Punishment and healing
A proposed amendment to the state of Ohio (USA) constitution would prohibit jail time as a sentence for obtaining, possessing, or using such drugs until an individual’s third offense within 24 months. It would mandate that the individual participate in rehabilitation, work or educational programing. From my perspective, as a licensed counselor and a certified addiction counselor the amendment, if passed, could be the beginning of a change of approach to treating illness. For many years, we in the United States have often criminalized those with a primary diagnosis of addiction or other mental illness who commit illegal acts. Although I have known of some very gifted, empathetic and talented treatment staff inside of prisons these, in my experience are few. Prisons are, by design, a place to punish those who are considered less than or “bad” people. The prevailing belief has been that those who are unable, for whatever reason, to consider the effect of their behavior on others deserve punishment. Many in the United States sincerely believe that punishment is an effective approach to those who are convicted of breaking the law. It is, of course, a well-known fact that race, status, and money can often determine whether one is labeled a criminal and required to spend time in jails. We also know that imprisoning people costs a lot of money for staff, facilities, and equipment. Additionally, the long-term consequences of living or working in prisons are economically very high.
In an editorial published on October 8, 2018 of The Intelligencer in Wheeling, West Virginia, in opposing the passage of the amendment to the constitution of Ohio maintains that “The tough love of a few months or years in prison, away from the easy access to drugs, often is the catalyst that leads addicts to seek treatment.”
My experience in working in jails and in working with individuals who have spent time in various jails leads me to believe:
The recidivism rate in the United States is very high. Various studies from 2005 – the latest year for which comprehensive statistics seem be available - indicate that the for state prisons the recidivism rate is between 75% to 78% and for federal prisons the rate is around 44%. The Bureau of Justice published an update on May 23, 2018 for the period 2005-2014 from a 9 year follow up study which found that 5 our 6 state prisoners were arrested within 9 years of their release.
Clearly Federal prisons whose overall population is different than most state prisons are either more effective or less destructive depending on how one views the statistics. Neither federal or state prisons are effective in preventing future crime. The fact that most federal prisoners state that they are better treated and have more treatment and educational programs available than state prisons might have some bearing on the return rate. It is also my understanding that most employees of federal prisons report higher salaries and benefits than those of state prisons although those figures vary a lot from state to state. Even then, correction officer of both state and federal prisons report working conditions are stressful for them and ultimately for their families.
The bottom line is that I can find no evidence that incarcerating those with mental illness including addiction is an effective treatment approach. It does not benefit the individual, his or her family or the larger community. It is also true that mental illness, including addiction, are chronic illnesses which require lifelong treatment. Mental health including addiction treatment programs have much to learn about providing ongoing, holistic, effective treatment. It seems clear that our experiment in punishing those with mental illness, including addiction, has not been effective despite the fact that some incarcerated people get better in jails. The question is what percentage of those few who do get better in jail would have healed just as well or better in a less punitive and less expensive program.
Written October 8, 2018
A proposed amendment to the state of Ohio (USA) constitution would prohibit jail time as a sentence for obtaining, possessing, or using such drugs until an individual’s third offense within 24 months. It would mandate that the individual participate in rehabilitation, work or educational programing. From my perspective, as a licensed counselor and a certified addiction counselor the amendment, if passed, could be the beginning of a change of approach to treating illness. For many years, we in the United States have often criminalized those with a primary diagnosis of addiction or other mental illness who commit illegal acts. Although I have known of some very gifted, empathetic and talented treatment staff inside of prisons these, in my experience are few. Prisons are, by design, a place to punish those who are considered less than or “bad” people. The prevailing belief has been that those who are unable, for whatever reason, to consider the effect of their behavior on others deserve punishment. Many in the United States sincerely believe that punishment is an effective approach to those who are convicted of breaking the law. It is, of course, a well-known fact that race, status, and money can often determine whether one is labeled a criminal and required to spend time in jails. We also know that imprisoning people costs a lot of money for staff, facilities, and equipment. Additionally, the long-term consequences of living or working in prisons are economically very high.
In an editorial published on October 8, 2018 of The Intelligencer in Wheeling, West Virginia, in opposing the passage of the amendment to the constitution of Ohio maintains that “The tough love of a few months or years in prison, away from the easy access to drugs, often is the catalyst that leads addicts to seek treatment.”
My experience in working in jails and in working with individuals who have spent time in various jails leads me to believe:
- Some people are able to use jail time as a wakeup call.
- Some people such as, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King who are very spiritually healthy are able to use the time in jail as a continuation of their spiritual growth.
- Many addicts have used the threat of jail time as an opportunity to enter a treatment program. Some get well or better in spite of the determination to just use treatment time as a way to avoid jail.
- Addiction is a chronic illness. The percentage of individuals who remain in long term recovery following one or two times in treatment is still fairly low. One has to expect relapses.
- Long term incarceration can and often does lead to institutionalization- an inability to function outside of the structured setting of jails.
- Treatment is much cheaper short and long term than prison although treatment programs can vary in cost and are available in first class accommodations.
The recidivism rate in the United States is very high. Various studies from 2005 – the latest year for which comprehensive statistics seem be available - indicate that the for state prisons the recidivism rate is between 75% to 78% and for federal prisons the rate is around 44%. The Bureau of Justice published an update on May 23, 2018 for the period 2005-2014 from a 9 year follow up study which found that 5 our 6 state prisoners were arrested within 9 years of their release.
Clearly Federal prisons whose overall population is different than most state prisons are either more effective or less destructive depending on how one views the statistics. Neither federal or state prisons are effective in preventing future crime. The fact that most federal prisoners state that they are better treated and have more treatment and educational programs available than state prisons might have some bearing on the return rate. It is also my understanding that most employees of federal prisons report higher salaries and benefits than those of state prisons although those figures vary a lot from state to state. Even then, correction officer of both state and federal prisons report working conditions are stressful for them and ultimately for their families.
The bottom line is that I can find no evidence that incarcerating those with mental illness including addiction is an effective treatment approach. It does not benefit the individual, his or her family or the larger community. It is also true that mental illness, including addiction, are chronic illnesses which require lifelong treatment. Mental health including addiction treatment programs have much to learn about providing ongoing, holistic, effective treatment. It seems clear that our experiment in punishing those with mental illness, including addiction, has not been effective despite the fact that some incarcerated people get better in jails. The question is what percentage of those few who do get better in jail would have healed just as well or better in a less punitive and less expensive program.
Written October 8, 2018
RSS Feed