Monthly Archives: December 2013

The Case for Providing for Both Rehabilitation and Punishment

By Chip Kain
Issues in Justice Managing Editor

We do it bigger.

In the United States, we take pride in doing things bigger and better than other nations.  We take great pride in the words “Made in America” and we have a national pride unlike any other group of people.  Americans love freedom in this country as well.  In fact, the founding fathers were so incredibly rabid about freedom that they essentially severed ties with the British Crown for a tax levied on a beverage, among other reasons.

For the emphasis on freedom in the U.S., the incarceration rate is surprisingly high to many people in the criminal justice field that are not well-versed on the topic of corrections, crime and punishment, or criminal justice in general.  In fact, there are approximately 500 out of every 100,000 people incarcerated in the U.S. right now, with an even higher rate per 100,000 incarcerated in the southeastern states (Tsai & Scommegna, 2012).  From 1972-2009, the nation became adept at putting increasing numbers of people in prison, with the first slight decrease coming in 2010 (Tsai & Scommegna, 2012).  Further, the U.S. incarcerates more persons by rate than some of the less-free nations like China and Russia, winning our country the title of highest incarceration rate in the World (Tsai & Scommegna, 2012).

There is one common thread tying most offenders together that are incarcerated in the United States, and it isn’t the types of crime they’ve committed, their education levels, or their socio-economic status.  In fact, it doesn’t have anything to do with the inmates themselves at all.  Indeed, politicians and voters alike prefer get-tough approaches when dealing with society’s criminal element, but there is obviously something that isn’t working correctly when the system continually engages in incarceration, but can’t house inmates indefinitely.  The one thing most inmates have in common is that they will, one day, be set free.

Most offenders who are sentenced to terms of incarceration in the criminal justice system will find themselves in a position to be released from prison, either by the full execution of their sentences or by paroling out of the institutions in which they are serving their time, making reentry programs critical to their success outside the walls (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012).   The enhancement of reentry programs is critical due to the ever-rising cost of housing inmates in penal institutions; however, these costs are further increased when inmates return to the system as repeat offenders (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012). If inmates are likely to reoffend, the problem is magnified even further by the simple fact that inmates are being released almost as quickly as others can be locked up (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009).

While some programs have specific focuses such as giving offenders the skills they need to enter the workplace, others focus on education, mental health, and substance abuse counseling in order to prepare inmates for the challenges they will face in society upon their release (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012). Wikoff, Linhorst, and Morani (2012) argue that these programs are successful in their own right, but that each program or a combination thereof must be utilized in order to match the offender with the services that will best suit his needs and reduce the chance he will reoffend, violate his parole, and use narcotics.  Inmates need to be involved in the process of reentry almost from the very moment they step foot inside a correctional facility, and the process should target those inmates whose risk of reoffending is the highest (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009).  Safeguards should also be set in order to accurately judge whether a particular reentry program is meeting its goals (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009).

As stated in the question for this week’s discussion assignment, one of the ultimate goals of any program is to reduce the rate at which inmates return to their respective correctional facilities, which would indicate that there is little correction and mostly punishment taking place inside institutions; however, Wikoff, Linhorst and Morani (2012) argued that programs should not simply begin once an inmate is released into society, they should instead begin while the offender is incarcerated so that the therapy methods and programs have a chance to benefit the recipient long before he is forced to cope with issues that come from newfound freedom.

Creating social service programming in correctional facilities is obviously a necessity in modern prisons, but there is pushback to the programming at times, especially with regard to laws and policies that have been enacted in some places that keeps those locked up literally locked out of the programs that could help keep them out of prison upon their release (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012).  Similarly, prisons and those in the criminal justice and corrections fields should seek partners involved in local, state, and federal governance in order to pass legislation that levels the playing field for the recently-freed inmates as the attempt to find employment (Travis, Crayton, &Mukamal, 2009).  An action as simple as requiring businesses to cease the ages-old practice of asking applicants about their criminal and jail history could afford more former inmates and convicts the opportunity to work a job they would have otherwise not been selected for due to the economy (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009).

As a society, we must take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in, and helping prisoners to reintegrate into society is something that we must place an emphasis on moving forward.  A very large number of inmates have very little education, as noted by Tsai and Scommegna (2012), so perhaps education inside penal facilities is an appropriate place to start.

The current system seems to be broken and no one is willing to step up and fix it.  Until it is fixed, incarceration rates will continue to rise and crime will continue to be a problem.


Travis, J., Crayton, A., & Mukamal, D. (2009). A new era in inmate reentry. Corrections Today, 71(6), 38-41.

Tsai, T., & Scommegna, P. (2012, August). U.S. has World’s highest incarceration rate. Retrieved December 2013, from

Wikoff, N., Linhorst, , & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289-299. doi:10.1093/swr/svs021


Filed under Policy

Follow us on Twitter!

Keep up to date and follow us on Twitter @issuesinjustice.




Filed under Uncategorized

Raising the Bar: Emphasizing Education in Law Enforcement Recruiting

By Chip Kain
Issues in Justice Managing Editor

It seems like buzzwords and concepts dominate virtually every aspect of modern American society.  Professionalism is not only a buzzword; it is a concept that is permeating law enforcement agencies across the nation, especially in the wake of large civil penalties and public embarrassments.

Pinizzotto, Bohrer, and Davis (2011) noted that professionalism is a product that is achieved through training, beginning with the officer’s initial academy training, continuing with his inservice training, and then culminating with training he will receive as his career progresses into command and administrative positions.  Training is a good way to ensure that new recruits and veteran officers alike maintain professional standards, but how important is higher education in promoting professionalism within the law enforcement ranks, especially considering that many departments and states across the nation maintain professional police forces without requiring a basic level of college education for rookie police officers (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010)?


The answer seems that professionalism and education do go hand-in-hand, and the modern demands placed upon police officers requires a more educated basic recruit; however, statistically, law enforcement agencies are not buying into the education-professionalism link, as only about nine percent of departments across the country require post-secondary education for their new officers (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010).  Today’s law enforcement officers are expected to use more than their service weapons and batons to maintain law and order, instead they need to be able to work through complex problems in neighborhoods as the concept of community policingcontinues to dominate policing strategies across the United States (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010).

One of the chief reasons for keeping standards low and not requiring some degree of higher education in new police recruits is that it is difficult to attract the number of candidates needed to keep up with the rate of attrition, which is a problem that even higher-paying agencies are experiencing that require post-secondary education or four year degrees in new officers (Johnson, 2006).  Departments are also concerned that requiring college degrees will negatively impact their ability to recruit and hire minority candidates, thus affecting their departmental diversity (Johnson, 2006).

Departments should subscribe to the philosophy held by the Minnesota Peace Officers Standards and Training board, which set an associate’s degree as the minimum requirement for all police officers in that state in 1977 (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010).  Officers in Minnesota are statistically more educated than the people that they serve and protect, with approximately greater than one-third of officers surveyed in a recent study holding a four-year college degree, compared roughly 27-percent of Minnesotans.  Additionally, approximately 14 percent of officers held a master’s degree, which would indicate that roughly 48 percent of officers in Minnesota are college educated above the junior college level (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010).

Basically, there should be some requirement for entry-level police officers involving a degree of higher education due to increasing demands placed upon police officers, but as Johnson (2006) noted, many departments are afraid of the recruiting ramifications from raising standards.  If recruiting posed a problem, common sense would dictate that departments should invest more in the process, especially if they hope to lure more attractive and professional candidates.  As far as requiring higher education for advancement within a law enforcement agency, Hilal and Erickson’s (2010) study of police attitudes towards education in Minnesota indicates that most officers believe that some level of higher education should be expected in candidates for promotion.  The best argument for requiring higher education in supervisory or administrative positions is that those who are subject to the increased standards and to being managed are the ones indicating that they believe a higher degree of education should be required for those seeking promotion (Hilal, & Erickson, 2010).  Hilal and Erickson (2010) noted that police operations and the requirements placed upon officers are becoming more complex, therefore management decisions would naturally be more complex as well; however, it does not compute to require higher standards for officers while expecting less for those in command of better educated entry level police officers.

The very basic determination that departments need to make is one of importance.  Is filling vacancies with ease in a departments with recruits who do not possess the skills earning a college degree requires more important for the agency or is undertaking the often harder task of recruiting officers from a smaller pool of better-educated citizens the more appropriate response (Johnson, 2006)?  Essentially, is ease in recruiting more important than finding the very best candidates?  Requiring more education in recruits is challenging because not only is the applicant pool smaller and probably somewhat less diverse, agencies almost certainly will have to raise their standards as Johnson (2006) noted, but Pinizzotto, Bohrer, and Davis (2011) acknowledged that departments have the choice to grow professionally or face the consequences that come from lowering standards when communities are expecting the opposite.


Hilal, S. M., & Erickson, T. E. (2010). The Minnesota police education requirement: A recent analysis. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 79(6), 17-21.

Johnson, K. (2006, 18 September). Police agencies find it hard to require degrees. USA Today.  Retrieved from

Pinizzotto, A.J., Bohrer, S., & Davis, E.F. (2011). Law enforcement professionalism. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 80(4), 10-13.


December 15, 2013 · 5:59 am

Issues in Justice

Welcome to an online place for news, court rulings, and opinions. Law enforcement officers choose to work in this field for many reasons, but whatever the reason, a calling to serve others should be accompanied by a desire to constantly improve and learn.  There are very few places out there on the internet dedicated to the improvement of officers that do not also serve advertisers.  This site is not supported by advertisers or any group.



Filed under Uncategorized