Just as car mechanics, who have for many years worked on car engines, know best how to diagnose car problems, so intelligent prisoners – there are some in Connecticut’s Corrections facilities – know best how to diagnose prison problems. It ain’t rocket science, and it helps sometimes to look under the hood. Michael Liebowitz – co-author with Brent McCall of Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime -- below examines a newly proposed legislative bill, SB978, and the bill -- soothing no doubt to the placid, largely ineffectual legislative conscience -- does not pass close inspection.
_________________________
By Michael Liebowitz
Up for debate in Connecticut’s current legislative session
is SB978, a bill which if passed will reduce the percentage of time required to
serve for parole eligibility by inmates who committed serious offensives after
turning 18 but prior to turning 25. This is part of a nationwide trend
resulting from an awareness of brain science, which shows that the part of the
brain responsible for foresight is not fully developed until age 25.
One argument for enacting the bill is that if someone was
unable to foresee the consequences of their actions, they should not be held
fully accountable for those actions. Another argument is that reducing the
amount of time someone has to serve before seeing parole will incentivize
rehabilitation.
The opposing argument is that releasing offenders early puts
the public at risk. For evidence, opponents of the bill could cite the 60
percent recidivist rate, or the results of the Risk Reduction Earned Credit
law, which was passed nearly a decade ago. During the first 72 months after it
passed those released early committed 119 murders, 154 rapes, and 1,916
assaults, among other crimes.
It appears there are strong points on either side, but a close
look reveals this appearance to be a mirage. For instance, while it is true
that the brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25, this doesn’t mean
it’s completely undeveloped at 24. In fact, the brain is more developed at 18
than at 15, and even more so at 24 than at 18. If this bill passes, however,
defendants from 15 to 24, as long as they’re in adult court, will be subject to
the same parole requirements. Treating people equally whose brains are not equally developed isn’t consistent with
the science.
The other side’s argument is similarly flawed. For example,
if this bill passes, I will be eligible for parole this October. If it doesn’t
pass, I will be eligible slightly more than two years later. Furthermore, even
if denied parole, I will be released in 2026. Ultimately, the vast majority
offenders, like me, will eventually be released. The point is, in terms of
public safety, does it make much difference whether someone is released after
serving 60 percent of their sentence rather than 85 percent?
I mentioned above that an additional argument in favor of
the bill is that it will incentivize rehabilitation. The counter argument is
that most inmates are either irreformable or uninterested in being reformed.
Both sides take it for granted that quality opportunities for rehabilitation
exist within prisons. This false premise results in the positions of both sides
being woefully misinformed.
While space constraints preclude a detailed description of
all the ways Corrections fails in its responsibilities, I can provide one
example that typifies the reasons for this failure. Connecticut claims to be a
leader in Corrections, dedicated to offender rehabilitation and evidence-based practices.
This is simply false advertising. Take offender assessment, for instance. The
state’s assessment tool is the Treatment and Programming Assessment Instrument
(TPAI). This instrument measures only static variables, such as age at first
arrest, number of prior arrests, and age at the time of assessment. These
variables are called “static” because they can’t be changed.[1]
Now, consider what is stated in a prominent text on offender
assessment and rehabilitation[2]:
“An understanding of dynamic predictions is very important… because a psychology
of criminal conduct rejects outright and exclusive focus on the more static
aspects of individuals and their situations.”
According to the Department of Corrections, one reason for
the TPIA’a creation was to “identify core programs that address criminogenic
needs and to prioritize these programs for these offenders.” But according to
the aforementioned text, “… dynamic predictors of criminal conduct or
criminogenic need factors have great practical relevance because they inform interventions
that reduce criminal behavior…” As you can see, criminogenic needs are dynamic
risk factors, which the TPAT doesn’t assess. Thus the TPAI doesn’t do what its proponents
claim it was designed for.
Assessment lies at the root of effective offender treatment.
Given that the state’s assessment instrument doesn’t measure the essential variables
of rehabilitative interventions, the only possible conclusion is that the state’s
approach to rehabilitation is rotten at its root. What does that say about the
tree?
The above analysis is intended to demonstrate that bills such as SB978 are mere window dressing. In order to change the criminal justice system for the better, it is essential to reform the prison system. This means implementing policies proven to reform offenders. For evidence that such policies exist, Google “Core Correctional Practices.”
Michael Liebowitz #252419
335 Bilton Rd.
P.O. Box 100
Somers, Ct 06071
[1] All information pertaining to the TPIA is from the “The Treatment and Programing Assessment Instrument,” Patrick Hynes, Ph.D, and Ivan Kuzyk, Departmet of Corrections (2021)
[2] “The
Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th Edition” by James Bonta and D.
A. Andrews (2017). Both quotes are taken
from page 20.
Comments