-Never having experienced the US penal system first hand, I cannot be too bombastic - but from the outside, it sure looks as if rehabilitation has taken a back seat to punishment.
If one were of a sufficiently cynical disposition, it would be tempting to assume that all involved parties (except the inmates) has more to gain from keeping people locked up than rehabilitating them.
Rehabilitation must exist but it must also take the back seat to punishment. In Europe there is this strange concept that developed that crime is a sort of disease and that prisons are kind of hospital. So there is some expectation that a criminal will be "cured" when leaving jail. And many judges got to the thinking that crime is caused by poverty and since jail will not cure poverty we should not send criminals to prison. And you end up with guys with a 10 pages long criminal record and who haven't spent a night in jail.
Living in one of the most rehabilitation-focused of the European countries, Norway, I do not recognize the notion that crime being a disease of sorts is widespread.
Yes, it has been voiced by some scholars, but is not, to the best of my knowledge, a widely held belief - more of an exotic outlier used by parts of the hip left.
By the way, our recidivism rate happens to be among the lowest in the world. (Granted, we have a huge advantage that abject poverty is very rare in the first place.)
I think it's strange to value punishment over the shared interest of a society.
I punishment has priority society can pay for a lifetime of either repeated incarceration or continued or even increased violence after release, with no education and psychological evaluation of the prisoners.
To me the purpose of the sentence is (by order of decreasing importance):
1. Reciprocity. The modern justice system is a social contract where the victim accepts not to seek revenge himself, which would give the powerful a complete impunity over the weaker. Instead the punishment will be applied by a greater force, historically the King or the local lord, now the justice system. If you tell a victim that we don't intend to punish the person who hurt him/her for the greater good of society, the victim will have a legitimate sentiment of injustice and may seek to take revenge directly (think of some Saudi prince committing rape in europe, it may be in the interest of the country to let him go, the economic impact of upsetting the Saudi may be much more than the grief of a victim). I think negating this aspect is extremely dangerous for a society (and I see this aspect completely negated in some European countries). But it is by no mean the only purpose (many crimes have no individual victim, like not paying your taxes).
2. Deterrence. Ideally you want criminals not to commit crimes in the first place because of the fear of consequences. If nothing happens you create impunity and you ultimately fuel more crime. Now prison is not a miracle deterrent. Some criminals are too dumb to consider the consequences when committing a crime, or are unafraid of some jail time. Also deterrence will have no impact of terrorists on a suicide mission. But it is an important role nevertheless.
3. Protecting society. Some criminals are deemed to do it again. In some instance the cost to society is low (consuming drug again) or high (rape or murder). In some cases the cost is too high for society to take a chance and the sentence is also a way to "take out" a criminal element and protect society. But this should be in fairly limited extreme cases. But you do not send Madoff to jail just to ensure he doesn't start a new Ponzi scheme. This is a secondary purpose of prison.
And of course rehabilitation should also happen during the execution of the sentence. We would only make the matter worse by not using the jail time to help criminals find a better way. But I do not believe this is either the primary purpose of a sentencing (hence it should take a back seat).
Placing vengeance over societal harmony as the end goal of our legal system only has the effect of begetting more vengeance.
Also, your complete dismissal of mental health as a component of crime is suspect and your post is filled with familiar rhetoric. Do you also believe that spanking or otherwise physically abusing a child is preferred for discipline as opposed to other methods? We live in the 21st century and we should take advantage the knowledge accrued, especially from the psycho/neurological fields. Here are some facts to rebut your argument:
Mentally ill people are disproportionately victimized by violent crime. The largest crime-reducing benefit of helping persons with mental illness would be in reducing crimes against the mentally ill.
Some types of severe mental illness increase the risk that a person will perpetrate a violent crime. Risk varies based on many other factors, such as substance abuse, or unemployment. Many of the risks are from secondary effects of the mental illness; for example, cognitive difficulties make employment difficult or impossible.
Many mental illnesses have a genetic component, although the genetic effects are far from fully understood.
Untreated severe mental illness is particularly significant in homicide—the extreme end of the criminal spectrum. Such illness is even more significant for mass murders of strangers.
Treatment of severe mental illness—best accomplished by a combination of therapy and drugs—can greatly reduce violence by and against the mentally ill.
Many mental ill persons who seek treatment do not receive it. Mental hospital beds per capita in the U.S. are lower than they have been since 1850.
Over the last half-century, mental hospital capacity has dwindled, while prison and jail capacity has vastly expanded. Mentally ill prisoners comprise a large fraction of the jail and prison population.
Compared to imprisonment, treating a mentally ill person in a mental hospital is at least two times as expensive, on month-by-month basis. Nevertheless, expanded availability of treatment in mental hospitals could be cost-effective in the long run. Ninety days in a mental hospital might avoid the need for 10 years in prison. Also, we are not including the costs suffered by victims of crime in this calculation.
Greater availability of mental health treatment would provide major savings to society and to crime victims. Besides that, mentally ill persons who receive appropriate aid can be more constructively productive, and helpful to others.
Because many untreated mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia) are degenerative, early treatment is especially helpful. Preventing a first episode of psychosis (loss of contact with reality) can have major lifetime benefits.
In situations where a severely mentally ill person presents a grave danger to other persons, involuntary commitment may be necessary. Due process should be scrupulously protected—such as the right to neutral decision-maker. Involuntary commitment should not require that the danger to others be “imminent.”
Instead of commitment to a mental hospital, “involuntary outpatient commitment” is a less-restrictive alternative for many persons. After hearing the evidence, a judge may order a person to attend therapy and/or to take medication, as a condition of not being committed to a hospital. Such programs have been successful, and should be expanded.
> Because many untreated mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia) are degenerative, early treatment is especially helpful.
Mental illnesses are commonly considered "degenerative" because the professionals don't address the various causes. My observation is that the mental health industry favors palliative treatments instead of curative therapies. They do this because they think the causes are unknown, and that palliative drugs are the best they can do.
> Preventing a first episode of psychosis (loss of contact with reality) can have major lifetime benefits.
Sure, but avoiding treatment with "anti-psychotics" (tranquilizers) is a good strategy for all psychotic patients. If you put them in a safe environment, they usually come out of their psychotic state without medical assistance [1].
To be clear, I do bemoan the current state of mental health facilities. If you can afford it and feel like you are approaching a breakdown, NEVER check yourself into a hospital (unless you are positive you are going to hurt someone else or yourself). Sane people have a difficult time getting out of such environments
One could say "high risk, high need" also applies to:
-People otherwise neglected by society, like minorities.
-The impoverished
-Children/young adults
Maybe if society actually prepared its people for...itself (society) we'd have fewer problems?
I'm willing to bet $1 of room, board, and education alleviate $100 (or more) of incarceration.
Current US budget for prisons: 74 billion
Current US budget for education: 68 billion
Prisons need to safely and securely provide accommodation for "high-risk, high-need" human beings to survive and be rehabilitated.
Universities have a wholly different set of requirements.