doi.org/10.18176/resp.00052. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

Kelly, William. “Why Punishment Doesn’t Reduce Crime.” Psychology Today, 25 Apr. 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Martin, Eric. “Hidden Consequences: The Impact of Incarceration on Dependent Children | National Institute of Justice.” National Institute of Justice, 1 Mar. 2017, nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/hidden-consequences-impact-incarceration-dependent-children#child-criminal-involvement. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.

O’Connor, Timothy, and Christopher Franklin. “Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 Nov. 2022, plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

O’Neill Hayes, Tara, and Margaret Barnhorst. “Incarceration and Poverty in the United States.” American Action Forum, 30 June 2020, www.americanactionforum.org/research/incarceration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Taylor, Diane. “Prisoner Rehabilitation Does Not Work, Says Former Prisons Boss.” The Guardian, 29 October 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/29/prisoner-rehabilitation-does-not-work-says-former-prisons-boss.