Expenditure on Prison Treatment and Rehabilitation

The Impact of the Great Recession

The Great Recession has had an impact on many areas of the U.S. Government over the past few years, with the majority of them suffering budget cuts that were previously unheard of. High cuts in some agencies, like the education department, led to massive layoffs and fee increases. (Kincade, 2017).

Funding for Prison Programs

In an effort to weather the recession, other departments implemented steps like reducing hours, pay, and services. It would therefore be difficult to persuade the public that anything justifies an increase in spending given that many agencies are experiencing such budget cuts. However, new initiatives regarding prison programs suggest that funding for these initiatives needs to be increased. To sell this to the public, it should be treated as an optional cost-cutting step.

Preventing Recidivism and Reducing Costs

Prison programs are meant to ensure the people are rehabilitated to prevent them from doing the same crimes again. By committing the crimes that they are in prison for again means that they will more time in the prison, more court fees and other extra costs. Therefore, it means that when they are prevented from repeating the crimes through the prison programs which ultimately result in cost reductions. In other words, rather spend a little initially to prevent and expense that will be major later prove to be a major. In the long run, increased expenditure on prison programs will have a significant impact on the level of crime since by reducing the habitual relapse into crime means that the general crime rates drop (Kincade, 2017).

Reducing Crime Rates and Costs

When there is a decline in the overall rate of crime in a country it means that the money required to ensure enforcement reduces since fewer police officers and correctional officers and even fewer prisons are needed. The overall cost of the enforcement system drops since every system associated with high crime rate are no longer required. Crime tends to trigger more crime and that means less crime triggers less crime (Kincade, 2017). Therefore, by reducing the overall rates of crime means that there would be a less habitual relapse into crime hence a drop in the culture of crime even to those who would commit crimes for the first time. Ultimately, it reduces the need for the costly programs in the overall correctional procedures.

Addressing Special Cases

To qualify the argument and to prove its practicality, some points must be conceded. For instance, the non-violent drug offenders who take up so much of the funds set aside for the prison programs. However, many people do not regard such imprisonments as popular since the people do pose a danger to others but rather to themselves (Gilligan, 2012). Therefore, it’s important to convince the public that even though such offenders drain much of the prison funds, increased funding is still needed since even the department recognizes the need to cut the overall costs. Reducing the number of the non-violent offenders in the prisons would reduce the costs required to have them in prisons serving absolute jail terms (Gilligan, 2012). It would be much better to have the non-violent drug related offenders undergo alternative treatment rather than having serve all-out prisons sentences. However, the alternative programs for their treatment and rehabilitation may be costlier than having them in the prisons serving their terms thus the need for increased funding for prisons treatment and rehabilitation programs.

References

Gilligan, J. (2012, December 19). Punishment Fails. Rehabilitation Works. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-works

Kincade, B. (2017, Feb 3). The Economics of the American Prison System. Retrieved from Smartasset: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-economics-of-the-american-prison-system