Then what are you proposing that isn't already in place?
No. I'm talking about ones that work, like the ones I've referenced and the ones you've ignored.
There are hundreds of programs in the current corrections system like this being used today.
Very few if any of them actually work.
Exactly. The ones I'm not talking about, and you're pretending I'm talking about because you haven't given me courtesy of noting my sources. I recommend you re-read the last sentence of my last post (or read for the first time, perhaps).
In order to rehabilitate ANYONE for ANYTHING (criminal lifestyle, drug habit, etc), the person has to WANT to rehabilitate, they have to want to make a change. You can't "brainwash" them by "coaching" them into making better choices.
Firstly, the trick is to get people to want to rehabilitate. It's not that difficult, in fact; most want to get back as a functioning member of society and avoid further infraction (particularly following a first offense, the most important time). Secondly, depending on how you define "brainwash" (certainly a word with a negative connotation), you can actually coach people into making better choices (if they're willing to learn, as you noted). It's not as easy as offenders wanting to make better choices, that doesn't do it; (good, effective) rehabilitative programs can bridge that gap and do a lot of good.
The problem comes when the person is released and returns to the same environment they were in when they left. Thus my mention of funding to move people to another location and get them a job, etc.
And thus the source I gave you of such a program (a highly successful, effective program, unlike the ones you rightfully mentioned). Programs such as these (which are not as common as they ought to be, in my opinion), help the offenders and lift a burden from the taxpayers by doing a lot to prevent recidivism. So are we in agreement here, that what you mention up there is a large part of the problem, and that it can be solved? Look, a sentence without a parenthetical statement, right there (do you see it?)!
Also, it's more than moving people to another location and giving them a job, other important aspects of the program are career counseling, furthering/completing education, and giving people valuable occupational skills. With Delancey Street (the program I sourced), no, the jobs they're given are not available to the public, because all of the workers are part of the program.
So your 25% less repeat offenders "study" is merely pointing out that the methods of rehabilitation assisted more with helping those who already wanted to make a change. I will give your study that much credit.
Yes, 25% less than a control group didn't reoffend. The same 25% in the control group that helped those who wanted to change got nothing, and reoffended. That's a big difference, and a big help. Furthermore, this particular program is a lonely example, an island in a sea of pure punitive justice if you will. The real scope of effective rehabilitation has not been seen in the U.S.. If such programs were maximized, focused on first offenders, and treated (at least initially) with something of a scientific bent to see what is most effective, results could be much higher. The goals that I mentioned above could be perhaps achieved in a large part. Studies such as that one are really just a sampling, a small, though important, example and not wholly representative of the capability of restorative reform and rehabilitative programs.
And to an extent the first line of "rehabilitative" programs aims to do that too. That would be called probation. As im certain you know probation comes with suspending a sentence and requiring someone to meet certain conditions based upon the circumstances involving the specific offense to which the subject has been found guilty of.
Unfortunately the vast majority of repeat offenders are beyond rehabilitation because they do not care nor desire to make a change in their lifestyle.
I'm not challenging this at this juncture(I somewhat agree, though it would be best if you provide a source, a study, a report, et cetera). However, this is true
because of a cardinal failing in our justice system; when someone goes through the system the first time without effective rehabilitation, though they may want on some level to change their ways, they offend again much more often. After another time or two, they often feel hopeless, like they can't change, and therefore cease wanting to; the desire that you mention vanishes. This is not generally a problem with human nature as much as it is our own programs. There is a lot of potential here, potential we haven't explored.
And should that day come when a repeat offender decides he/she wants to make a change, they will seek the help they need either while still incarcerated or after their release.
You know, from this whole thing I had you figured for something of a fatalistic pessimist, Caine, but you threw me for a loop on this one.
That's a lot of confidence that you're putting in the human spirit, though, that if a repeat offender kinda feels like he or she might want to fly straight, that he or she will just go right out there and seek out the help he or she needs. I believe some people will, absolutely, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would like to change their ways but might not have the gusto, if you will, to just set on out there. Ideally, we would maximize the exposure to inmates about the aforementioned programs (all inmates do not have said resources when in prison, as you said, and all of them do not have easy access to them upon release, dumping them into the same environments that got them into the position in the first place).
I think, perhaps, a lot of this disagreement stems from your experience on the police force, and mine in other parts of the justice system. I hope we can reconcile our differences here and come to an agreement. :mrgreen:
Duke