From the beginning of time to even now, the criminal justice and political fields have been filled with timeless debates on how countries and rules should be implemented and conducted. One of the longest arguments of the 21st century comes on whether jails and prisons should focus more on rehabilitation and skill training rather than containment and punishment.
And as with all debates, there are two sides: one side for jails to be used primarily for Prioritizing Rehabilitation and Skill Training, and the other for jails solely for Retaining Punishment and Containment.
Research and several professional studies have shown stats and information that vastly indicate that when prisons give priority to convict rehabilitation, it is overall better for public safety as well as helps cultivate better outcomes for low-income communities’ crime rates. Around half a million people get released from prison each year; if we can create a world where even 60 to 75 percent of those individuals are better skilled for work and jobs as well as better prepared for reentry into society, it would create an overall better nation.
On the flip side there are many people who equally see prison as an institution that should remain focused on keeping criminals and felons accountable and removed for public safety. Many see the traditional style of sentencing as a core purpose of the judicial and justice system to hold offenders accountable for the damage and harm they have caused within their communities and society as a whole. They also argue that people who commit the worst of the worst crimes deserve extreme containment and aren’t worthy of reintegration assistance and efforts at all.
I honestly believe whether an inmate receives rehabilitation or reintegration assistance should be case-by-case and based on the crime and aspects like psych reports and character evaluation. The more heinous the crime, the less likely the person should be to receive help; the more “fixable” the person, the more likely they should be to get proper help.
