Prisons are likely to become more – rather than less – significant centers of gravity for the jihadist movement. We discuss some ways in which prisons matter during the radicalization process.
Scholars suggest that an individual’s criminal past impacts possible terrorist futures for the jihadist movement. In particular, Basra et al.’s research has emerged four main themes.
Radicalization and recruitment
The redemption narrative offers a radical change of values and behavior while encouraging a guilt-free sense of rebellion and anti-establishment. Crime is justified on religious grounds, whether or not the recruit has a religious background or understanding of Islam. In this instance, recruitment can be viewed as an unintended merging of criminal and jihadist narratives.
Prisons as a milieu
Prisons expose vulnerabilities in individuals susceptible to “cognitive openings” and the willingness to identify with new beliefs. Networking opportunities in prison lay the groundwork for radicalization, with rapid mobilization and solidification of radical beliefs occurring post-release.
Skills transfers
Jihadists also take advantage of criminal skills in prison, such as connections to gangs and weapons, and the soft skill of staying under the radar by using fake documents and safe houses. Familiarity with violence is also considered a skill transfer, as recruits with violent pasts are less likely to be psychologically hesitant to commit violent terrorist acts.
Criminal financing
Petty crime and criminal operations are known to finance terrorists, particularly their return to Syria. There has been a shift in terrorist financing from state-funded to micro-level self-funded methods (through criminal efforts). Jihadists also leverage the criminal financial strategy of encouraging a low barrier to entry, sharing their ideology to justify their crimes, and encouraging continued criminal behavior by simply shifting the purpose to meet jihadist ideals.
Institutional Responses
These findings challenge traditional views of radicalization and significantly impact counter-terrorism responses, forcing authorities to consider prisons a breeding ground for radicalization where, previously, foreign fighters were recruited from universities and places of religious worship.
Again, the criminal challenges of society (which now include terrorism) come back to addressing societal needs and effective rehabilitation efforts to impact change. Exploring this demands an entirely new discussion, but essentially, incorporating rehabilitation and post-release services as a priority in prisons rather than punitive measures could protect the vulnerable isolation of offenders and reduce recidivism (in the form of terrorist action).
There are several examples of jihadists who have emerged from the criminal-terrorist nexus in prison and caused severe damage. The case of Omar el-Hussein demonstrates both arguments — that prisons are a location for radicalization and that offenders are vulnerable people whose rehabilitation and reintegration are largely neglected.
El-Hussein was radicalized in prison and even red-flagged by authorities. After his release, a technicality prevented him from accessing probation services, leading him to be homeless and jobless, during which rapid radicalization occurred. Destitute and radicalized, he carried out the deadly shootings at a cultural center and a synagogue in Copenhagen in February 2015.
References
- Basra, R., Neumann, P., and Brunner, C. (2016). Criminal Pasts, Terrorist Futures: European Jihadists and the New Crime-Terror Nexus. London: CSR.
- Burchett, J. & Weyembergh, A. (2023). Prison and detention conditions in the EU. IPOL | Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Accessed on September 23, 2023, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/741374/IPOL_STU(2023)741374_EN.pdf
- Clarke, C. (2016). Drugs and Thugs: Funding Terrorism through Narcotics Trafficking. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(3).
- Mikkelsen, R. (2007). U.S. prison system a costly and harmful failure: report. Reuters. Accessed on September 23, 2023, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-prisons-idUSN1841666120071119
- UNODC. (2017). Roadmap for the development of prison-based rehabilitation programs. Criminal Justice Handbook Series. Accessed on September 23, 2023, from https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/17-05452_ebook.pdf
What is the connection between the public and the criminal justice system? In many ways, individuals who partake in criminal behavior are outcasts from the general. Yet, no matter how we box these individuals or push them far back in our review mirror, the public and the criminal justice system overlap significantly.
Consider that:
- Public views shape policies and laws that guide criminal justice processes. As well as the acceptance of formerly incarcerated people who reenter society after serving time.
- The jury system directly implicates the sentencing of specific individuals placed on trial, holding their future (and the future of their loved ones) in their hands.
- Tax money is used to fund criminal justice systems — from police salaries and governmental departments charged with protecting public safety to corrections expenditures and court expenditures.
These are three simple, everyday ways the public connects with the criminal justice system.
The Disconnect Between the Public and the Criminal Justice System
Various narratives about the criminal justice system are circulating in the public realm, from police giving up on all but the most serious crimes to prisons being beyond capacity.
While these stories largely hold truth and can be applied around the world, there is a big lesson that can be learned from public policy failure and the impact that it has on the community’s trust in the criminal justice system.
Prejudice and judgement
The disconnect is more apparent when comparing certain communities, bringing racial and ethnic tension to the forefront. For example, a 2015 Washington Post shared that “Black teens who commit a few crimes go to jail as often as white teens who commit dozens.”
Similar disconnect parallels can be drawn between disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, brain injuries, and mental health conditions.
By isolating those “prone” to criminal behavior, it’s easier for opposing groups within the community to isolate themselves from the system and harbor judgemental attitudes.
The Prosecutor
I've recently finished reading The Prosecutor, an autobiography by Nazir Afzal, a British solicitor and former prosecutor within the Crown Prosecution Services. Nazir presents a very interesting approach to managing crime, and it all comes back to connecting with the community.
I highly recommend reading Nazir Afzal’s book to gain insight into the challenges and processes faced by players in the criminal justice system — and how the civilian community plays a larger role than anticipated.
Balancing second chances and public safety
Daily Press recently shared a story about Democrats and Republicans bumping heads on significant criminal justice reforms, namely a rehabilitation and reentry bill package. A main component of the proposed package is the “second look” bill, which allows sentencing hearings 10 years into an inmate’s term, regardless of the crime.
As the author writes, “The goal of the proposed legislation is laudable. But its potential impact on public safety is so great it should not be rammed through on a one-party vote without debate.”
While the article is United States-focused, the lesson of political collaboration is a universal one. As the column states, “The ultimate goal should be to create a corrections system that actually corrects behavior while protecting the public from harm.”
Social reintegration and public safety
UNODC has published an introductory handbook on the prevention of recidivism and the social reintegration of offenders, where they distinguish the link between social reintegration and public safety. The handbook highlights the social and economic costs of failed reintegration as a major concern for policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries. However, it’s important to remember the necessity of reintegration programs for public safety and the socioeconomic development of countries.
So, how does the public feel about reentry? A recent report reveals that public members appear open and supportive of utilizing “second chance” mechanisms in various contexts, especially among offenders serving long-term prison sentences. While levels of support vary by race, gender, and age, it seems the cost of incarceration to taxpayers is a significant motivation for using second-chance mechanisms. As the paper says, “The USA’s current reliance on long-term prison sentences mounts incredible human and monetary costs that are disproportionate to their effects on crime rates and public safety.”
There are alternatives to long-term prison sentences that balance public safety and the proper reintegration of offenders. The Commission of Effective Criminal Sanctions has presented a few key areas to consider.
- Non-incarceration community solutions that prevent the creation of a conviction record for less serious offenders
- Enhanced parole and probation oversight
- Granting occupational licenses to individuals with past convictions
- Revise access to and use of criminal background data for non-law enforcement purposes
- Legal assistance concerning secondary repercussions
- Training in the exercise of discretion
How can the public community help with reintegration
Reintegration of former offenders demands the community's assistance to succeed. By taking local ownership of the reintegration process, it can benefit both returnees and the community. These community-based reintegration projects range from collective returnees and new community-based projects to including returnees in existing community-based projects.
Community-level initiatives
Community-level initiatives should focus on short- and medium-term barriers to reintegration, foster dialogue and social cohesion, support the resilience of returnees, and support the longer-term sustainability of intervention outcomes.
When the community collectively works to combat stigmatization, it empowers former offenders to build meaningful connections and strengthen their social networks.
Community leaders
Community leaders, in particular, play a significant role in the reintegration of ex-prisoners. Depending on the country, these community leaders may include traditional and religious leaders as well as local civil society organizations. By nurturing strong ties to the community, these community leaders play a role in mediating between former offenders and the community.
General public
While criminal justice lands squarely in the laps of the authorities, the public can still play a valuable role in encouraging reintegration and improving the results of criminal justice efforts.
Consider the following steps as a starting point:
- Engage with law enforcement by volunteering, offering constructive feedback on local authorities, participating in law enforcement surveys, and staying updated with local police departments on social media.
- Participate in neighborhood watch and attend community meetings.
- Provide informal social control and services that reduce the likelihood of juvenile criminal behavior.
- Cooperate with fellow community members to create a safe space for vulnerable individuals.
Are there any other ways that the community can positively contribute to criminal justice and reform?
As technology has evolved, it has introduced several opportunities for businesses and organizations to grow and expand. There are also opportunities in the criminal justice space, but how many of these remain unexplored?
The Importance of Digital Literacy
Some private companies recognize these opportunities and put their money where their mouth is — such as Google, which launched Grow with Google Career Readiness for Reentry. The program is focused on job readiness and digital skills training for formerly incarcerated individuals. Google announced over $8 million in investments in organizations helping “justice-impacted” individuals. Google has a goal of helping 100,000 formerly incarcerated people build career skills by 2025.
Another concern is how many formerly incarcerated individuals struggle with the knowledge gap and lack of digital skills, as access to digital development behind bars is limited.
For example, one study that identifies tech challenges of women transitioning from incarceration struggles with basic digital skills, such as knowing how to protect privacy or online information.
Additional studies show that digital literacy can reduce recidivism in the long term, as well as digital technology reducing incarceration rates through alternatives such as house arrest and remote parole monitoring. For example, GPS and radio frequency-enabled technology provide an alternative to physical incarceration (reducing incarceration costs and easing the reentry of nonviolent offenders).
Supporting Prisoner Reentry
Rand Corporation has produced a report that explores leveraging technology to support prisoner reentry, as well as the challenges that correctional agencies face — and how to overcome them.
Consider how the use of electronic devices by incarcerated individuals has the potential to support reentry objectives.
- Better prepare for future job opportunities
- Leverage communication tools to deliver reentry-related services remotely
- VR and other simulation technology can be an effective tool to support reentry
- Used in correctional education
- Facilitate support for incarcerated individuals and their families
How Can Technology Assist With Reentry?
Did you know that implementing a digital application process for incarcerated individuals can save an officer approximately 91 hours a week?
Setting aside the fact that the prison system seldom offers the necessary resources for proper rehabilitation, many incarcerated individuals struggle to adjust to life outside of prison after release. Could technology better facilitate a smooth transition? And how?
Rand Corporation researched the use of electronic devices to support reentry objectives, and they produced a few key findings.
- Technology can better prepare individuals for future job opportunities
- Technology provides the opportunity to leverage communication tools to deliver reentry-related services remotely
- Virtual reality can be effective in supporting reentry
- Technology plays a key role in correctional education
- Technology can facilitate support for incarcerated individuals and the families awaiting their return
- Telepresence technology can facilitate warm hand-offs to community-based partners
Of course, correctional agencies face several challenges in implementing technology for these purposes, and the recommendations provided by the study only work in theory — until they are executed practically.
Reform Think Tank further explores the potential of innovation across the prison estate. They discuss how secure technology can be used by prisoners to improve outcomes in custody, plan for resettlement, and enable continuous support for the community.
These plans involve all parties in the criminal justice system and rely on trusting secure systems with those behind bars. Training and induction processes are necessary, and with the right guidance, the potential for technology in reentry is significant.
Evaluation of Digital Technology in Prisons
Technology and data offer unique insights that help to refine policy, guide decisions, and implement meaningful change. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system is perforated by data gaps.
Justice Lab describes lack of data as “areas where a lack of published data makes it hard to answer questions of significant public interest” and includes areas of police, courts, and prison. Data gaps are a global concern, but improvement is possible. Shifting attention to the use of digital technology in prison, research reveals an opportunity to leverage the digital era for positive change.
The Ministry of Justice released a report on evaluating digital technology in prison to reveal various aims. While the study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the approach could be applied to a wider global community with the proper allocation of resources and security.
- Provide opportunities for incarcerated individuals to build skills and assist in their rehabilitation
- Reduce prison violence by improving relationships between incarcerated individuals and staff
- Improve relationships between incarcerated individuals and people outside of prison
- Increase staff job satisfaction
The study goes in-depth, discussing the role of technology on themes of functionality and access, uptake and use of technology, interactions and relationships, staff and prisoner wellbeing, and staff workload.
I was particularly drawn to the insights on prisoner and staff wellbeing, where the introduction of digital technology improved the psychological well-being of prisoners, increased feelings of personal responsibility, and less friction.
Of course, this report only scratches the surface of how technology can benefit prisoner rehabilitation, staff well-being, and the general improvement of criminal justice results.
It’s possible that these digital tools can fill gaps where limited staff and financial resources cannot. These digital tools may also contribute to more data, which further serves the public interest and improves criminal justice efforts.
Enhancing Rehabilitation Outcomes Through Innovative Technology
Innovative technologies provide an opportunity for change, including criminal justice reform. Recently, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute hosted a session on enhancing rehabilitation outcomes for prisoners through the adoption of innovative technologies.
The summit discussed how innovative technology offers a promising solution to rehabilitation by providing access to rehabilitation programs and flexible, effective prison-based interventions. This discussion is in conjunction with the attention on the importance of digital literacy skills and the critical role they play after release.
The Prisons Strategy White Paper also pushes the agenda for a modern, innovative approach to jails that intends to reform prisoners while protecting the public — a bold goal that can be achieved through applied thinking and allocation of resources.
Some of these measures include:
- Using body scanners to achieve a zero-tolerance approach to drugs
- Assessing offenders for drug and alcohol addiction and putting together a comprehensive addiction plan
- Improved education, with a focus on digital literacy and training offenders in vocational skills such as construction and coding
- Introducing a job-matching service that pairs offenders with vacancies in the community to reduce unemployment post-release
- Resettlement passports offer incarcerated individuals all that they need to start looking for work after release
- Speedier punishment schemes with penalties linked directly to their offense (while supporting rehabilitation)
In November 2021, the UK government allocated an extra £550 million to reduce reoffending and £3.75 billion to create 20,000 extra prison places across the estate.
What are your thoughts on this approach?
Did you know that the Centre for Mental Health estimates approximately 60% of adult offenders and 30% of young offenders have a history of traumatic brain injuries? In comparison, only 5% to 9% of the general population suffer from a similar injury.
Traumatic Brain Injuries
In many instances, a history of traumatic brain injuries (TBI ) comprises multiple injuries that contribute to a cumulative impact. This research has been further expanded to reveal that men and women who have sustained TBI are approximately 2.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than those who have not.
Melissa Bickford writes for The Marshall Project about brain injuries, describing them as the “criminal justice issue nobody talks about.” Through her firsthand experience of navigating the criminal justice system with a brain injury caused by domestic violence, she describes the repercussions of her trauma.
TBI impacts both victims and perpetrators, and some individuals are pushing legislation to get neuropsychological exams for people inside. By impacting one’s ability to manage emotions, brain injuries contribute to impulsive and agitated behavior. It becomes increasingly more difficult to build a healthy and productive life with untreated brain injuries.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment
Incarceration is a consequence of action, but it still costs taxpayers money to house and feed those who have broken the law (as well as the wrongfully accused). Yet rates of criminal recidivism worldwide are reported to be as high as 50%, which begs the question — should incarceration be a form of punishment or a rehabilitation method?
Putting my personal opinions aside, the numbers show that rehabilitating offenders reduces recidivism, saves money, and makes communities safer. But more than that, rehabilitation reduces the severe mental health impact on incarcerated individuals.
In the United States, the “get tough on crime” approach has shifted the prison policy from being grounded in rehabilitation to being a severe form of punishment. The result is mass incarceration, with a higher percentage of the US population involved in the criminal justice system than in any other developed country.
Unfortunately, many incarcerated individuals have serious mental health illnesses, and need a nuanced approach to rehabilitation is needed.
Yet limited resources mean there are insufficient mental health professionals in prisons to make a meaningful difference. Basic philosophical differences between rehabilitative psychology and punishment-centric corrections also present a problem.
The dramatic reduction of inpatient mental health care has framed mental illness as a crime. Consider the following statistics from NYSBA:
- American citizens with mental illness are ten times more likely to be incarcerated than they are to be hospitalized
- More than 70% of people in American jails and prisons have a minimum of one diagnosed mental illness or substance use disorder
Incarceration can cause lasting damage to mental health by triggering and worsening symptoms of mental illness — which lingers long after someone is released from behind bars.
Sadly, the crisis is worsening, and psychologists and advocates are feverishly working to present literature that could shift the direction to a productive and effective one.
Early Intervention methods
Understanding the risks of mental health behind bars, it’s important to implement early intervention efforts to prevent further damage.
There are reputable organizations, such as The Disabilities Trust, in collaboration with Royal Holloway, University of London, which implemented a study on brain injuries in female offenders and how a support pathway can better manage the health, cognitive, and behavioral issues that impact the likelihood of reoffending.
Their findings suggested the following changes in the system:
- Including brain injury screening as a routine part of the induction assessment on entry to prison on probation services
- All prison and probation staff are to receive brain injury awareness training
- Provision of brain injury support in prisons and probation settings
- Assurance that brain injury support should be aligned with gender-informed practice
- Further research to examine the potential effect of brain injury on reoffending behavior
Similar action points are offered by Transition to Adulthood, which recommend criminal justice screening and assessment, various criminal justice responses, training for criminal justice professionals, managing young people with brain injuries in custody and probation settings, commissioning appropriate and effective services, and introducing early responses to children and young people with brain injuries.
There is a lot more opportunity for research and implementation for early intervention methods and more effective rehabilitation methods to reduce the prison population, offer necessary care for offenders, and make communities more safe.
The Innocence Project works for free to free innocent people who have been incarcerated, prevent wrongful convictions, and strives toward creating an equitable justice system. Below, we share a few stories of the lives impacted by their work — while revealing the flaws in the system.
Malcolm Alexander
The Innocence Project works to free innocent people who have been incarcerated, prevent wrongful convictions, and strives toward creating an equitable justice system.
In 1980, Malcolm Alexander was convicted of sexual assault in the state of Louisiana and sentenced to life without parole. Due to an ineffective trial lawyer and fallible eyewitness identification procedure, Malcolm was falsely convicted and served 38 years in prison — for a crime he did not commit.
One year after another Black man sexually assaulted a white woman, Malcolm had a consensual experience with a white woman who asked for money, and then later accused him of sexual assault. While the police couldn’t corroborate the woman’s story, they did place Malcolm’s photograph in the system. Ultimately, this action included him in the array of the 1979 crime - of which he was falsely convicted.
In 1996, the Innocence Project picked up Malcolm’s case, only to find that the rape kit and semen-stained evidence had been destroyed four years after his conviction. In 2013, hair evidence emerged from the scene, and DNA proved the strands did not match Malcolm or the victim.
After a lengthy battle to prove innocence, Malcolm was exonerated.
Antonio Beaver
Antonio is an African American man who was sentenced to 18 years in the state of Missouri for carjacking — only he didn’t commit the crime.
In 1996, a white woman was parking her car when an African American man attacked her with a screwdriver and stole her car. He got away with the vehicle, but not before leaving a little bit of blood on the driver’s side door.
Nearly one week later, Antonio Beaver’s resemblance to the composite sketch found him standing in a lineup, even though he’s appearance was strikingly different to the victim’s initial description. Due to tragic eyewitness misidentification and an unlucky jury, Antonio was found guilty of first-degree robbery.
In 2001, Antonio filed a motion on his behalf requesting DNA testing, and while the state opposed the motion, the Innocence Project accepted the case and filed another brief. This time, the state agreed to DNA testing and Antonio was excluded as the source of the blood in the car. In 2007, Antonio was exonerated at the age of 41, having spent more than a decade behind bars.
Kenneth Adams
Kenneth Adams is another exoneree who was released after the Innocence Project helped to prove his innocence — but not before he spent a shocking 18 years behind bars for a crime that he didn’t commit.
In 1978, Kenneth was wrongly convicted of rape and double homicide, receiving a sentence of 75 years behind bars. How did he get to be in this tragic situation?
A false tip from a man who lived near the crime scene led to Kenneth and three other men (known as the Ford Heights Four) being questioned by the police. While in police custody, Kenneth was held without legal counsel. His girlfriend then offered false, incriminating testimony to a grand jury, only to withdraw her story at a preliminary hearing.
Despite these shaky grounds, Kenneth was still found guilty. It took 18 years, but DNA testing ultimately exonerated all four men. It also implicated three other men, two of whom confessed and were found guilty. As it turns out, these men were placed on police radar during the investigation, but authorities did not pursue the lead.
Today, Kenneth Adams lives as a free man. The Ford Heights Four settled civil claims for $36 million against the original police officers, with Kenneth receiving $8 million. It’s made history as the largest civil rights payment in American history.
Steven Barnes
The story of Steven Barns wraps up our stories from the Innocence Project, but by no means does it tie a bow to the work done by the incredible organization.
In 1989, a horrific rape and murder occurred in upstate New York. The combination of a questionable eyewitness and three types of unvalidated forensic science found Steven guilty of a crime he didn’t commit. Based on eyewitness reports that incriminated Steven’s truck (more than him), the doubt of his innocence was deepened when a polygraph test returned inconclusive results.
Yet authorities didn't have enough to keep Steven behind bars, and he was released without charges. Two years later, investigators circled back to Steven and requested DNA samples. The case went to trial, where three forms of unvalidated forensic science were used against Steven.
After a series of suspicious words and evidence, the testimony of a jailhouse informant was the final nail in the coffin, and Steven was sentenced to 25 years to life. The Innocence Project started representing Steven in 1993 and secured DNA testing on his behalf in 1996.
A decade later, in 2007, the case was reopened, and advanced DNA testing found Steven exonerated — but not before he spent 20 years behind bars. Today, Steven lives as an exonerated man, winning a settlement of $3.5 million for wrongful conviction. He now works with youths through Oneida County, New York Workforce Development.
Donate to the Innocence Project
These are just a few of the inspiring stories of work done by the Innocence Project, tirelessly working to right the wrongs of the criminal justice system. The team of committed to restoring freedom for the innocent and transforming the systems responsible for their unjust incarceration. Each of these efforts is guided by science and deeply grounded in antiracism.
While you may not have the legal expertise to make a difference or the scientific understanding to work with DNA testing, you can donate to the cause. Generous supporters can offer to donate online, give monthly, support exonerees post-release, transfer gifts of stock, and more. No value is too small to make a difference.
Find out more about donating to the Innocence Project.
Looking for more organizations to support? Find out more about The Marshall Project!
Formerly incarcerated individuals often refer to their release day as the best of their lives, but this joy can be short-lived during the adjustment period. Reentering society introduces various challenges such as finding employment, adjusting to a new routine, and dealing with overwhelming stress.
These difficulties often contribute to recidivism. In fact, a Nigerian review established that discrimination, lack of reintegration support, and the lack of employment lead to recidivism. The Bureau of Justice revealed similar statistics.
According to their study of 30 US states between 2005 and 2010, one-third of released individuals reoffended within six months.
However, effective intervention and support can change the narrative.
The doe Fund
The Doe Fund is an NYC-based nonprofit that strives to do exactly that by releasing male prisons through its Ready, Willing & Able program. Participants get paid to clean the streets and sidewalks of the city and continue to train for more specific trades. At the end of the program, participants are connected with job opportunities that help them get back on their feet.
An independent study by Harvard University's Dr. Bruce Western concluded that the program cuts the risk of future police contact by one-third.
One of these men is William Bossio, who struggled to reintegrate into society after his release. William did several prison stints after failing to keep up with the bills and the pressure to return to a life of crime. His parole officer introduced him to the program and pushed him to make the right decision.
Through the program, William has found hope after prison and feels “blessed to find a job.”
Read the full story at Business Insider.
Did you know that children (under the age of 18) can receive life sentences in 73 countries, including the United States?
Even more tragic than juveniles being incarcerated without adequate rehabilitation is that most countries fail to keep accurate records of the number of children who are incarcerated for breaking the law, resulting in a lack of accountability.
As a guideline, United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, has estimated that more than one million children are behind bars worldwide. Considering that many of these children (who grow into adults) endure harsh and demeaning conditions and are deprived of education, the possibility of recidivism is high.
We recently shared how exoneree Patrick Pursley has invested time and energy into reaching at-risk youth — but what obstacles does he have to tackle?
Individual Risk Factors
The first major risk is the individual self, including both controllable factors as well as intrinsic.
Consider the following;
- Involvement in general offences and substance abuse before the age of 12
- Experimentation with drugs, alcohol, and/or tobacco
- Males tend to be more likely to be violent and aggressive than females
- Psychological conditions, including behavioural and mental health struggles
- Genetic conditions and birth complications that affect the brain and nervous system
In many instances, these risk factors appear small on their own but are compounded when combined with one another and external factors such as family and community.
Family Risk Factors
Family risk factors introduce the age-old argument of nature vs nurture, playing a role on both sides. On the one hand, natural genetics are passed down from parent to child, and on the other hand, a child's upbringing contributes to their nurtured development.
Studies reveal that parents represent an environmental risk factor rather than a genetic one, suggesting that children learn violent and antisocial behaviour by observing their parents.
Discipline
Discipline (or the lack thereof) remains a pertinent factor to consider when studying the violent tendencies of a child. While children need consistent, reasonable discipline, abusive discipline can shift the boundaries of acceptable treatment toward others.
Broken home
Parental separation and divorce, as well as single-parent homes, continue to present a significant obstacle. The stress and pressure of these changes, as well as the lack of support and supervision, can impact the stability of the home structure and lead to violent behaviour.
Antisocial behaviour
Parents who lack interpersonal skills and personal efficacy can fail to develop their child’s social competence. As a result, children can develop a bitter and resentful attitude. Parents that demonstrate a disregard for right and wrong, persistent lying and disrespectful attitudes can establish an ill-guided understanding of what is normal. In the process, these standards can encourage or make excuses for criminal behaviour.
Community Risk Factors
The peer environment and surrounding community are two of the most discussed risk factors for juvenile delinquency. It’s also the area with the most potential for intervention.
Some examples of community risk factors include;
- Peer group - aggression among friends can be contagious
- Lack of education opportunities
- Socially disorganised communities
- Communities with high crime rates, gang activity and drug use
Research shows that juvenile arrest rates are higher among impoverished youth, and the general trend reveals family violence and gang activity accompany impoverished communities.
Consider the stories told in Warren’s Unorthodox project focused on gang activity and rehabilitation in South Africa as an example of gang culture influence.
Tragically, these risk factors create a dangerous cycle of crime and hopelessness. What starts as the decision to vandalise, commit petty theft or join a gang has severe knock-on effects. It robs juveniles of education and replaces admirable role models with dangerous icons.
Juvenile Detention vs. Adult Detention
Actions have consequences, and sometimes being in the wrong place at the wrong time also has consequences. Prisons, sometimes called correctional facilities for PR purposes, should work to amend criminal behaviour, upskill offenders and address mental health concerns.
So, what happens when a minor is sent to juvenile detention after their behaviour is shaped by individual, family and community risks?
First, it’s important to acknowledge that not all minors are treated as such. According to the Juvenile Law Center, thousands of children are locked up in adult prisons and jails. In some instances, incarcerated youth are exposed to strip searches, solitary confinement and abusive practices, which add to emotional trauma and disrupt healthy development.
In theory, juvenile incarceration fundamentally differs from adult incarceration by placing more emphasis on rehabilitation - as opposed to punishment for adult offenders.
By separating juvenile offenders from adults, the hope is that they will have a second chance at successful social integration. Juvenile facilities usually have very tight schedules, incorporate education and provide access to more programs.
Sadly, the reality is often very different. A new study by economists reveals that existing juvenile incarceration increases the odds of recidivism and reduces the possibility of the individual graduating from high school.
The study compared two groups of kids in Chicago. One group received detention for a criminal act, while others did not (for similar crimes). Ultimately, the incarcerated youths were 13% less likely to graduate from high school and 22% more likely to return to prison.
The Solution to Juvenile Detention
Existing youth prisons are not only failing juvenile offenders but also costing taxpayers a lot of money to conduct a fruitless mission. For example, it costs approximately $142,000 per year to incarcerate one young person each year in Virginia, and the recidivism rate is 75%.
In contrast, Youth Advocate Programs offer services in the home and community settings and only cost $27,000 a year. Many of these programs incorporate restorative justice principles that strive to repair harm to victims and encourage youth to give back to their communities.
Various research studies have shown positive reform from the following efforts.
- Establishing a system of care that is focused on meeting the mental health and related needs of youth, such as community-based services and supports.
- Multi-system integration methods to help children in the child welfare, behavioural health and/or juvenile justice systems
- Introducing family-focused alternatives to court intervention
- Establishing new juvenile defence standards for legal teams
- Imposing structure through state-subsidized extracurricular activities that teach valuable life lessons
- Engaging minority groups to better understand lifestyles and decision-making
- Incorporating more rehabilitation efforts as a consequence of criminal behaviour
- Adopting a personalised approach to individual cases
- Limit children from being housed in the same facility as adult offenders
The numbers don’t lie. Youth prisons don’t work.
Additional sources:
What would you do if you spent 25 years incarcerated for a crime that you didn’t commit?
While many would be angry and vengeful, Patrick Pursley has chosen to always work for love, which he believes to be the highest vibration of the human spirit.
Patrick Pursley was wrongfully convicted of a 1993 murder. Despite no blood, fingerprint, or DNA evidence to tie Patrick to the crime, political pressure and inconsistent testimonies from a ballistic expert found him convicted.
Despite these tragic circumstances, Patrick has focused on reinventing his story and helping others overcome their vulnerable position.
I Am Kid Culture Movement
Not only did Patrick dedicate time and effort to becoming a jailhouse lawyer, but since his release, he has also started the I am Kid Culture movement which is committed to creating solutions to gun violence. Its mission is to reach at-risk youth to encourage them to set goals, pave career paths and have access to guidance through arts and curriculum.
Causes for at-risk youth in the United States
- Growing up in an area with heavy gang activity
- History of violence in the home
- Too little adult supervision
- Unstructured free time
- Lack of positive role models
- Sense of hopelessness due to limited opportunities
- Underlying mental health issues or behavioural disorders
By reducing the gang and gun violence, Patrick Pursley has tapped into the good of human nature to empower youth.
Actions have consequences. In the same way that working hard can lead to a promotion, so can criminal behaviour lead to incarceration. To continue the analogy, receiving a promotion should inspire an employee to step it up a level, and incarceration should lead to reform and rehabilitation.
Sadly, this isn’t always the case.
True impact of long-term incarceration
There is a lot of research on the true impact of long-term incarceration on offending individuals, especially those who are sentenced under the age of 25 years old.
During the early stages of incarceration, individuals experience confinement as the biggest challenge. As the sentence progresses, a different trauma emerges, leading to the severe reconsideration of self-identity and worsening of mental health.
During this time, it’s essential that an effective rehabilitation guides thoughts on future identity. Instead, studies show that anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common in those who have lived in prison for a long time. These symptoms can prevent successful reintegration upon release.
Impact on mental health
While there is routine and structure in prison, the hostile environment can impact individuals in a dramatic way. For example,
- Overcrowding and punitiveness decrease privacy reduces access to amenities and limit opportunities for programmes
- Solitary confinement increases the likelihood of developing psychiatric disorders
- Experiencing and witnessing violence leads to aggressive and antisocial behavioural tendencies and emotional distress
The longer the prison sentence, the more exposure to this hostile environment and the larger the collateral consequence. Research reveals that these triggers can worsen symptoms of mental illness and have long-lasting effects once an individual is released.
The Sentencing Project argues that “a key issue in assessing the decarceration trend is American sentencing policy and practice related to the length of prison terms.”
One could argue that this principle could apply around the world.
are long-term prison sentences a solution?
Did you know that 32% of US adults say that incarcerated individuals spend too little time in prison?
Long prison sentences may seem like a solution to managing crime, yet mass incarceration has a devastating impact on the prison population. Overcrowding, limited opportunities, lack of resources and diminishing returns for public safety are all negative side effects of long-term prison sentences. Long sentences are also counterproductive for public safety, and time served can be reduced without putting dangerous individuals back on the street.
Growing prison population
While the use of long-term prison sentences is an anomaly in the United States, with one out of seven individuals serving life sentences, the trend is prevalent around the world In South Africa, the prison population has grown by 60% between 1995 and 2004.
Other countries with high incarceration rates include Russia, Turkmenistan, Thailand and Brazil. These countries use mass incarceration to control crime rates, but the temporary solution has led to overcrowding, limited resources and damaged mental health.
In comparison, Norway, which has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, abolished life sentences in 1981. In Denmark and Sweden, lifers have the opportunity to be released after 12 and 18 years, respectively. Moving across to Latin America, only six of the 19 nations support life imprisonment.
Of course, specific crimes need to be considered as well as the offender's degree of responsibility and motivation for the crime. By assessing individual cases and focusing on rehabilitation, powerful and positive stories can emerge.
the role of eduation
Prison can be a dark and dangerous place, but it can also lead to powerful stories of transformation and opportunity. When effort is made to educate and rehabilitate incarcerated individuals, it can change their lives, as well as the lives of those in their community.
A study by Emry University reveals a fascinating insight into recidivism rates that support this theory. Their findings on recidivism rates are as follows;
- 55% of individuals who complete high school course
- 30% of individuals who take part in vocational training
- 13.7% of individuals who earn an associate degree
- 5.6% of individuals who earn a bachelor’s degree
- 0% of individuals who earn a master’s degree
Not only does education improve mental fortitude and increase skills, but it also provides an opportunity to build businesses and get a job upon release.
powerful stories of reformation
There are many people’s stories that add context to these statistics, and Stand Together shares a few of these stories.
One focuses on Sean Pica, who received a 24-year sentence while in the 9th grade. He enrolled in an organisation called Hudson Link and took college classes. After release, Sean continued his education and returned to lead Hudson Link as its Executive Director, and his work saves New York State taxpayers over $21 million per year.
Marilyn Barnes is a formerly incarcerated individual who uses education to empower others and break free from the cycle of recidivism. Having experienced two decades in and out of prison while struggling with drug addiction, Marilyn found an opportunity with the Root and Rebound’s Roadmap to Reentry guide. She earned her master’s degree, published her own book and founded a non-profit, proving that change is possible with support.
These are just a few of the (many) stories of redemption, reformation, and fulfilled potential. There are plenty more…
At the end of each episode on Wrongful Conviction, host Jason Flom hands the microphone over to the guest for their “closing argument”. Much like the purpose of the closing argument in the courtroom, this section of the podcast allows the guest to drive home key details and present a persuasive argument that should be considered and applied to thought.
In a recent episode, exoneree Johnny Berry uses the moment to shine the light on parole eligibility. As a free man, Johnny has aligned his focus to getting the Pennsylvania legislature to enact a law that allows people serving life sentences to see the parole board when deserved. But why?
parole and life sentence
Firstly, he argues that it’s cost-efficient. Johnny explains that it costs upwards of $37,000 to $40,000 to house an incarcerated person each year. If the individual is geriatric or in a state where they need assistance then this cost increases dramatically.
Secondly, he reveals that the reoffending rate is low. If you look at the statistics, the recidivism rate for an individual who has been commuted after serving a life sentence, pardoned or released on parole is less than 1%. Essentially, this group of individuals have a very low rate of reoffending.
Johnny argues that the legislature should open the door for deserving life-sentencers to see the parole board, and leave it to the parole board to assess the specific details of the individual’s case and the efforts that they have made while incarcerated.
understanding the basics of parole
Let’s get back to basics. For those who aren’t familiar with the criminal justice system, parole may seem like a hazy concept.
Essentially, parole offers well-behaved incarcerated individuals an opportunity to serve out their remaining prison sentence in “freedom” while under supervision. To put it more eloquently, parole offers an opportunity for prisoners to reintegrate into society while simultaneously encouraging good behaviour outside of prison walls. It also encourages positive behaviour while incarcerated in the hope of meeting with the parole board.
At the same time, parole reduces prison overcrowding and allows less-dangerous individuals the opportunity to reintegrate into society under supervision, while cutting government costs. It’s important to understand that parole is not a right and authorities have the discretion to deny parole to incarcerated individuals that could be considered dangerous. If a parole board does find a prisoner to be eligible for parole, then the parolee has to follow strict guidelines.
Some of these parole conditions may include;
- Maintain employment and residence
- Avoid criminal activity
- Cut association with any victims
- Refrain from drug (or alcohol) abuse
- Attend drug or alcohol recovery meetings
- Stay within a specified geographical area
- Report to a parole officer
- Complete monthly written reports
While parole is considered a step up from living behind bars, there’s a lot of red tape and limitations that govern the process. In many ways, life without parole is considered an alternative to a death sentence.
The reality of parole
These words were shared by Abd’Allah Lateef, who was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) at the age of 17. After the Supreme Court heard his case, they made the decision to release him on a (strict) condition — he had to endure parole for the rest of his life.
Life without parole is replacing the death penalty, especially in regions where the death penalty is not an option. However, the Marshall Project points out that the legal defence system has not kept up with this development.
What does this mean?
For example, when facing the justice system for a capital case, defendants are given lawyers who are experienced in navigating the death penalty. These experienced lawyers have a special obligation to argue any point needed to defend their client aggressively.
Going to trial for a non-death-penalty case doesn’t have these same requirements. Yet if the final sentence is life without parole, then there’s a high chance that the individual will die in prison. Abd’Allah Lateef is one of the very rare cases where a defendant with his sentence is able to see the parole board, thereby joining the 4.5 million Americans who are on probation or parole.
Each of these individuals walks a very fine line of freedom.
The Sentencing Project reports that the number of people serving life without parole is higher than ever before, with a 66% increase since their first census in 2003.
As LWOP becomes the modern-day death penalty, it’s important to consider how the justice system and legal system will respond.