Prisons first became commonplace in society during the 18th century.
Prior to that time, people were incarcerated for short periods of time while they awaited execution.
Prisons were seen as a more humane way of dealing with criminals.
At the start, prisons and jails were places of punishment only.
There was no thought that criminals could actually change.
However, during the 19th century new ideas developed in London, Pennsylvania, and New York that criminals could spend profitable time in jail reflecting on their wrong-doing and repenting.
Hence, the penitentiary was born.
The idea behind the penitentiary was that repentance would lead to regeneration - something would go on inside the person and they would be changed.
This was a major shift from previous thinking.
The penitentiary system was based on the belief that criminals could change, and that change would originate from within.
The penitentiary age had almost waned by World War 2.
After the war, developments in psychology reshaped ideas of how to deal with criminals, and the correctional system was born.
Correctional services in most of the English-speaking world is based on the belief that criminals can change, but their behaviours need to be 'corrected' from the outside; by professionals skilled in cognitive and behavioural change.
Correctly, jails are no longer jails, they are correctional centres, and prisoners are not criminals, they are inmates.
The language says it all - inmates have certain problems (deficits), and the system is there to correct them (eliminate the deficits).
There is a fundamental problem with this thinking.
To illustrate the problem, we will consider a scenario outside the 'correctional system'.
Let's say a woman is in a relationship characterised by abuse and neglect.
By any accounts, there are many things wrong with her situation.
However, because her relationship has major problems, does that mean she will leave it? She may decide to stay for all kinds of reasons - she may have nowhere to go, she may have concern about the well-being of her children, she may say she still loves her partner, or she may have no income to support her, etc.
In other words, deficits and problems do not necessarily lead to change readiness.
Back to correctional services: the simple fact that inmates may have serious deficits does not imply they are ready to do anything about them.
They may not see them as a problem, or they may not even see the problems exist.
Correctional systems spend huge amounts of money trying to correct people who have serious problems, but they rarely consider whether the person themself is ready for change.
The problem is not just that resources are being allocated to people who are not ready for change; it is the thinking that lies behind those practices.
The problem is that in trying to correct people, the system is attempting to be the primary agent of change in the lives of others.
They are trying to get people to change because they are ready for them to change, but they are not considering whether the people are ready for change.
People don't change just because the correctional system wants them to change; they only change if and when they become ready for change.
You can lead horses to water, but they will not drink just because you are thirsty; they have to be thirsty themselves to drink.
The current correctional approach provides only one half of the picture.
There is some evidence that modern approaches 'work', but there is every likelihood they work better when delivered to people who are ready for change (i.
e.
, they are ready to be the primary agent of change in their own lives).
People who are ready for change actually look for help, and they are ready to do something with help when it is offered.
They engage in the change process with commitment, not because the system wants them to change, but because they are ready for change themselves.
In this time of limited resources, would it not make sense to take a fresh look at how we attempt to 'correct' our 'inmates'? Is there some logic to the idea that people are most likely to change when they are actually ready for change? Could this approach produce a better return on investment for the public purse? Steve Barlow
Prior to that time, people were incarcerated for short periods of time while they awaited execution.
Prisons were seen as a more humane way of dealing with criminals.
At the start, prisons and jails were places of punishment only.
There was no thought that criminals could actually change.
However, during the 19th century new ideas developed in London, Pennsylvania, and New York that criminals could spend profitable time in jail reflecting on their wrong-doing and repenting.
Hence, the penitentiary was born.
The idea behind the penitentiary was that repentance would lead to regeneration - something would go on inside the person and they would be changed.
This was a major shift from previous thinking.
The penitentiary system was based on the belief that criminals could change, and that change would originate from within.
The penitentiary age had almost waned by World War 2.
After the war, developments in psychology reshaped ideas of how to deal with criminals, and the correctional system was born.
Correctional services in most of the English-speaking world is based on the belief that criminals can change, but their behaviours need to be 'corrected' from the outside; by professionals skilled in cognitive and behavioural change.
Correctly, jails are no longer jails, they are correctional centres, and prisoners are not criminals, they are inmates.
The language says it all - inmates have certain problems (deficits), and the system is there to correct them (eliminate the deficits).
There is a fundamental problem with this thinking.
To illustrate the problem, we will consider a scenario outside the 'correctional system'.
Let's say a woman is in a relationship characterised by abuse and neglect.
By any accounts, there are many things wrong with her situation.
However, because her relationship has major problems, does that mean she will leave it? She may decide to stay for all kinds of reasons - she may have nowhere to go, she may have concern about the well-being of her children, she may say she still loves her partner, or she may have no income to support her, etc.
In other words, deficits and problems do not necessarily lead to change readiness.
Back to correctional services: the simple fact that inmates may have serious deficits does not imply they are ready to do anything about them.
They may not see them as a problem, or they may not even see the problems exist.
Correctional systems spend huge amounts of money trying to correct people who have serious problems, but they rarely consider whether the person themself is ready for change.
The problem is not just that resources are being allocated to people who are not ready for change; it is the thinking that lies behind those practices.
The problem is that in trying to correct people, the system is attempting to be the primary agent of change in the lives of others.
They are trying to get people to change because they are ready for them to change, but they are not considering whether the people are ready for change.
People don't change just because the correctional system wants them to change; they only change if and when they become ready for change.
You can lead horses to water, but they will not drink just because you are thirsty; they have to be thirsty themselves to drink.
The current correctional approach provides only one half of the picture.
There is some evidence that modern approaches 'work', but there is every likelihood they work better when delivered to people who are ready for change (i.
e.
, they are ready to be the primary agent of change in their own lives).
People who are ready for change actually look for help, and they are ready to do something with help when it is offered.
They engage in the change process with commitment, not because the system wants them to change, but because they are ready for change themselves.
In this time of limited resources, would it not make sense to take a fresh look at how we attempt to 'correct' our 'inmates'? Is there some logic to the idea that people are most likely to change when they are actually ready for change? Could this approach produce a better return on investment for the public purse? Steve Barlow
SHARE
