The Revolving Door
Get out of prison. Walk out the gate. Head over to the nearest 7-11. Rob it. Get caught. Go back inside.
Get out of prison. Walk out the gate. Go steal a car. Get caught. Go back inside
Recidivism, the rate at which former inmates run afoul of the law again, is one of the most commonly accepted measures of success (or, actually, failure) in our criminal justice system. The numbers are dismal. About three-quarters of inmates released from state prisons are rearrested within five years of their release.
But wait. Dig a little deeper—as researchers have done—and a far more nuanced picture emerges. For example: Most of the returns to prison in New York — 78 percent — were triggered not by fresh offenses but by parole violations, such as failing drug tests or skipping meetings with parole officers.
This is what the Marshall Project calls the Misleading Math of Recidivism.
When calculating recidivism rates, various states use different measures. Some states lump violating parole (technical violations like missing an appointment with a parole officer, failing to pay a restitution fine, failing to report travel), minor infractions that can trigger arrest (for example, a traffic violation, vagrancy), and committing a new crime as examples of recidivism. Other studies count only convictions for new crimes.
In other words, when we hear about the extraordinarily high rates of recidivism, we often don’t know what’s being counted. What we do know—what many people feel—is afraid. Let those bad folks out, and what do they do? They continue to be a threat to us and our communities. Keep ‘em inside. Throw away the key.
It is infinitely more helpful to think about (and question) those numbers in other ways:
What is being counted?
Why might there be so many parole violations? (Is parole overly punitive? Do parole officers have such excessive caseloads that they have no time to get to know their parolees and help them be successful? What are the most common violations and how can we restructure the demands of parole to mitigate this?)
And, most urgently and importantly, if prison is supposed to be about both punishment and rehabilitation, why is the rehabilitation component so weak (or nonexistent) that for some crimes—burglary and drug crimes top that list–there is, indeed, a revolving door.
Here’s surprising fact to chew on: The most violent prisoners are the least likely to end up back in jail.One percent of released killers ever murder a second time.
I hope you will want to read about the post-prison lives of six people—five of whom committed violent offenses and served decades inside, one with life-long addiction problems—in my new book, Free: Two Years, Six Lives, and the Long Journey Home.
None are back in prison.
7 comments
So many sad facts behind the numbers.
A great book that I highly recommend.
I will not go on a long screed as I sometimes do, but the criminal justice professionals share some portion of the failure of men and women who do not successfully navigate all the pitfalls of trying to transition back to the community from prison. After a certain amount of time, most prisoners will shrug their shoulders and live down to your expectations after being told for the thousandth time that they are just vermin. This not true of all staff or all prisoners. Nearly everyone I know (remember I am a child of the sixties who turned 18 in 1968) has had a period in their lives when their lifestyle choices may have resulted in incarceration. If positive change can happen for me, it can happen for anyone. People are perfectible. The beauty of your book is that all the people meeting the challenges involved in their own transition from prison did it differently. They all imagined success even when it was hiding in the corner and trying to hide from them. Imagination built resilience. Imagination built confidence.
The story of Sterling Cunio illustrates this the most clearly. He believed in what he could build in his mind when the entire system tried to pigeon-hole him as just a thug. Here I go again so I will just make three points here: 1) all would benefit if all of our prisons would look to supporting programs that allow for imaginative planning and related action, preferably while being allowed to interact with the community; 2) Parole violations that are not clearly tied to new criminal activity need to stop – period; 3) all across the country it is impossible to really determine best practices because nobody measures things the same way, Look at how the definition of recidivism varies so widely from state-to-state and federally. It is impossible to analyze what you cannot compare. So, people go with their gut instincts which work well with people like Karuna Thompson or Steve Finster but not so well for some others I need not name.
Thank you for making a point about living “down” to others’ expectations. Years ago I read a study of teachers and high-achieving/ low-achieving students.The teachers were told that the high achievers who would be in their classrooms were students with learning problems. They were told that the low achievers were talented and gifted. This significantly affected how the teachers viewed (and treated) these students, what they expected of them,how they interpreted their behavior, etc. You probably know how this experiment turned out…
“People are perfectible.” Randy, you are always profound, but this is a truth spoken clearly and profoundly, and a line I will use from now on! I always say, “People are not stagnant.” We’re always changing, so how does it possibly make sense for parole boards to evaluate prisoners for release based on a 30-year-old crime? I guess because it’s easier than actually having to figure out who the person is TODAY. Yes, it would take SKILL! And so far we just pretend that a Board has the skills. But the truth remains that the way you are successful in prison is the opposite of what makes you successful in real life, so I think the bulk of judgements on who’s going to make it are nothing but a crap shoot! Thanks for making the point that becoming a compliant prisoner victim shouldn’t be how we choose to release people! Helping them grow and develop so they fit into a society they most never knew how to navigate to begin with is a far more worthy goal!
Having sat through two parole hearings, I was astonished at much time and attention was given to the 30-year-old crime and how little to the decades that followed and, as you say, to who the person is today.
When I was a teenager we lived above a family in which one of the sons had been in prison and released. I remember he felt jumpy and out of place on the outside. Missed being in prison with his people. I was too young to be told what he did, but before too long, he was back inside. I wonder how many feel/felt that way. That situation would be considered “recidivism”, too. I’m sure.
This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing that story. I have heard from the men in my prison writing group that there is a camaraderie inside (not the gang-affiliated kind) that they never experienced outside. Maybe that’s what this young man was feeling. His home situation might have been very stressful, or perhaps unhealthy?
Leave a Comment