"Research by American social scientists shows that all but the most exceptional criminals, even violent ones, mature out of lawbreaking before middle age, meaning that long sentences do little to prevent crime."
- Dana Goldstein-The Marshall Project
Written by: Sebastien Decker
Edited by: Keerthana Rao
The United States has the largest prison population in the world with a staggering 2.1 million individuals locked behind bars. Regardless of how menial or severe a crime might be, the consequences of a crime must be faced. The concept behind imprisonment is to serve as a rehabilitation facility for prisoners in order to correct their unlawful behaviors. The vast majority of these prisoners will eventually serve their sentence and return back into the world with the hopes that they will reintegrate back into society as a free, law-abiding citizen. However, the harsh reality that faces us is the high likelihood that many prisoners will be repeat offenders due to their environment and be swept back into the corrupt and brutal prison system. Although prisons are meant to serve as rehabilitation centers, over the years that focus has been lost. Most prisons in America aim to punish rather than rehabilitate. Even though there are numerous factors including environment, family, childhood, etc. that contribute to prisoners becoming repeat offenders post incarceration, one of the strongest, but often overlooked factor of these is actually the age of the individual. Data shows that younger offenders are the most likely to recidivate, with the odds slowly decreasing over time as they mature with age. This point raises many questions on how we as a society should look at the way we handle juvenile prisoners, the sentences they receive, and what we can do during an adolescent’s developmental years to not only reduce their chances of reoffending, but to reduce the chance of them committing a crime to begin with.
While it is safe to say that crime has no age limit, research conducted by the United States Sentencing commission (USSC) regarding federal crime, shows that the peak of initial offence rates in the majority of individuals is between the years of 15-19, with a steady decline in their early 20s thereafter. Additionally, upon release from prison, those younger than 21 have a 67.6% chance of recidivating, which is greater in comparison to those 65 or older who are only likely to do so 13.4% of the time. The severity of crime also varies among age groups. Younger offenders under 30 are more likely to reoffend related to violent offenses - with assault being the most prominent type (26.6%). Older offenders over the age of 60 are more likely to commit public order offences after release from prison, such as disorderly conduct, drug possession, public intoxication, or prostitution. The Commission also indicates how long it typically takes certain age groups to recidivate once their sentence is served. Those under 30 are the quickest to repeat crimes and do so on average within 17 months of their release in contrast to the average 28 months for those over 60 (USSC). The age-crime correlation is very clear and real, but still leaves many to wonder what causes it and what possibilities are out there to reduce the chances of youthful offenders from being swept up back into the system.
There is much speculation as to why juveniles are often victims to penal institutions. As indicated by the National Institute of Justice, there is a possibility that it could have a strong correlation with the maturity of the brain. Although this could potentially contribute to the case, research exhibits that the education of an individual plays a crucial part in determining whether they will be a repeat offender or not. The USSC states that for those under the age of 30 who were fortunate enough to finish college had a rate of recidivism of 27% (11.6% for those over 60). This percentage skyrocketed for high school dropouts to 74.4% (17.2% under 60). This correlation suggests that some form of higher education is greatly beneficial in making adolescents become law abiding individuals. The implementation of better education and an easier access to higher education could greatly improve the chances of our youth refraining from becoming repeat offenders and also help many individuals get their lives back on track after they serve their sentence - making for an easier reintegration into society. This opportunity could even be applied within prisons by providing prisoners with the opportunity to receive education and encourage prisoners to finish higher education while serving their sentence; This can have a great impact on driving down the recidivism rates over time. The general population in society can also help prevent juveniles from a life of crime by helping them before they reach their teen years. The National Institute of Justice suggests “early [childhood] interventions '' such as more encouragement for education at the preschool level, home nurse visits, parent management programs, and other social development projects - especially in less affluent neighborhoods where people are more vulnerable to crimes - could have serious breakthroughs for children and potentially deter them away from becoming initial offenders.
This information also could change the way we think about the type and length of prison sentences we are handing out to juveniles. Contrary to popular belief, harsher sentencing does little to deter crime and can also dramatically increase the chances of recidivating. For those sentenced to only prison time as rehabilitation, individuals under 30 have a 68.6% chance of recidivating. Evidence further shows that those that served 120 months or over were 68.1% more likely to reoffend. Many young individuals who remain in prison could be more prone to a life of crime as they observe criminal activity from more experienced prison mates, increasing their chances of returning to prison, therefore decreasing their chances of carrying out a productive future. A solution to this is to give offenders split sentences, meaning some of their sentence served in prison and some outside on probation such as community service. The data by the USSC portrays that it could actually decrease the chance of adolescents becoming repeat offenders down to 53.6% and spending no more than 6 months inside a prison facility for a sentence would reduce it down to 52.7%. By removing these individuals from an environment that can drastically increase their chances of criminal activity, society as a whole could benefit from this change by giving their youth a more rehabilitative approach to their crime - potentially leading to a deeper understanding of an honest life, therefore leading to the possible eradication of criminal activity in their lives.
There are multiple theories for what is the best way to eliminate the possibility of re offenders. For example, journalist German Lopez and social activist Marc Mauer suggest the United States take the approach of Norway, which caps the maximum prison sentence at 20 years (Goldstein)(Lopez). Although this idea may seem absurd to Americans as life sentences are fairly common, for a country like Norway, this is a reality in their criminal justice system. Which believes that prisons are meant for rehabilitation and refuse to sentence an individual for life as it is determined inhumane. Even some of the most heinous crimes that take place are bound to this standard. For instance, Anders Behring Breivik was convicted in Norway for killing 77 people, mostly teenagers, and was sentenced to a maximum of 20 years. It is important to note the caveat to this 20-year cap, which reserves them a right to add an additional 5 years onto the sentence if evaluation of the prisoner suggests that they still pose a threat to the public (Goldstein). This is implemented with the belief that humans are capable of change, regardless of how severe the crime. While it is extremely doubtful the United States would consider this drastic approach as some people psychologically are incapable of changing once a crime so brutal has been committed, it does raise the question of what alternatives we could implement that we have not considered to decrease the chances of both recidivism in youths and the reduction of crime in our overall society.
Mass incarceration is certainly prevalent in America and while there are a plethora of causes for the high number of imprisoned individuals and various possible ways to regulate the situation, the most effective way to reduce the number of incarcerated people is to provide a better environment and more education for the youth. The United States would benefit from putting more effort into the care and education during the developmental stages of children in order to prevent them from going to prison initially. Furthermore, facilitating a better rehabilitation method than being thrown into a brutal environment and providing further education for those currently incarcerated can greatly reduce the chances of repeat offenses. This alone would by no means solve the prison problem in America, and there will always be anomalies of older offenders recidivating, but a small change like this now, could create a deep impact on future generations.
[The views expressed in this article are those of the author and the author alone; they do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the first RULR Editorial Board and Rutgers University.]
Comentarios