Reintegration Program for Those Released from Prison - Essay Example

Reintegration Program for Those Released From Prison Introduction It is apparent that the issue of ex-offenders securing job has been contentious for a long time. According to Holzer (2003), about 600,000 ex-offenders are released from prison every year. However, the rate of recidivism continues to increase. Basically, prisons are considered as correction centers for offenders. Therefore, it is presumed that they change their behaviours once released from prison. Nevertheless, not all of them change, and, in fact, a good number of them return to prison for having committed similar offences they committed before or other related crimes. According to Langan & David (2002), this is a worrying tread that can be attributed to several factors such as unsuccessful reintegration with the community, lack of employment and other similar factors. In his study, Mays & Winfree (2009) found out that these factors leads to low self esteem and self denial that encourages the offender to resort to other crimes. In light of such deliberations, it is correct to point out that, to reduce the rate of crime and recidivism, there is a need to create conduce environment for ex-offenders by giving them opportunity be employed and access other social economic services. Rationale for the argument The biggest concern that is raised in regard to employment discrimination of ex-offenders is in regard to what contribute to employment discrimination. First, laws put in place could be argued to play a huge part on the phenomenon at hand. For instance, state laws create room for denial of employment of ex-offenders. Most states have different definitions of circumstances under which ex-offenders can be disqualified from employment (Gottfredson, 2001). Most of these laws stipulates on specific felonies that can automatically disqualify ex-offenders from employment. Others stipulate a certain time periods after one is released from prison before they are considered eligible for employment. However, as much as some of these laws would be seen to protect the welfare of the employer, they end up making things difficult for the ex-offenders. This is arguably true because as Mays & Winfree (2009) pointed out, lack of second chance for ex-offenders makes them develop immune to arrests and incarceration. In fact, a study conducted by Holzer (2003), found out that some offenders like it more in prison than when they are out in the community. They argue that the biggest and most intriguing thing about prison is that one is denied freedom of doing what they want and that there is no difference of being in prison and when out in the community because some privileges that once is supposed to have when out are not enjoyed. This is in regard to lack of employment and discrimination in other ways. As such, it is evident that some of these laws highly contribute to recidivism. However, the entire blame cannot be on the state laws that dictate on the employment qualification of ex-offenders. Several other factors have equally contributed to increased recidivism. Gaines & Roger (2011) argued that the behavior of individuals is shaped by the environment and individual characteristics. According to social psychology and personality theories, there are two main factors that determine the behaviour of an individual. These are related to social influence and patterns of thoughts and feelings (Agnew, Brezina, Wright & Cullen, 2002). Therefore, in order to effectively change the behavior of ex-offenders, there is a need to activate self esteem in them. In summary, the two basic factors that determine behavior of an individual are nature and nurture. Therefore, environmental factors are associated with external social factors that individual live in. The other factor relates to cognitive programming. Environmental factors and their importance in shaping the behavior of ex-offenders Environmental or external social factors that affect ex-offenders are related to how ex-offenders are treated after they are released from prison. When ex-offenders receive wrath treatment from the community, they feel neglected and worthless. Their self esteem is lowered and often finds other ways of coping. Some of these ways include drugs and engaging in crime. Many people disassociate themselves with ex-offenders for fear of peer pressure that could lead to them adapting the behaviors of the ex-offenders. They are no longer invited to social events or activities and also denied some economic assistance such as access to loans and other grants. With this kind of discrimination, ex-offenders develop coping mechanisms that see them back to prison. In another dimension, denying them employment opportunity makes their lives difficult given that most of them are come out of prison with nothing and some lose their jobs, businesses and even property. With many burdens on how to restart their lives again, they feel discouraged when denied employment. Some of them come out of prison when fully rehabilitated and ready to start a new life. When this happens, the only solution they are left with is to look for other means of earning a living. Since formal ways are always closed, the engage in criminal activities and drug peddling or abuse. Since some of them become accustomed to the prison life, they do not fear going back to prison thus they become a threat to the community. Department of correction is, therefore, required to offer assistance to such people. For instance, they should alliance with financial institutions to allow the ex-offenders access loans to start their own businesses or other meaningful adventures that would help them earn a living and stay away from criminal activities. Hodge (2009) documented that lack of employment have been linked to increased rate of crime in many societies. Therefore, it is evident that when ex-offenders are denied the right to employment, they end up engaging in criminal activities. Cognitive programming With such challenges facing ex-offenders, there is a need to have programs put in place in order to take care of their psychological needs. While in prison, such programs may include guidance and counseling to adequately prepare the offenders psychologically once they leave prison. They can be encouraged to view life in a positive way and to avoid criminal activities. Some of them end up in prison having not committed crime just because probably they were at the wrong place or with bad company (Steinberg, 2003). Such people undergo psychological torture and need help. In this regard, the department of correction needs to have probation officers so that they can help people with such misfortunes. They can recommend for lenient jail term or even be put under probation. Follow up programs could also help ex-offenders. Since the overall goal of prison is to help offenders change their behaviours, follow up programs should be prioritized in order to monitor the ex-offenders and offer them with the assistance they might need just to help them keep off from crime. These programs should be a set of reentry programs that incorporate community awareness programs (La Vigne, et al, 2006). Community need to be sensitized on the importance of accepting ex-offenders back in the community and not to discriminate against them. Different accounts of their transformation they underwent while in prison need to be communicated to the community and the assurance of their changed behavior given to the community. Different ways through which the community can help the ex-offenders need to be spelt out. The community should also be assured of continued monitoring of the ex-offenders by the probation officers (La Vigne, et al, 2006). This way, the community would be ready to accept the ex-offenders back to the community. With such measures in place and continued counseling even after being released from prison, their self esteem is raised and this would act as the first step towards changing their behaviors. They would start seeing life in a positive perspective. In addition, community policing can also help ex-offenders. Since this involves the situation where every member of the community monitors the behavior of others, the ex-offenders would tend to shun away from felonies because they know they are being watched by other people in the community. Counter argument of lowering employment requirement to hire ex-offenders The argument for strict or even higher employment requirement for ex-offenders is based on the fear of risks associated with ex-offenders conducts before they were released from prison. Basically, such fears and strict measures could be argued to be valid, but only to a small degree. The only achievable thing that can be connected to such strict measures is that they protect the interest of the employer and probably his employees, but the due to desperation, the ex-offenders turn to other desperate measures that end up hurting other people. Therefore, these measures cannot be effective because they take the form of solving a problem by creating another problem. Beside, no study has ever elucidated on the repeat of an offence by ex-offenders when employed just like any other innocent people. If anything, several studies have been conducted on the effects of lack of unemployment by ex-offenders where the rate of recidivism has been noted in most studies. Conversely, Hodge (2009) argued that a review of strict employment requirements for ex-offenders needs to be reviewed so as to comply with constitutional provisions. However, he retaliated that the constitution is not explicit on the law protecting the right of ex-offenders to employment and argued that there is a need for constitution review to clearly stipulate on the right of ex-offenders. Therefore, although the argument for strict employment requirements for ex-offenders can be based on the perspective of law, it is clear that the law is not explicit on the rights of ex-offenders thus this argument cannot entirely be used to discriminate against ex-offenders. In addition, the other argument is based on the fact that lack of employment opportunity for ex-offenders serves as a punishment to them for engaging in unlawful acts. Although this could be interpreted to be true to some extent, it is only based on a narrow view of the whole essence. When offenders are incarcerated, they pay for their offences while serving their jail term (La Vigne, et al, 2006). The decision to discriminate against them after they are released from prison acts as a second or double sentence. Apart from having paid for their crimes while serving their jail term, some of them emerge as new people fully changed. Therefore, the only best solution is not to continue punishing them, but to help them recover and move on with live. The idea of how to deal with ex-offenders can only be fruitful if a well framework of integrating with the community is developed. As much as discriminating against them may appear to be a justifiable revenge against them, more harm can emerge out of it. For instance, some ex-offenders may find themselves preoccupied with thoughts that could lead to serious mental disorders. The effects of this are believed to have dire consequences including suicide, committing of crime and depression. For that reason, it can be noted that instead of offering mitigation effects to the problem facing the ex-offenders, their situation worsens with more other people falling victims as well. In another dimension, it is apparent that some of the ex-offenders have good education and work experience and skills than other people in the society. Denying them a chance to work could mean losing an opportunity of hiring people that can bring change to the organization and the society at large. This is the same thing when it comes to denying them grants and access to finance services that can help them conduct some businesses. This is arguably true because some of the ex-offenders have good business skills that can help them improve their lives if offered with finances and other supporting facilities to start or grow their businesses. Conclusion With many deliberations on the argument of reducing employment requirements for ex-offenders, it is evident that imposing high and strict employment requirement for them only fuels the problem. Denying them social economic opportunities can lead to some of them engaging in other unlawful acts related to coping mechanisms when they feel they are not needed by the society. The end results is seen when some members of the society becomes victims of some of ex-offenders criminal activities this increasing the rate recidivism. The relevant authority should come up with support programs that enable them to effectively reintegrate with their community. The members of the public should also be educated on the need to accept ex-offenders back in the community as well as the effects of discriminating against them. Proper laws should be enacted in order to take care of the rights of ex-offenders especially those that involve basic needs that any other person requires. In light of such deliberations, it is correct to point out that, to reduce the rate of crime and recidivism, there is a need to create conduce environment for ex-offenders by giving them opportunity be employed and access other social economic services. References: Holzer, H. (2003). Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders. Retrieved on 25th March 2014 from: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/410855_holzer.pdf Langan, P & David, L. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Mays, L & Winfree, L. (2009). Essentials of Corrections. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Gaines, L. & Roger M (2011). Criminal Justice in Action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Gottfredson, M. (2001). Travis Hirschi. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, Calif. Stanford Univ. Press. Hodge, A. (2009). Understanding the Components within the Criminal Justice System 101. S. l.: Outskirts Press, 2009. Steinberg, L. (2003). Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence. American Psychological Association 58 (12), 1009–1018. Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J.P., & Cullen, F.T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40(1), 43-73. La Vigne, G. et al. (2006). Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. Washington: Urban Institute. Read More