The Wrong Solutions for Recidivism

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

(Romans 3:23-24).

Researchers have concluded that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and a minimum of some evidence to suggest prison creates a criminogenic effect. The implications of research findings are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe. These findings should be sobering for policymakers and inspire a willingness to know more about the science of imprisonment.

A key component of get-tough rhetoric is the assertion that throwing offenders behind bars will teach them that crime does not pay. In criminology, this idea is called rational choice theory. Its central premise is that people, including offenders, tend to commit less of a behavior as their cost increases. For example, as cigarettes or gasoline prices rise, people will smoke and drive less often. Not everyone, of course, will stop smoking and driving.

Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin vehemently expressed their position regarding incarceration in the United States by stating, “it is inexplicable that we place so many Americans behind bars and have only a weak scientific understanding of the effect of imprisonment.”[1] Additionally, expressing their dichotomy regarding recidivism, the authors stated,

"We have, then, two diametrical views about the effect of imprisonment on recidivism. Deterrence theory predicts that prisons increase the cost of offending and thus reduce recidivism. Social experience theory predicts that prisons increase criminal propensity and thus increase recidivism. Oddly, these two competing views have not been subjected to a wealth of rigorous empirical analyses."[2]

However, the authors of this article favored the deterrence theory and were bias towards the social experience. For example, citing the following details regarding recidivating: “Within three years of release, 67.5% of the prisoners were rearrested for a new offense, 46.9% were reconvicted for a new crime, and 25.4% were resentenced to prison. Notably, within three months of release, roughly 30% of the inmates had been rearrested.”[3] In another example, the authors cited Langan and Levin, “who also examined the rate of return to prison for either new crimes or technical violations, discovering that 51.8% ended up back behind bars.”[4]

This article recognized the arduous course and decision required to incarcerate a person, considering the seriousness of the act, the record and culpability of the offender, and the victims’ desire that crimes receive adequate punishment. Albeit science should be a factor that is considered in sentencing.[5] However, many policymakers and judges have made bold claims of unwanted behavior being deterred by incarceration, specifically when taking actions to place offenders in custody for years, if not decades.[6] Policymakers and judges need to make a collective stride in reverse and comprehend that detainment is not a panacea for the United States' crime problem.[7]

When formulating public policy, officials should know clearly whether imprisoning offenders will make them more or less criminal upon their return to society. Without such knowledge, ignorance reigns, and the risk rises that prison policies will needlessly endanger community safety, drain the public treasury, and entrap offenders in a life of crime.[8] Most criminologists would foresee that, on balance, wrongdoers become more, instead of less, criminally arranged because of their jail insight. In scholarly language, they would contend that detainment builds presentation to criminogenic hazard factors.[9] Although the evidence is restricted, low-risk offenders are likely to experience increased recidivism due to incarceration.[10] Thus, a wise approach to crime control would be broad-based and have an evident appreciation given the rigorous scientific evidence available for the limits of what imprisonment can accomplish.[11]

[1] Francis T. Cullen, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Daniel S. Nagin, “Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism,” The Prison Journal 91, no. 3_suppl (2011), 59. [2] ibid., 59. [3] ibid., 54. [4] ibid., 54. [5] ibid., 60. [6] ibid., 60. [7] ibid., 60. [8] ibid., 59. [9] ibid., 53. [10] ibid., 60. [11] ibid., 61.