Reducing the Rate of Reoffense

Corrections empire, policies such as mandatory sentences, the elimination of good-time deductions, and the use of private vendors in service contracts were introduced. The rate of parole continued to decline and a high Prison construction has been on the rise in past decades. State governments have received federal funding to supplement the expense of building high-tech, super-maximum units to confine the "incorrigibles." Some of us may remember the chants of "not in our backyard" by disgruntled Massachusetts communities to resist prison expansion. In response to such legitimate concerns, the building of prison complexes in the towns of Shirley and Bridgewater were accompanied by additional funding for the local treasuries.

With the emphasis on construction and establishing a Department of percentage of prisoners, after completing sentences, were released into the community without supervision, skills, or sacrament. At the same time, rehabilitative programming diminished and the DOC authorities primary objective became maintaining maximum and medium facilities at full capacity.

After the brutal murder of a former priest in the new super-maximum prison at Shirley, Governor Romney convened a commission to examine DOC policies and practices. There was a thorough examination of the circumstances of the murder, a review of security procedures, and suggestions were made to prison authorities for short and long-term implementation changes. One of the primary recommendations, which prompted an immediate response from the DOC Commissioner, was to focus on reducing the rate of reoffense. The purpose of incarceration has always been punishment as well as the rehabilitation of the felon to prevent repetition of negative behavior. Who is responsible for preparing the convict to return to society as a law-abiding citizen? In past years the weight was placed on the prisoner to change, even though the DOC receives up to $50,000 for care and custody.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts initiative towards penal reform began in 1972 with Chapter 777, legislation that introduced rehabilitative programs (work, education, furloughs) into the prison system. Based upon DOC statistics, prisoners who have participated in these types of pre-release programs are more successful upon release. Yet, following the Willie Horton fiasco in 1987 during the Dukakis presidential campaign, restrictions were placed specifically upon the furlough program. First, lifers were prohibited from participating in this program and the process of elimination continued with the exclusion of sex, violent, and drug offenders, as well as immigrants and those with either parole violations or prior escapes. Who is left?

After thirty years, the furlough program is non-existent and the pre-release/halfway house participation is severely limited. Most prisoners are being released into the community from walled institutions and without the recommended transition of maximum security to medium to minimum to pre-release-halfway house and, finally, to home! The recidivism numbers indicate a higher return rate of the prisoners released from walled institutions and the confinement costs are more expensive than lower-custody status. Thus, it is not cost-effective in money and results, which the penologist is cognitive of as well as others involved with the criminal justice system.

It is important to reverse this trend and reduce the rate of re-offending. Correctional experts will argue for complex intensive programming while advocating for increased funding. Let's keep it simple: re-establish the furlough program throughout the prison system, expand the minimum/pre-release placements, and increase the scope of the academic programs.

Other suggestions are to change the pay-scale for institutional jobs to prepare the prisoner for eventual release. A dollar-a-day job is not consistent with a "reducing the rate of reoffending" philosophy. Health and fitness programs must also be evaluated. The prison dentist must be required to clean and fix teeth, not just extract them when they are a problem. A person is reluctant to smile on release day without teeth.

Published on www.edgeboston.com on 01-04-05