I have a brand-new paper on SSRN dealing with prisoner reentry. There is growing political momentum at both the federal and state levels of government to do something to address the needs of the swelling numbers of former prisoners returning to the community–now about 650,000 annually, up more than eightfold since 1970. Although much of the concern surrounding the reentrants has focused on their recidivism risks, I have been struck by the depth of bipartisan support for funding enhanced social services for them; I am more accustomed to seeing those on the right thinking about crime prevention in terms of deterrence and incapacitation. I’ve been particularly interested in seeing how some religiously oriented Republicans, like Sen. Sam Brownback, have framed reentry reforms in terms of Christian faith and moral obligation, and I’ve been wondering about broader implications for the criminal justice system if we were to lay more emphasis–from start to finish–on treating criminal defendants as people we actually hope and expect will rejoin the community some day.
My short essay focuses particularly on implications for sentencing, ranging from the way that particular sentencing factors are assessed (e.g., presentencing rehabilitation and substantial assistance to the authorities) to the overall tone of the sentencing ritual. I should also note that the essay introduces a forthcoming issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter devoted to prisoner reentry. If anyone would like to receive a copy of the full issue when it is available next month, please e-mail me at [email protected].
Posted by Michael O’Hear on December 20, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Comments
Comment from Charles Benninghoff Time: December 21, 2007, 2140 Congressman Davis’ “Second Chance Act” is good. But in reality, it is little more than another “tax and spend” with a twist. This time the tax and spend will allow private, sometimes religious-based, groups to help out. And that is good. But, in the end, after all of the money has been spent and all of the hopes of the ex-offenders raised, what is going to be changed? Nothing! This is because for ex-offenders there is no way under federal rules, and the rules of many states, the prove rehabilitation. Our federal laws provide that a Certificate of Rehabilitation can be presented by an ex-offender that conclusively proves a person to have rehabilitated themselves. Funny thing: federal law does not allow federal judges to issue them! Without rehabilitation, there is little hope for work. And, lack of work is the absolute leading reason for ex-offenders going back to prison for new crimes. It is as simple as that – no work and back to the slammer. While a certificate of rehabilitation is described under federal law there is no method under which a federal ex-offender can prove he, or she, is worthy of receiving one. That is why we at The Rehabilitated Project are building a nationwide coalition of Members dedicated to getting Congress to pass a nationwide Certificate of Rehabilitation statute that would allow ex-offenders who through their civility and good works since release have proven themselves rehabilitated. We urge you to come to our site, join as a Member of our Coalition and help us help our country get back on the right track. Sincerely, Charles Benninghoff Founder The Rehabilitated Project
Posted by: Charles Benninghoff | Dec 22, 2007 12:44:33 AM
I concur with Patrick. One of the big issues I heard about recently at a health law conference is Medicaid and mentally ill reentering prisoners…many prisons just give them a month’s supply of pills and a “good luck.” It seems like that, without more, is a recipe for recidivism and misery.
Posted by: Frank | Dec 21, 2007 7:04:42 PM
I just want to say thanks for working on this topic (i.e., ‘treating criminal defendants as people we actually hope and expect will rejoin the community some day.’) which I think is very important and, it seems, comparatively neglected (and thanks for making the forthcoming issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter available to us).
Posted by: Patrick S. O’Donnell | Dec 21, 2007 11:39:15 AM