The Role of the Stanford Experiment in the Study of Human Behavior

When a mother spanks her child, she doesn’t do it to hurt him or her. She does it in hopes that her child will not make the same mistake twice. This form of punishment does not prove effective, causing children to repeatedly break the rules. Instead, parents should find a way to educate their children on why not to break the rules. The same rule should be applied to the prison system; in order to reduce recidivism, prisons should focus on rehabilitation instead of on longer sentences and harsher punishments.

In recent years, prisons have adopted a “get tough” approach to punishing their inmates, but these punishments alone have failed to make our communities safer. These tactics have resulted in an expanding prison system (Strategic… 2015). This system has the potential to do more harm than good. For instance, “In June 2014, there were 6,050 prisoners in Victoria, a leap of 23.6% in the two years since June 2012” (Federation of… 2014). Long-term, Victoria’s prison population has also increased dramatically, “rising 68% from 2004 to 2014” (Federation of… 2014). Adjusted for population growth, “this represents an increase in the rate of imprisonment of 43.6% in just over ten years” (Federation of… 2014). The Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria concluded that this prison population was due to four things: “increased lengths of prison sentences; increased use of prison sentences in the higher courts; a reduced percentage of people being granted bail; and an increased number of offenses against the person” (Federation of… 2014). These studies conclude that increasing prison sentences does little to decrease criminal behavior and that longer sentences are associated with higher rates of recidivism.

In addition to being criminals, many prisoners are also mentally ill. In the late 1950s and 1960s, new psychotropic drugs and community health movements “dramatically reduced the number of people in state mental hospitals” (Benson). However, in the 1980s, many of those people who had left mental institutions began entering the criminal justice system. Today, “somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of people in prison are mentally ill,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Part of the problem is the prisons’ lack of resources: “There simply aren’t enough mental health professionals in most prisons” (Benson). Another major part of the problem is “the basic philosophical difference between psychology, which is rehabilitative at heart, and corrections, which is currently punishment-oriented” (Benson). While rehabilitation gives a person the chance to learn about his or her problems and offers them the chance to change their behavior to avoid further criminal activities, punishment confines the offender in a cell to mull over the crime they’ve committed. With punishment, there is a lesser chance for offenders to learn from their mistakes.

To help shift the focus of prisons from punishment to rehabilitation, psychologists are conducting research on the causes of crime and the psychological effects of incarceration. In the 1970s, when prison systems were undergoing transformation, psychologists did not have a lot of data to offer. However, over the past 25 years, they have generated a substantial body of literature documenting the role of child abuse, poverty, early exposure to substance abuse, and other risk factors for criminal behavior. This suggests that not only do the individuals need rehabilitation, but their environment and peers do as well. Researchers have debunked the pessimistic attitudes from the 1970s, such as the notion that “nothing works.” Currently, evidence supports the effectiveness of properly implemented work programs, education, and psychotherapy in easing prisoners’ transitions into the “free world” (Benson). These initiatives can effectively facilitate prisoners’ reintegration into society upon release.

The Stanford Experiment further revealed that psychologically healthy individuals could succumb to sadistic tendencies or depression when placed in a prison-like setting. Such declines are more evident in “supermax” prisons—high-security units where inmates may spend up to 23 hours in solitary confinement for years on end. Many inmates in these units report extremely high levels of stress and other negative emotions. Without a transition through lower-security units, these inmates are released into society with little social or occupational skills, making their reintegration challenging (Benson). Supermax prisons, therefore, only offer a short-term solution, considering the long-term damage inflicted on the individuals and the system as a whole.

Rehabilitation programs prove even more effective when incorporating proven principles and targeting specific offenders. For instance, research shows that offenders with a high school equivalency diploma earned behind bars have higher chances of securing jobs after release. Similarly, vocational skill training has been linked with higher chances of gainful employment and increased wages upon release. Additionally, offenders who undergo intensive drug treatment programs in prison are less likely to relapse outside the prison. Implementing effective programs could reduce recidivism by 15 to 20 percent. To put it in perspective, nearly 495,000 of the 750,000 prisoners expected to be released this year will likely be rearrested within three years. Effective programs could reduce the tally of repeat offenders by nearly 100,000, a figure that could be further reduced if rehabilitation programs are extended into offenders’ communities upon release. These programs would essentially pay for themselves by reducing future criminal justice and correctional costs. A recent study by economist Mark A. Cohen and criminologist Alex Piquero revealed that a high-risk youth who evolves into a chronic offender could cost society between $4.2 and $7.2 million, mostly due to police and court expenses, property losses, and medical care. These costs underscore the importance of rehabilitating offenders, as society bears the financial burden either way, albeit higher in the latter scenario (Petersilia).

In addition, offenders who participated in drug or alcohol treatment, community service, and employment programs had recidivism rates “10 to 20 percent” below those of nonparticipating offenders. Today, we have even more refined knowledge of what works. The most popular approach is called the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model. It uses risk assessment tools to size up each person and match him or her with the right program. Several studies show that they work. Criminologist Edward J. Latessa of the University of Cincinnati studied the results of RNR efforts in Ohio’s 38 halfway house programs and found that they “cut the recidivism of high-risk offenders by as much as 20 percent.” Community partnerships are another approach that holds great promise. A great example is the Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI), a city interagency program that brings together law enforcement, social service agencies, and religious institutions to start working with inmates while they are still incarcerated. As soon as the prison opens, a family member or mentor is close by to meet each released prisoner, and social service agencies are prepared to begin working to help the former inmate start anew. The BRI focuses only on the highest-risk offenders leaving prison. They are offered opportunities for work and treatment, but for those who fail to take advantage of their offers and slip back into crime, the program calls for swift arrest and fast-track prosecution. Harvard researchers found that “participants had a rearrest rate 30 percent lower than that of a matched comparison group” (Petersilia). This shows that the results have been impressive.

Although prison rehabilitation programs initially cost prisons money to create, studies have shown that these programs decrease the recidivism rate, thus decreasing the prison population. Since there are fewer people in prison, correctional facilities require less money to operate, needing less money from taxpayers. Since educational, vocational, and drug rehabilitation programs decrease the likelihood that inmates will reoffend, they also allow ex-convicts to contribute to society, thereby boosting the economy. In Ohio, for example, “inmates who enroll in college classes have a re-offending rate of 18%, while prisoners who do not take college courses have a re-incarceration rate of 40%.” This trend can be seen throughout all of America, as prisoners in New York who earn a college degree while incarcerated are “almost half as likely to get arrested after release compared to inmates who do not earn a degree.” Reduced recidivism rates save taxpayer money. For instance, from 2008 to 2009, Nevada decreased the state’s prison population by 1.6%, which saved the state $38 million and prevented Nevada from spending $1.2 billion on construction costs. Consequently, Nevada saves $22,000 for every inmate who does not re-offend (Reich). As one can see, by integrating rehabilitation programs into prisons, a domino effect can be created that, in the long run, saves money rather than costing more.

It is no longer acceptable to say that rehabilitation programs do not work. There is scientific evidence that proves community and prison programs can reduce recidivism. One of the easiest ways to reduce crime is to ensure that those who have already committed crimes do not do so again. Although recidivism is not a problem that can always be solved, many prisoners do not want to go back to prison. It is our duty to help those who wish to be helped. Effective rehabilitation and reentry programs will reduce recidivism rates and costs, improving both the lives of prisoners and our own.

Did you like this example?

257

14