Correctional education has been a part of the criminal justice system of the USA for decades, but it still evokes a rather heated debate on the matter. The supporters of such programs claim that correctional education reduces recidivism and gives “many more options” to offenders (qtd. in Bates 225).
Opponents of this practice argue that many lawful people cannot afford education while inmates receive it for free, which can hardly be seen as justice. Many more arguments are given to support their claims, but no consensus has been reached. The proponents of correctional education tend to appeal to understanding and the need to support individuals as an “obligation to society” (qtd. in Bates 224). They criticize any attempts of the government to reallocate resources and reduce the funding of such programs.
They note that educating offenders is beneficial for the community as those returning from prisons will have more opportunities and will be less likely to cause harm. However, they ignore quite obvious things that unveil the flaws of their perspective, including but not confined to the essence of justice and specific results of such incentives.
One of the primary arguments the advocates of correctional education provide is related to reduced recidivism. Recent research on the matter shows that the reduction of recidivism is apparent since inmates participating in such initiatives are “32% less likely to recidivate” compared to inmates who do not take part in these programs (Bozick et al. 403).
At the same time, scholars also claim that more research is needed due to the involvement of diverse variables. Moreover, the outcomes linked to educational programs suggest that offenders often have quite equal chances of employment irrespective of their participation in such projects (Bozick et al. 406).
The claim regarding more opportunities correctional education gives to inmates is rather weak and unsupported by empirical evidence. The overall performance of offenders and their motivation to take part in correctional initiatives has been studied as well, although no vivid data showing a high prevalence of high achievements are provided. In simple terms, inmates are often reluctant to participate while receiving educational services for free. At the same time, people who have not committed crimes need to seek opportunities and pay for their education.
The cost-effectiveness and the source of funding of correctional education raise even more questions. The primary expected outcome is “the wellbeing of prisoners” and the increase in “their employment prospects” (Dobbs par. 5). Since participation in such programs has little effect on employment opportunities, the cost-effectiveness of the incentive is questionable.
Apart from the pure economic calculations, it is just not fair that inmates receive educational services for free, while thousands of Americans have to manage their student loans and try to balance work, education, and personal life. The fact that tax money is allocated to fund these initiatives is rather frustrating as taxpayers are deprived of the opportunity to receive education or pay for their children, but their money is utilized to provide training to those who violated some laws.
Bozick et al. also state that studies estimating the outcome of correctional education have limitations as the groups they involve are “dissimilar” and “have poor controls for those differences” (410). In a nutshell, budget money is spent on projects whose effectiveness has not been properly investigated, which raises questions concerning the existence of such initiatives.
In addition to the concerns mentioned above, correctional education undermines the value of being a law-abiding citizen. Numerous life stories of former inmates show that the provision of education to this population undermines the idea behind incarceration per se. For instance, a man served 15 years for a violent crime, which he considered to be a better option for him (Dobbs par. 1).
David Breakspear “hoped a few years behind bars could break a cycle of underachievement and homelessness,” so he committed a violent crime against a law-abiding citizen (Dobbs par. 1). The man violated the rules of the society and received free education at the expense of this society. The question as to who is punished remains unanswered.
Law-abiding citizens seem to have multiple losses in this situation. Hence, correctional education creates dangerous precedents and situations that make breaking laws a better option compared to remaining within the boundaries of the existing legislature. There is no need in trying to work hard and obtain an education as breaking the law can lead a person to free education, free food, and shelter, as well as higher chances of employment.
Correctional education uncovers some of the most vivid flaws in the existing criminal justice system. People who follow the rules and pay taxes have to give their money to support those who break societal norms and commit crimes against taxpayers. American prisons and jails are overcrowded, which leads to various issues.
Instead of financing the diverse needs of these groups, it can be more viable to reduce the number of inmates. The most vulnerable populations can receive opportunities related to education or employment, but this help should be community-based. It is possible to state that education is a privilege in American society as it costs quite a considerable amount of money, so it is fair to offer equal opportunities to all groups.
People who have committed a crime should serve their sentence by giving back to the community. However, thousands of milder offenders should not join the array of prisoners but have to remain in the community. The provision of some training can be justified, especially if it is funded by private and non-governmental organizations.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that correctional education does more harm than good. Although it is found that educational programs contribute to the reduction of recidivism, these studies are prone to quite considerable limitations. Moreover, educational incentives do not affect offenders’ employment prospects although this aspect is central to the use of correctional education.
The provision of free education to inmates also undermines the development of society, since it makes breaking laws an appropriate option for many people. It can be easier to break a law and receive numerous free services instead of trying to live by rules and contribute to the development of society. The provision of education to prisoners is a mere waste of money, at the very least.
It should be abandoned and replaced by initiatives aimed at reducing the number of prisoners. Offenders, especially those coming from a poor neighborhoods, have the right to receive services that can improve their wellbeing. Education is one of such programs, but it should be community-based and funded by non-profits and non-governmental organizations.
Works Cited
Bates, Laura. Shakespeare Saved My Life. Sourcebooks, 2013.
Bozick, Robert et al. “Does Providing Inmates with Education Improve Postrelease Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis of Correctional Education Programs in the United States”. Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol 14, no. 3, 2018, pp. 389-428.
Dobbs, Rachel. “Key to Prison Education Handed to Governors.” The Guardian. 2019. Web.