Drug Rehabilitation versus Incarceration - Research Paper Example

Running Head: DRUG REHABILITATION VERSUS INCARCERATION Topic: Drug Rehabilitation versus Incarceration Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Rehabilitation is an act of restoring the behavior of a person to become a valuable person in the society. Someone who is regarded as a criminal due to antisocial behavior can be rehabilitated to re-establish reputation and respect in the community within which he lives. Incarceration on the other hand is the act of denying a person some of the freedom that other people enjoy. For example, even if the person is guaranteed human rights, he/she may be denied the opportunity of free association and interaction with the other members of the society over a specified time whose length depends on the gravity of the crime. In the contemporary society, there are different opinions regarding the effectiveness of incarceration in deterring crime. Critics of incarceration argue that there is a possibility of accelerating the development of anti-social behavior in individuals that are isolated from the society by virtue of their conduct. The environment in which they live may affect accomplishment of the goal of incarceration. This paper presents a critique of the two forms of dealing with drug use in the society, supporting the view that drug rehabilitation is effective than incarceration. Drug Rehabilitation versus Incarceration Successful rehabilitation programs usually play an important role in reducing recidivism. The offenders are categorized according to the risk factors of the crime. The risk principle is significant in ensuring that the treatment and control given to the offenders match the level of risk. According to Stover (2001), risk is the possibility of the offender repeating the crime. The low risk offenders are those that have a low possibility of committing the offense for a second time. They are given relatively less intensive supervision and treatment compared to the high risk offenders who are associated with several risk factors, meaning that they have a high probability of re-offending. Incarceration is usually in-effective as regards the level of treatment and supervision given to the offenders. All the prisoners are usually treated in the same way apart from the length of imprisonment. In other words, incarceration is applied on the basis that prisons are the ultimate destiny of offenders at all levels. For example, a person convicted of drug use or rape is treated in the same treatment in the prison whereas rehabilitation would begin by assessing the level of risk to determine the probability of recidivism. Factors such as moral values, living environment and such conditions that may influence the occurrence of an offence are considered for effective rehabilitation. The needs principle is usually significant in dealing with the issues and the needs that are found to be the cause of occurrence. In other words, rehabilitation is mainly concerned with the means rather than the ends compared to incarceration. This means that the drug user may be punished through incarceration but the driving force towards using the drugs remains undeterred. It is therefore likely that after completion of the prison term, the person will revert to drugs, not withstanding the experience in prison. Failure to deal with the problems that lead to crime according to Paula (2004) is a major cause of recidivism. Incarceration in such cases serves as a collection center for offenders with different needs that are treated in the same way and may present a favorable environment for contagion amongst the inmates. Such contagion significantly affects the behavior of offenders and they may become even worse after leaving prison. In most cases, incarceration involves a relationship between the prison administration and officers who are trained to supervise the prisoners as they undertake their punishment. They are trained to ensure that the prisoners do not escape as well as maintaining calm among the prisoners in cells as well as in the field where they work. Prisons also ensure that good physical health of the prisoners. However, their psychological needs are usually not a major issue for the prison authorities in many situations. In fact, they are meant to suffer for the offense committed so that it can serve as an aide memoire of the consequences of crime. However, such punishment fails to take into consideration the fact that the offenders will dread incarceration rather than view it as a correction facility, meaning that they will ensure that they are able to evade authority as they continue with their unlawful activities. Paula (2004) observes that prisoners usually recount their experiences in crime and the manner in which they were caught. They tend to evaluate the mistake that they made leading to their capture and vow never to repeat the blunder. In other words, their worst fear is getting caught rather than desisting drug use. Such people ensure that they destroy evidence of their unlawful activities even if it means taking the life of a crucial witness. Rehabilitation on the other hand is focused on intellectual and behavioral approaches to character change. The responsivity principle applies in rehabilitation whereby the treatment and supervision that is given to the offender is in such a way that is receptive to the learning style of the convicts. The method of treatment is designed in such a way that maximizes transformation for the convicts. The techniques for treatment apply therapy that has been proved to work for the particular group of offenders who are motivated to participate in the process. They are encouraged to be ready to accept the change, which is a significant factor for receptivity to the learning style (Alex and Laurence, 2010). Rehabilitation also ensures that there is a strong relationship that exists between the offenders and professionals in human rehabilitation practice. This helps in reducing recidivism since the relationship continues even after the offenders have undergone the rehabilitation period. First time drug users can effectively be counseled to change the anti-social behavior before it becomes entrenched in their lives. The use of pro-social modeling is significant in rehabilitation of drug users compared to incarceration. It involves developing pro-social values among the offenders. This is accomplished through strategic interactions between the professionals and the convicted persons to model positive behaviors. The supervisors promote pro-social expressions among the offenders and actions and suppressing anti-social behaviors and actions to ensure that there is a positive behavioral change. The supervisors collaborate with the clients in problem solving such that the offenders are not left alone to solve psychological problems that may affect their capacity to change. Pro-social modeling is an integrated intercession technique that enhances self understanding among the clients as regards their role and that of the professionals in the supervision process. Supervision involves identifying and supporting the positive actions and utterances of the drug users while discouraging the anti-social disposition. Incarceration in many situations is conducted in an ad hoc manner whereby the drug users are jailed within the shortest time possible after arrest (Paula, 2004). On the other hand, the inmates are usually convicted of different offences that are associated with different criminogenic needs. This means that incarceration acts as an overall treatment for all the types of offences committed. Such an approach may not be effective because it does not address the needs of individuals. For example, a prison sentence for a drug dealer who does not use the drugs that he/she sells and a sentence for an individual convicted of using drugs do not have the same basis as regards the motive of the crimes. The criminogenic needs for the dealer may be economic while those of the user may be psychological. When both are imprisoned, they are likely to revert to the anti-social activities due to lack of meaning in their sentences (Stover, 2001). In other words, it is better to address the cause of a problem rather than concerted efforts on the problem alone. Rehabilitation leads to re-socialization of a drug user so that he/she can undergo a psychological transformation, which allows the individual to effectively adapt to the new rehabilitation environment that is different from the one that he/she was originally accustomed to. For example, a person who has grown up in a group of individuals that are used to drug use can effectively adapt to a pro-social environment through the process of re-socialization. This can not be accomplished through incarceration whereby individuals with different anti-social character are congregated in prisons. It is highly unlikely for them to change their behavior due to the fact that they remain in an environment that they are used to apart from the intense supervision in prison. In other words, they behave differently in prison because of the presence of warders who may punish them if they fail to follow the prison rules. Nevertheless, they become unruly when they are out of the limitations in prison. Carlson and Garrett (1999) argue that if prisons could be effective in reforming offenders, cases of prisoners escaping whenever the warders are reluctant in their supervision. The relationship is sometimes hostile to the extent that prisoners are assaulted by prison warders, some even getting killed. Many criminal justice systems use significant resources in establishing and maintaining prisons. However, their effectiveness in deterring recidivism is questionable since as studies indicate, the rate of recidivism is higher among the people who have completed imprisonment terms than those that have undergone rehabilitation (Alex and Laurence, 2010). The cost of incarceration is higher than rehabilitation because the prisoners have to be provided with all the basic needs, especially food and healthcare which have to remain in constant supply. Overcrowding in cells usually poses a threat to health of the inmates, which has to be maintained through the tax payers’ money. For example, prevention of reversion of the use of drugs is relatively cheaper than a jail sentence that does address the relapse. As Debra (1996) observes, that rehabilitation is three fold cheaper than incarceration. Imprisonment may adversely affect the well-being of offenders. They might become insane especially when they are imprisoned for a long period. This can not be regarded as deterrence but rather a deprivation of liberty that affects proper functioning of the mind. There is a possibility that inmates may die in prison thereby making incarceration to lack meaning especially due to the fact that once life is lost it can not be reclaimed. On the other hand, incarceration depends on the effectiveness of the criminal justice systems. In other words, people who have been wrongly accused of an offence may end up being imprisoned for many years, which means that their productive lives may be wasted in prison unnecessarily. This can be avoided through rehabilitation, which is case specific and addresses a particular problem that has been identified (Carlson and Garrett, 1999). Apart from the costs involved in maintaining an offender in prison, it is also costly to maintain his/her dependants. For example, if the prisoner is the sole bread winner in the family, the children will have to depend on the government for their basic needs where as rehabilitation would allow the individual to continue fending for the family as he/she undergoes the criminogenic needs are addressed. In most cases, especially in the less developed countries, incarceration of the offender causes suffering in the family due to lack of basic needs and education, which may further lead to the temptations of anti-social behavior such as stealing for survival. Failure to acquire essential education may also lead to anti-social behavior associated with ignorance (Nurse, 2002). A person who is a non-offender can be easily recognized in rehabilitation, which may not be accomplished in the criminal justice procedures. This is because rehabilitation deals with cognitive qualities that apparent to the professionals. The prisoners are also exposed to aggressive behavior of other prisoners. The prisons house serial killers people convicted of heinous crimes and many who can not relate well with other members of the society. Such people are a threat to the convicts of minor offences who may have been involved in crime through peer influence or simple crimes such as careless driving and drunkenness. For example, alcohol intoxication lasts for several hours but in some cities, a person may serve a jail term for anti-social behavior due to drunkenness. Incarceration in such a situation may not be effective compared to rehabilitation. The behavior of such minority groups languishing in prisons may be surpassed by the majority who are convicted of grave crimes (Alex and Laurence, 2010). Prisoners in many occasions have become masterminds of unlawful activities in the society especially if they are disgruntled with the freedom of their “enemies” while they suffer in captivity. Such actions mean that they are unlikely to change even if they are imprisoned for life. The moment they are set free on parole may present them with a most longed opportunity to accomplish their goal. On the other hand, life incarceration is just a way of separating the prisoners from the society, which means that they are not expected to ever again be productive for the nation. In other words, they are no longer of use to the society, which makes incarceration an ineffective way in regard to restoration of the society’s integrity (Debra, 1996). In general, many problems associated with incarceration can be effectively dealt with through rehabilitation of offenders. Conclusion Rehabilitation of offenders is usually more effective than incarceration in deterring recidivism mainly because processionals apply a case specific approach in helping the offenders to reform. The risk principle allows the professionals to classify and deal with the offenders according to the level of risk. The needs principle on the other hand helps in addressing the causative factors of the offence while the responsivity principle facilitates learning through adopting techniques that match the offender’s learning style. Pro-social modeling is also significant in deterring recidivism and it allows professionals to facilitate transformation of an individual’s behavior through helping him/her to adapt to a new environment of pro-social behavior. In general, the principles applied in rehabilitation give it an upper hand in transforming individuals and helping them to desist from crime. Rehabilitation also allows re-socialization. These principles are absent in incarceration, which applies a common approach towards punishment of offenders, thereby failing to address the causative factors. Incarceration affects the lives of offenders and their families and is also associated with high costs of maintaining them in prison. Moreover, wrongly accused individuals may be jailed while in rehabilitation, it is possible to identify a wrongly indicted person. Rehabilitation is therefore more effective than incarceration. References Alex R. P. and Laurence, S. (2010). “Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38(1) pp 1-6 Carlson, P. M., Garrett, J. S. (1999). Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory, Jones and Barlett Publishers.  Debra A. H. (1996). “Vocational Rehabilitation Services for an Offender Population”. The Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 62, p 66 Nurse, A. M. (2002). Fatherhood Arrested: Parenting From Within the Juvenile Justice System. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Paula C. J., (2004). Inner Lives: Voices of African American Women in Prison, New Yolk University Press.   Stover H, (2001). “Overview study. An assistance to drug users in European prisons” EMCDDA p. 304. Read More