By ARIELLE REICH
Recent crimes committed by paroled inmates have drawn attention to the prisoner release system in Connecticut. In the aftermath of those events, many have been quick to place blame on our parole system, arguing that criminals must be locked away for longer sentences with less, or zero, chance for parole. While that reaction is certainly understandable, and many of the proposed changes are worthy of discussion, there may be additional factors to consider when trying to lower rates of recidivism from criminals released back into society.
Certainly, the crime which sparked this debate was a particularly awful occurrence, and therefore something of a special case. However, since the issue is now at hand we should take this opportunity to explore the root causes of recidivism. In doing so, it’s critically important for lawmakers to consider not just length of punishment or access to parole for our criminals, but also the efforts we make to properly release those prisoners back into society.
Our legal system is based on the idea that individuals who commit crimes are entitled to a fair trial, and considering the crime, to serve time in a correctional facility that will ideally be both punitive and rehabilitative. Unfortunately, we spend little time
focusing on the support systems in place to assist former prisoners in their effort to reintegrate into law abiding society once their time is served. With the rapid increase in incarceration rates over the past thirty years, our state should be paying added attention to the process for releasing the prisoners once they have completed their
sentences, and difficulties ex-inmates face upon their release. (I’m excluding sex-offenders from this example as their recidivism rate has proven extremely high and these particular offenders have shown themselves to be extremely resistant to any therapeutic or rehabilitative process).
Former prisoners are seldom prepared for life outside the confines of prison. A greater focus on rehabilitative programming would undoubtedly reduce recidivism rates, and serve to protect the safety of our communities. I wonder if shifting the focus to programs designed to increase the success of prisoner reintegration would ultimately be more effective in saving tax resources and safeguarding our citizens.
Of the nearly 1.2 million inmates currently serving sentences in state and federal prisons in the United States, at least 95% will be released back into society at some point, at the rate of around six hundred thousand inmates leaving prison each year. Connecticut specifically is dealing with vastly overcrowded jails. Upon release, former inmates are forced to deal with obstacles that impede the process of gaining employment, finding safe and affordable housing, and maintaining their status as responsible citizens. In addition, with the lack of preparation for release while in jail, chances increase that the inmates will return to their former criminal behaviors and activity, often including drug use.
Prisoners, regardless of their ability, are often given sole responsibility for making plans for life outside of prison while they are still incarcerated. They are expected to return to their previous residences and transition from a completely dependent state to total independence and autonomy with little or no support. They’re often released during the night and typically given a small sum of cash, along with a bus or subway ticket, and left to find immediate essentials such as food, housing, and clothing on their own – not to mention things like health care.
In addition, restrictive housing codes, social stigma, employer discrimination, and untreated addiction and infectious diseases also serve as additional hurdles. It is often the case that former prisoners are left homeless and penniless with little training and education, and no choice other than to return to pre-jail associations, drugs, and crime.
If a criminal finishes paying his or her debt to society, don’t we owe that person a fair chance to reintegrate? And if not for the sake of the prisoners, then for the rest of the population who could possibly play victim to future crimes. In order for this state to function in a more socially just, fiscally efficient, healthy and safe way, we need to collectively develop a plan for knocking down the barriers to reintegration.
Interesting ideas, Arielle. I agree that we should focus on how we are releasing ex-inmates back into the population instead of assuming that we should lock them up and throw away the key. Also, I’d bet that in terms of spending, it would ultimately save money to institute programs that would help lower the recidivism rate and therefore, the number of people incarcerated.