Giving Ex-Offenders a Second Chance Research Paper

Introduction

Prison recidivism rates are a major national and local issue given the sheer amount of money spent on prisoners in the United States ($35,000 every year for each inmate) and the number of individuals that cycle through the criminal justice system per year (11.6 million) (Miller, Curtis, Sønderlund, Day, & Droste, 2015).

Current statistics on the issue reveal that 68 percent of prisoners released by the state in 2005 were rearrested and sent back to jail within three years, and 75 percent of inmates currently in the system are rearrested within five years. This is indicative of a major problem with the current system of incarceration since there is an established pattern of release, arrest, then release again.

On the other end of the spectrum, Norway has one the lowest prisoner recidivism rates in the world at 20 percent compared to America, which has one of the highest at 76.6 percent as per the lastest statistical data examination (Zortman, Powers, Hiester, Klunk, & Antonio, 2016). The capacity of Norway to field such small numbers is due a process they call “restorative justice.”

Under this process, the Norwegian system of incarceration focuses on rehabilitating criminals to prevent their criminal tendencies from resurfacing. Practices that contribute towards this methodology consist of various vocational and education programs that aim to prepare prisoners for a successful integration back into society. The result is a much lower rate of recidivism and shows the effectiveness that such a methodology has in curbing an individual’s tendency to fall back into old criminal habits.

It is based on this comparison between the Norwegian and American systems of incarceration that the Second Chance Act makes sense. Simply put, if prisoners within the U.S. are presented with a program that helps them to integrate back into society, it is likely that the various deficits to a successful integration could be resolved. This would have a significant impact on a prisoner’s life since it would enable them to have the necessary vocational and educational skills that would help them turn away from a life of crime.

Combined with support programs, housing assistance, and work programs, this would transform the current system and contribute to reducing recidivism rates in the long term. As such, this paper will explore the various arguments, debates, and controversies associated with giving second chances to felons and where the stance of the justice department is on the issue. It is expected through this examination; a greater understanding can develop regarding the impact of second chances on both society and the present day system of incarceration in the U.S. Based on the facts presented, this report asserts that giving second chances to offenders is needed given the potential benefits this would have in reducing costs and in helping the lives of newly released prisoners.

Findings of the Study

Cohen and Whetzel (2014) clarified the source of the problem by explaining that the high recidivism rates in the American prison system are connected to the deficits tied to a prisoner upon their release. These include but are not limited to:

1. Little in the way of marketable skills: many prisoners upon their release lack the skills they would need to enter the workforce. As a result, they return to a life of crime to survive and are, inevitably, arrested again (Cohen & Whetzel, 2014).
2. Their criminal record: most employers hesitate to hire individuals that have a criminal record. This is due to the potential danger that a newly released convict would have on their business in the form of possible thefts or property damage (Cohen & Whetzel, 2014).
3. Limited education: being in prison is not conducive towards earning a proper academic education and, as a result, released prisoners often lack the needed training to get normal jobs.
4. Lack of sufficient stable housing: the presence of permanent housing is often required before a person is accepted for a job. By constantly being transient, this prevents a released prisoner from gaining a modicum of stability in a local community which limits their future opportunities (Cohen & Whetzel, 2014).
5. Potential substance abuse problems: before being arrested, many prisoners developed substance abuse problems, their release without sufficient medical and psychiatric assistance creates a high likelihood of them going back to a life of crime to support their addiction.
6. Lack of an adequate support network for help: lastly, most states do not have a support system in place for newly released prisoners to help them transition back into society. As a result, they tend to turn back to old criminal habits resulting in them being incarcerated again.

Zavin (2012) supports the work of Cohen and Whetzel by stating that the current system of incarceration in the U.S. is not conducive towards creating a proper means of transitioning people from being in prison to integrating back into society. Without such a system in place, it is almost inevitable that former prisoners become the current criminals on America’s streets (Zavin, 2012).

Current Arguments on the Issue

One of the current debates surrounding the issue of second chances is if some criminals deserve one in the first place. Based on the concept of incarceration as a form of punishment, second chances for criminals is viewed as a controversial stance among members of various conservative groups. For example, if a person was found guilty of a violent crime (i.e. theft and assault resulting in injury) should they receive free vocational training and education at the expense of the state? It would seem as if criminals are being rewarded for their actions rather than being punished.

Non-profit organizations such as “We Are All Criminals” (www.weareallcriminals.org) counterargue this position by stating that the problem with the current system of incarceration is that the punishment goes well beyond incarceration and can have a long-term negative impact on an individual’s life. Emily Baxter, founder of “We Are All Criminals” stated that having a criminal record can have a devastating consequence on a person’s career choices since employers do not look at the severity of the crime; rather, they look at the fact that an individual has a criminal record (Cohen, Cook, & Lowenkamp, 2016). These businesses make their choice beforehand resulting in fewer career options for ex-convicts with minor or non-violent crimes.

Delving deeper into the issue, Baxter’s non-profit created a series of presentations showing individuals (with their faces cropped out of the photo) being guilty of various minor crimes in the past and not being caught. These same people eventually became lawyers, police chiefs or achieved similarly respectable careers in society. They would not have been able to gain these positions if they had a criminal record which reveals the current problem with incarceration and the stigma that surrounds it (Cohen, Cook, & Lowenkamp, 2016).

Many people assume that the concept of second chances is limited to what was given in the introduction section of this paper wherein it focuses on educational and vocational support combined with methods to transition an individual back into society. Second chances for ex-convicts can go beyond this and tackle the issues surrounding the stigma of their criminal records. One of the best examples of this can be seen in Indiana’s Second Chance laws which are also known as expungement laws. These laws allow people with minor to significant criminal records to have them sealed with the decision being left up to the court (Evans, Huang, & Hser, 2011).

The length of time for a successful petition depends on the severity of the incident in question. An individual that was arrested but not charged with any crime could request to have their records sealed after a year. Those with a misdemeanor conviction could petition for the sealing of the records after five years (Evans et al., 2011). Lastly, those charged with felony convictions have to wait for eight years and the discretion of the court before the sealing process can even begin. Within the one to eight year period, the individual making the request should not commit any other crime. Otherwise, their petition will be considered null and void.

Overall, Indiana’s expungement laws are meant to address the stigma attached to having a criminal record thereby allowing a person to integrate into society and have a clean slate. However, while expungement laws are an excellent method, there are arguments present regarding their implementation. The most obvious debate surrounding Second Chance laws are connected to the length of time needed before a petition can be made. While it is understandable that a necessary period should elapse to ensure that a person will not commit another crime, the length indicated in present day expungement laws is simply far too long.

Proponents for change involving Second Chance laws correctly point out that five to eight years for a misdemeanor or felony crimes prevents a person from properly integrating back into society. How are they supposed to find meaningful work if they are prevented from expunging their criminal records? It is due to this that the current debate on the issue centers on lowering the amount of time to a more reasonable level or taking into consideration a person’s behavior in prison as a good indicator to reduce the amount of time needed or to grant expungement immediately after they are released from jail to help facilitate their reintegration (Pogorzelski, Wolff, Pan, & Blitz, 2005).

Do note that, on their own; expungement laws are still an insufficient means of preventing prisoner recidivism. What is needed is a combined approach that utilizes both expungement laws and the second chance act to maximize the ability of detainees to transition back into society. By addressing both the stigma against employment and addressing their capability to transition back into society via vocational and educational skills, this can create a situation where an ex-convict has more options available to them and, as such, helps to prevent them from turning back to a life of crime.

Does this Help to Reduce Offender Recidivism Rates?

It is still unclear whether this will dramatically reduce recidivism rates since one of the best examples, Indiana, that has implemented expungement laws has yet to show valid statistical data. Indiana’s Second Chance law was put into effect in 2014 and underwent various revisions until 2015. Currently, it is 2016, and insufficient studies have been conducted to examine the impact that this would have on the state.

However, there are several assumptions that can be derived from available facts. The first assumption is that the Second Chance Act can reduce prisoner recidivism rates. This is based on data released in 2014 that revealed a drop in the federal prison population by 4,800 inmates as of September 2013 (Steiner, Makarios, & Travis, 2015).

Such a reduction was considered as unprecedented since this was the first time that the prison population has gone down instead of up since the year 1980. The drop was attributed to changes in the criminal justice system in 2007 with the introduction of the Second Chance Act (Steiner et al., 2015). In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder even stated that estimates examining the trend in the reduction in the prison population project that by 2016 the reduction will have dropped by another 10,000.

In fact, statistical data examining the impact of the Second Chance Act has shown a decline of 10 percent in America’s incarceration rate (Steiner et al., 2015). This example indicates that policies that target easier societal integration for inmates can have a significant impact on the rate of incarceration and prisoner recidivism. Since expungement laws involving criminal records similarly contribute towards, effective prisoner integration practices, a similar phenomenon of reduced prison populations can also be expected.

Is There a Negative Impact on Society if Offenders are Given Second Chances?

The problem with the current system is that releasing prisoners back into society simply increases crime. The Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in a study that back in the mid-1990s, two-thirds of inmates that were released were rearrested after a period of three years (McShane & Williams, 1996). During the period that they were not in prison, they were responsible crimes that encompassed murder, rape, kidnapping, assault and robbery.

One of the best perspectives on this issue is from the Toscher and Lubin (2011) study which explained the concept of prison as being a “college of crime.” While this may seem to be a strange terminology, Toscher and Lubin stated that many prisons act as melting pots for different criminal elements to mingle. Prisoners with light to average offenses are often in the same facilities as professional criminals due to budget cutbacks and limited space within the American prison system (Toscher & Lubin, 2011).

This creates a system where convicts develop contacts both in and out of prison and learn skills and different pieces of knowledge that they otherwise would not have learned (Müller, Haase, & Stolpmann, 2013). As a result of such influences and the negative impact of sending them back into society without a system of transition in place, time in prison creates better and more experienced criminals.

This is, of course, a terrible result since the purpose of a prison is to punish people who have broken the law and not create an individual that is better at crime. Unfortunately, this is the outcome that was brought about which contributes significantly to the level of recidivism experienced by the prison system (Albanes, 2012). Simply put, the current American system of incarceration already has a negative impact on society and needs to be altered from a system geared primarily to incarceration to one that is closer to the Norwegian system of incarceration, rehabilitation, and resocialization.

The best way in which this can be accomplished would be the Second Chance Act and expungement laws since this gives prisoners the capacity to learn the skills they would need to get a job as well as have a blank slate that would prevent any form of animosity or discrimination being directed against them (Sturup & Lindqvist, 2014). The only potential negative effect such a system would have on society would be the slight increase in cost per prisoner for the necessary education and vocation problems that would be put in place in most prisons. However, given the cost associated with having to incarcerate people in the first place, a slight increase in the expense of each prisoner but a reduction in the overall amount of inmates would be financially acceptable.

Should Certain Offenders (ex: dangerous sex offenders) not be Given a Second Chance?

The debate surrounding second chances for offenders is particularly heated when it comes to whether or not certain criminals should be given the right to expungement or a second chance. The argument centers around the concept of equality under the law and the potential danger certain individuals pose to society. Laws should apply equally to everyone, and it is this concept that is the cornerstone of the justice system that is at work in the United States (Freedman, 2012). However, the application of the law goes both ways wherein a person can both be punished as well as rewarded by the laws that have been put in place.

This is an important facet to consider when examining its application to prison populations since not all prisoner are created equal. Some are incarcerated for relatively minor offenses while there are those who have been responsible for manslaughter, rape, grievous assault and other similar felonies. Should individuals convicted of serious crimes that have served their time in jail have access to the same rights of expungement of the felony records as well as the benefits of the second chance act?

One side of the debate firmly asserts equality under the law and points out that if they are not assisted in some way before their reintroduction into society, it is likely that they will continue to commit the same crimes (Freedman, 2012). By giving them access to a second chance, this helps to prevent recidivism and ensures they become a productive member of society.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are pundits who state that while second chances for criminals is an excellent way of resolving the prison population issue, there are simply some convicts that a second chance should not apply. They point to individuals accused of serious sexual offenses and state that these people should not have their records cleared or given a fresh start since it is likely that they could start the same behavior all over again without their local community having sufficient warning.

In apparent opposition to this assertion is the Kulani correctional facility’s sexual offender rehabilitation in Hawaii which has successfully treated over 800 prisoners convicted of sex-related offences since its start in 1988. The program has been considered as a success since only 20 individuals from the second chance program went back to prison for sexual offenses (Berenji, Chou, & D’Orsogna, 2014).

The Kulani program shows that even if a person is convicted of a sexual offense, they can still be successfully rehabilitated and become a productive member of society. Do note though that in some cases a person convicted of a felony cannot avail of expurgence laws. States like Indiana review expurgence requests by former prisoners who committed crimes. If they determine that a person’s crime is simply too grave to allow expurgence, then it will not be granted. The problem with this method is that the justice system, in effect, facilitates recidivism by preventing an ex-convict from leading a normal life.

Second chances should apply to all equally and, as such, by stopping people the capacity to make a life for themselves, you are in effect facilitating their downturn towards criminal behavior (Rowland, 2016). Taking this into consideration, the assertion that only particular types of criminals should be allowed a second chance is counterproductive to the aims of reducing prison recidivism rates. It is necessary to apply the policy to all criminals and not just a select few that the incarceration system deems as sufficiently harmless or not accused of a serious felony.

Drawbacks to the Application of the Policy

One of the drawbacks to the application of the Second Chance Act and expungence laws come in the form of the case of Antwon Durrell Pitt, a 21-year-old resident of Washington D.C., who has been arrested (eight times in total) for various crimes ranging from robbery to sexual assault. However, due to the presence of laws that were designed to give some leniency to young adult offenders, he has repeatedly been released. His criminal behavior culminated in the 2014 rape of a 40-year-old woman in Hill East, Washington.

This case shows the inherent problem with giving second chances to offenders since some of them are apparently unrepentant of their actions and are likely to continue their criminal behavior after they are released from jail. While the case of Pitt is not indicative of all offenders, it does highlight the potential that exists and helps to show why there are some drawbacks to giving criminals second chances.

Conclusion

After going over the arguments and data that have been presented, this report asserts that giving second chances to offenders is needed given the potential benefits this would have in reducing costs and in helping the lives of newly released prisoners. What this paper has shown is that combined with support programs, housing assistance, and work programs, second chances for offenders would transform the current system and contribute to reducing recidivism rates in the long term.

The best way in which this can be accomplished would be the Second Chance Act and expungement laws since this gives prisoners the capacity to learn the skills they would need to get a job as well as have a blank slate that would prevent any form of animosity or discrimination being directed against them. Based on data released in 2014 that revealed a drop in the federal prison population by 4,800 inmates as of September 2013, it can be asserted that second chances do help in reducing the current recidivism rate.

In the long term, provided that enough funding is given to the similar programs, it could be possible for the U.S. to emulate the Norwegian system of incarceration and hopefully lower some repeat offenders to manageable levels. While it is true that there are some assertions regarding the potential uselessness or even harm some offenders may do with a second chance, such as individuals accused of serious sexual offenses,

the claim that only particular types of criminals should be allowed is counterproductive to the aims of reducing prison recidivism rates. It is necessary to apply the policy to all criminals and not just a select few that the incarceration system deems as sufficiently harmless or not accused of a serious felony.

All in all, this report has successfully delved into the various nuances of giving second chances to offenders. While it is true that the debate on the issue continues even to the present day, the fact remains that the second chance act has proven its worth, and it is likely that expurgence laws also contribute towards lowering prisoner recidivism rates as well.

The next section will deal with future directions that research on this topic can go and what avenues of approach would be the most worthwhile to explore.

Directions for Future Research

For researchers looking for potential avenues of approach when it comes to examining this topic, one recommended option would be to determine the effectiveness of expungence laws and the Second Chance Act at the same time. Current studies on ex-convict recidivism rates lack sufficient examinations on the impact that both methods have.

It is possible that having both helps to drastically reduce the recidivism or one is simply better than the other. Conducting an analysis would assist in contributing towards developing better methods to help improve a prisoner’s transition back into society. Presently, legislative trends on the issue seem to support second chances for offenders by lowering inmate populations and lower costs for the prison system. However, it is still unknown what trends the current justice system may take when it comes to the combination of educational, vocational support systems.

Reference List

Albanes, J. S. (2012). Demystifying Risk Assessment: Giving Prisoners a Second chance at Individualized Community Confinement Under the Second Chance Act. Administrative Law Review, 64(4), 937- 966.

Berenji, B., Chou, T., & D’Orsogna, M. R. (2014). Recidivism and Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: A Carrot and Stick Evolutionary Game. Plos ONE, 9(1), 1-13.

Cohen, T. H., & Whetzel, J. (2014). The Neglected “R”–Responsivity and the Federal Offender. Federal Probation, 78(2), 92.

Cohen, T. H., Cook, D., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016). The Supervision of Low-Risk Federal Offenders: How the Low-risk Policy Has Changed Federal Supervision Practices without Compromising Community Safety. Federal Probation, 80(1), 3.

Evans, E., Huang, D., & Hser, Y. (2011). High-Risk Offenders Participating in Court-Supervised Substance Abuse Treatment: Characteristics, Treatment Received, and Factors Associated with Recidivism. Journal Of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 38(4), 510-525.

Freedman, D. B. (2012). Determining the Long-Term Risks of Recidivism and Registration Failures among Sexual Offenders’. Federal Probation, 76(1), 14.

McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. P. (1996). Encyclopedia of American Prisons. New York: Routledge.

Miller, P. G., Curtis, A., Sønderlund, A., Day, A., & Droste, N. (2015). Effectiveness of interventions for convicted DUI offenders in reducing recidivism: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. American Journal Of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 41(1), 16-29.

Müller, J. L., Haase, K., & Stolpmann, G. (2013). Recidivism and Characteristics of Highly Dangerous Offenders Being Released from Retrospectively Imposed Preventive Detention: An Empirical Study. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 31(3), 359-380.

Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K., & Blitz, C. L. (2005). Behavioral Health Problems, Ex-Offender Reentry Policies, and the “Second Chance Act”. American Journal Of Public Health, 95(10), 1718-1724.

Rowland, M. G. (2016). Projecting Recidivism Rates for Federal Drug Offenders Released Early from Prison. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 28(4), 259-263.

Steiner, B., Makarios, M. D., & Travis, L. F. (2015). Examining the Effects of Residential Situations and Residential Mobility on Offender Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 61(3), 375-401.

Sturup, J., & Lindqvist, P. (2014). Homicide offenders 32 years later – A Swedish population-based study on recidivism. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 24(1), 5-17.

Toscher, S., & Lubin, B. (2011). How About a Second Chance–Recent Developments in Reducing the Convicted Tax Offender’s Time in Prison. Journal Of Tax Practice & Procedure, 13(2), 25-28.

Zavin, V. (2012). One Strike, You are Out: The Ninth Circuit Denies Second Chance for First-time Drug Offenders. Boston College Journal Of Law & Social Justice, 3(2),83-92.

Zortman, J. S., Powers, T., Hiester, M., Klunk, F. R., & Antonio, M. E. (2016). Evaluating reentry programming in Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation & Parole: An assessment of offenders’ perceptions and recidivism outcomes. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(6), 419-442.