Pubdate: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 Source: Wisconsin State Journal (WI) Section: Spectrum, Page F1 Copyright: 2005 Madison Newspapers, Inc. Contact: http://www.wisconsinstatejournal.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/506 Author: Gregory V. Smith Prisons Eat Up Tax Dollars Rehabilitation Failures Lead To Repeat Crimes: Is Public Truly Better Protected? REHABILITATION IS A MYTH One of the tenets of Department of Correction's conventional wisdom when I worked there was "The Giant beathes in, the Giant breathes out." That meant the state locked people up and then after a while the state let them out. The recurring urge to focus on rehabilitation is a natural one, optimistic and compassionate. Unfortunately, its underlying premise -- that a majority of adult offenders can be "set straight" is wrong. When adult offenders get out of prison they go back to their old neighborhood, their old friends, their old culture and, inevitably, their old ways. History shows that offenders' criminal activity slows down only with age. A high school diploma that helps a criminal get a low end job is irrelevant; they are not going to accept a life of minimum/low wage work when they can make ten times that selling drugs or burglarizing. Closer supervision of adult criminals is not the answer, either. A drug user with no prior history of violence who was placed in the Intensive Sanctions program by correctional experts and who wore an electronic ankle bracelet still murdered three people. The files at DOC are full of cases like that. The greatest concern of the vast majority of citizens in Wisconsin regarding these issues is safety from criminals. That comes only from locking criminals up as long as possible. The citizens are willing to pay for it; they do not want their sons and daughters to bear the risks that come with alternatives to prison and chasing the "rehabilitation" myth. So what's the solution? Another old saying in Corrections is that it was predictable that 80 percent of the people in prison would end up there. Talk to grade school and middle school teachers; they can make good predictions about which children are probably going to end up in that 80 percent. The key to lowering the crime rate is focusing on the front end. Deal with the children who aren't fed over the weekend, who eat nothing but cornflakes and consequently suffer damage to the part of the brain that allows them to anticipate the future consequences of present actions. Deal with the emotionally damaged and neglected children whom the human services departments don't help because their staff is overwhlemed just dealing with the children whose suffering involves bruises. Deal with the children who start drinking alcohol at age 9, start doing pot at age 11 and graduate to harder drugs after that; prevent the organic brain damage that comes with that lifestyle. Deal with the children who grow up in chaotic households where commmunicating is done at a screaming level and violence is possible at any moment for unpredictable reasons. Is that going to save money? Of course not. It will cost more if you do it right. And you might actually permanently reduce crime. Doing crime fighting on the cheap doesn't work. It doesn't help public safety to have criminals wear ankle bracelets to tell you when they have left their house if you don't have enough staff to notice it and notify the police. If the state decides to try the rehabilitation approach yet again, then the state should waive its dicretionary immunity legal defenses. The victims of criminal behavior or their survivors could then sue the state for the harm done by criminals who have been put on probation or released from confinement to some form of community supervision. Put a cap on the recovery level, if cost is a concern. In my opinion, of all of the costs associated with crime, by far the most important cost is the cost of crime borne by the victims. We have to do whatever will keep that cost as low as possible. Gregory V. Smith McFarland - --- MAP posted-by: Beth