Georgeanna wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2018, 1:59 pm
However, I think in terms of the individual, the victim and the community, it makes sense to focus on positive rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation programs of all kinds --- focusing on education, drug treatment, therapy, counseling, work training, etc., have been tried for decades in US prison systems. The best of these reduce recidivism rates by about 25% --- i.e., instead of 76% of released inmates re-offending within 5 years, only 56% re-offend. And those "best" programs tend to be small pilot programs intensively staffed by researchers and highly trained professionals. When those programs are expanded to real-world prison populations and implemented by the existing bureaucracy, the success rate drops.
Reported success rates for the various rehabilitation schemes suffer from another, endemic problem --- -
selection bias. Inmates cannot be forced to participate in rehab programs. Hence random assignment of inmates with similar backgrounds and demographics to treatment groups and control groups is not possible. So those who choose to participate are very likely to be more motivated to change their ways, and thus less likely to re-offend, with or without the program, thus overstating the program's benefits.
No one thinks rehab programs, even if optimally chosen and implemented, will reduce recidivism by more than 15-20%.
https://www.nij.gov/journals/268/pages/ ... ubble.aspx
Advocates for rehab programs need to keep in mind the
primary purpose of a criminal justice system --- protecting the public from the depredations of criminals. They are not welfare agencies. Some inmates will benefit from rehabilitation programs; most won't. And if those who won't are released early because they have participated in one of those programs, the system fails the public.