Prisoner Education

I read an interesting article in the L.A. Times this morning about California's prison guard's union attempting to eliminate a distance learning program at Ironwood State Prison, near Blythe California (on Highway 10, near the Arizona boarder, for you non-Californians). It seems that nearby Palo Verde Community College had set up a program with the prison to provide video taped lectures, and fee and book cost waivers, to a select group if inmates. The prison chose the inmates based on strict qualifications. The inmates were able to complete an AA or AS degree. The cost was about $750.00/year per inmate.

The union's position is that the state should not provide free educations for convicted felons. The warden's position is that the program is resulting in a large drop-off in prisoners returning. The school's position is that this program has allowed them to develope a distance learning program for non-prisoners, which is of great value in a rural desert community.

I might add that it is a little ironic that the above mentioned union is concerned about state spending. Their last contract, negotiated with Gov. Davis (to whom they were a major campaign contributer) has allowed a condition to exist, whereby prison guards regularly call in sick, and work on their off days, collecting overtime pay.

If I find a link to this artical I will post it. I'm just wondering what some of your positions are on state provided education of prisoners.

I see it as a positive.

 

I do have to say that prison guards and law enforcement don't get paid enough for the protection they give. My father was in law enforcement in the prisons, then on the street, where he was shot and severly injured when he was surprised by two men robbing a store. He barely lived, and has injuries 25 years later (I was about 5 when it happened). A bit of respect should be granted for our heros in the law enforcement. I know we can sleep better at night becuase of the sacrafices they make.

I am interested in this thread though, and would like to see where it goes.

 

Re: Re: Prisoner Education

Kristie, even if they get pay 100k a year is not enough, I believe there is not any type compensation that could match for risking a lossing your life. I for once wanted to take these route, but I ruled out decided to go to college and take my risk with Corporate world. I rather be a teacher in public schools, and even this is become risky business.

Vini

 

I worked in prisons for 3 years. At two points in time, I was the training director of prisons. But at two other points, I was actually managing inmates. (I managed 300 inmates in Nevada and 250 inmates in Washington, DC.)

Prisons have three main functions. First, they punish. Actually, the courts punish and the prisons carry it out. They deprive inmates of many freedoms. (Don't believe the hype about inmates having more rights than you do; that's jive.) Secondly, they separate inmates from the rest of society. If nothing else, society gets relief from criminal behaviors from those inmates while they're incarcerated. The third fuction of prisons is to rehabilitate. Or, more accurately, to habilitate. For many inmates have never really fit into society, and must do so for the first time (or return for a more extensive--and expensive--stay).

Some things are important in an inmate's rehabilitation. Counseling for addictions, anger, parenting, etc., are great. They're essential. But the two things that really, really work are education and work. Because no matter what other coping skills an inmate acquires, if he/she cannot get a job, he/she is going to revert to his/her old ways of getting by. It is just that simple. (Not all educated and/or experienced inmates succeed, of course, but the odds increase dramatically).

The vast majority of inmates get out, eventually. They return to our communities. They are our workers, our neighbors, even our family members. To inhibit that return only harms us.

 

If funds are limited, and if everyone who needs subsidized educational benefits can't get them, then it seems to make sense to offer social benefits to those who behave in a socially responsible manner.

People should be rewarded for not having a criminal record. We don't need a weird disfunctional caricature of the GI bill providing free educational benefits to people who shoot convenience store clerks.

I'll add that the headline on top of today's San Francisco 'Chronicle' (Sat. May 10) reads "Skyrocketing UC, CSU Fees Seen: Proposal for 25% Increases Now Viewed As Not Nearly Enough". This is on top of a 10% increase this year. Governor Gray Davis will release his "May revision" of the budget on Wednesday, and it's expected to contain a minimum of $150 million in additional cuts to the universities.

My point is that in the current economic environment, especially here in California where the recession is magnified by the dot.com collapse, providing free educational benefits to felons while the state's law abiding youth are being forced to pay the price or else drop out is misguided in the extreme.

 

Rich - You have some great points, but do you think the taxpayers should pay for it, and do you think i t is fair to have non-criminals pay, while criminals not pay?

I see the two major reasons people don't go to school is time or money. Due to circumstances, prisoners will have the time, and if we pay for it, I do see it will be popular. But what about those who are working their two jobs, going to school, and paying for it on their own (like I did for 4 of my 8 years as an undergrad), while paying taxes, when those taxes go to those in prisons getting it free.

I do believe in financial aid (though I wasn't smart enough to apply when I coul dhave gotten it), but this seems to be pushing the line.

 

That is an opinion. Here's mine: it is a matter of degree. I agree with Bill that law-abiding people shouldn't be deprived of things that inmates are given free. But if we do not provide opportunities for people to change, then prisons solve nothing.

Also, I don't know of situations where this exists. In the prisons I worked in, heard about, and knew about, only the most basic educational opportunities (high school and GED) were available free. If college courses were offered, they bore the same costs as they did on the "outside." (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I can't imagine they'd be of the maginitude necessary to cause others to be deprived.)

I'd draw the line here: provide high school and GED free, along with vocational training (which normally pays for itself, and then some). College-level courses should be paid for by inmates, their families, and/or private contributions. Again, just an opinion. But one formed on the "inside."

 

If, as Rich points out, the recidivism rate is lower for people who get an education in prison (I've read this quite a few times elsewhere), then doesn't it come down to the choice of, for instance, the taxpayers paying a couple of thousand bucks to educate a prisoner, or tens of thousands per year to incarcerate them the next time.

The cost of paying to keep one person in prison for one year would probably pay for a couple of dozen Associate's degrees.

For taxpayers, it seems a no-brainer.

 

A Different View

Good Morning, I am unsure how I feel about this topic. I suggest reading PRISONERS GUERRILLA HANDBOOK in CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS. This is written by Jon Marc Taylor, BS. MA. It will give you some insight. I was able to request it through inter-library loan in NJ but later bought a copy. Have a good week. Hille

 

John Bear: "then doesn't it come down to the choice of, for instance, the taxpayers paying a couple of thousand bucks to educate a prisoner, or tens of thousands per year to incarcerate them the next time. "

Cehi: What about if we look at it this way.....Let the government provide free tuition for all up to the bachelor level. In this case, every one benefit and hopefully reduces the potential for anyone being a criminal ( no guarantee, but equal opportunity exists for all). Thereafter, those who choose to violate society's law and order are seriously punished without the benefit of any rehab or other reward. After all, a prison is to make sure that a criminal serves his or her sentences as mandated by the courts.

As far as I am concerned, a criminal in prison is to be punished to learn from the harsh treatments they have received in prison that would make them avoid unscrupulous behavior that would make them to come back to the prison system after being released from a previous sentence. There are some homeless and none homeless without criminal records who cannot find shelter, job or food. No one cared for them. We have a bunch of ardent criminals who have free shelter, food, recreation, sell drugs, makes money from it, etc., and we spend so much money on rehab for them.

In some parts of the world, those who have experienced a prison life never returned. This is because they know the real punishement they have received as a concequence of their criminal actions. The learned punishment in the prison makes them to choose to do better in life after being released. They usually never returned. The prisons are usually less crowded as opposite to overcrowded in the US.

Bottom line, prisoners should not be rewarded for a bad behavior. It would cost less if the legal system focuses only on punishement and not punishment and rewards/benefits. I am sure the debate will continue. Thank you all.

 

It costs anywhere from $25-80 per day to incarcerate an inmate. Variances exist due to regional differences (it is more expensive to incarcerate someone in Washington, DC, than it is to do so in Nevada), and the level of security involved. The median is about $40.

That's about $14,600 per year, per inmate. Or about what it costs to send someone to college. Inmates tend to serve several years, on average.

Very few inmates actually die in prison. Almost all return to society in one form or another. Around two-thirds will offend again. Those that don't are not deterred by prison; they've been through that. They don't because they're able to live their lives differently than before. How? Through education, training, job experience, and counseling available in prison. Take these things away and the only thing prisons will produce is older criminals.

Anyone who thinks prisons reward inmates doesn't know what they're talking about. The walls, motion detectors, armed guards, fences, towers, cameras, etc. are there to keep inmates IN, not out.

As I said before, prisons serve three functions: to punish, to segregate criminals from society, and to rehabilitate. If you stop doing the latter, you'll have to build more prisons to accomplish the first two. And at a lot more than a few rehab programs would cost.

The U.S. incarcerates a larger proportion of its population than any industrialized nation in the world. It is a country where you can do more time for selling drugs than for shooting someone. That's why there are more than 2,000,000 people incarcerated, not because of the cushy life on the inside.

 

I'm not convinced that education is as effective in reducing recidivism as is claimed.

Those prisoners who avail themselves of educational opportunities do have lower recidivism rates. But wouldn't the sort of prisoner interested in, and able to take advantage of college courses have a lower recidivism rate anyway, even if the courses weren't supplied?

There's an implicit argument here that college courses can turn the most brutal and sociopathic inmates into model citizens, and that assertion is questionable in my opinion.

It's more likely that higher education is more attractive to those who are already able to function in society, and no deep and dramatic social/psychological transformations are happening at all.

 

Rich: "Anyone who thinks prisons reward inmates doesn't know what they're talking about."

Cehi: Maybe so, or maybe not.

Rich: "The walls, motion detectors, armed guards, fences, towers, cameras, etc. are there to keep inmates IN, not out. "

Cehi: I think these are the prices they have to pay for their criminal actions. The harsh environment, in my mind, should guide their future decision making process related to crimes.

 

I find it profoundly wrong, even flat-out evil, to reward felons for preying on others. As I see it, this is a kind of extortion: Give us what we want, or we will hurt you when we're released.

The argument for providing taxpayer funded services to inmates is utilitarian. It's argued that the social costs of crime are reduced through lower recidivism.

As I say, this offends me. I find it totally unethical to ignore a dishwasher trying to do the right thing, but to reward him with a free state-subsidized education if he decides to shoot a 7-11 clerk.

But my moral intuitions are being ignored here. The thing is, from where I sit, if people can ignore my moral intuitions, I see no reason to pay any attention to theirs either. Moral scruples drop out of the argument entirely, and the whole thing becomes a simple practical matter of reducing costs and lowering recidivism rates.

If we combine that newfound unscrupulousness with our utilitarian motivations, a lot of new possibilities suddenly present themselves:

If a person is convicted of a violent felony, then simply give him a local anasthetic, and inject something into one of his eyes that will disable the retina. If he repeat-offends, do the other eye. If you like, you could simply give warnings for the first felony conviction (excepting crimes like murder perhaps), and make blindness the third-strike. (It is no more inhumane than mandatory life inprisonment for three-strikes offenders.)

You will eliminate the cost of incarceration. The cost of the injections woud be only a few bucks. Recidivism would plummet to absolutely minimal levels, particularly if the second eye is disabled.

I realize that many of you will find this suggestion evil. But as I said, I think that the idea of rewarding felons with benefits is evil too. If the only issue here is reducing costs and crime rates, then my suggestion seems pretty efficient.

 

Interesting points on both sides, with the exception of BillDayson's.

A few points:

1) On rewarding prisoners: I don't see this program as a reward, but as a preventitive measure to prevent crime. Does it work on all prisoners...no, but the results overall are encourging.

2) On providing prisoners with educations denyed to the poor: In this program the fee waivers are provided through the same program that allows lower income residents of California a waiver for community college fees.

3) As a California tax payer I am willing to spend $750.00/year per inmate (of which only a small portion of one prison is involved) if it will prevent some of these people from commiting further crimes.

4) My comments on prison guards were not meant as disrespect to law enforcement officers, but related to the less than upright behavior of the prison guard's union, and our current California Governor. Prison guards have a difficult job, but that does not excuse the current situation.

 

If education can help people avoid turning to crime, then I agree that it would be best to provide that education to people before they become criminals.

As for the criminals themselves: I have always liked the idea of simply deporting them to Australia. That's one of the few things the Englanders got right ...

 

In today's news: Inmates in Ohio prisons can earn a degree from Ohio University without ever leaving the prison.

 

I have always thought it interesting that for many thousands of years, mankind has been both educating students and confining, punishing, or rehabilitating criminals.

One would think that such breadth of experience would lead to generalized consensus throughout the species on the best way to educate and incarcerate. Yet by the diverse approaches around the world, there is still much variation in these fields. One of the most interesting things about this board is learning the different educational philosophies and techniques from around the world. It seems as if penology can also differ markedly from country to country.

Not being an expert in either education or penology, I am curious to learn how other countries besides the US deal with prisoner education? I would imagine that the amount and type provided depends heavily on the underlying economy and resources of a given country.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

Knew a psych person who worked at Drumheller Medium Security Pen.

I saw the menu. One day they had Cornish game hen, but we mustn't forget the regular steak night.

The only thing he said was not recommended was the soup.

In Canada we have golf courses and riding clubs at prisons and conjugal visits give a whole new meaning to hard time.