CHRONIC OFFENDERS---PEER REHABILITATION
Chronic offenders are individuals
who have fallen into a pattern of crime and punishment
that keeps repeating itself.
They are arrested hundreds of times for their crimes.
They are constantly in and out of the criminal justice system:
They commit crimes.
They are arrested.
They plead guilty or are tried and convicted.
They are sent to jail for a short time.
They are released.
And the cycle repeats itself.
These chronic offenders are well known
to the police, judges, jailers, probation officers
and to all others involved in the criminal justice system.
Citizen crime-fighting organizations also know them by sight.
The fact that they keep repeating the same crimes
shows that the traditional criminal-justice system
has not succeeded in changing their behavior.
Thousands of tax dollars are spend every year
attempting to cope with each chronic offender.
The "revolving door" is one of the most common
expressions
for this syndrome of modern culture:
The same individuals go around and around in the same system
indefinitely.
Because the criminal-justice system has such a high
failure rate with chronic offenders,
we might consider some different approaches.
If we can find someone who once was a chronic
offender
but who has now radically changed his or her behavior,
this might be the person to consult for better answers to this problem.
In fact, the former-chronic-offender might be the
ideal person to hire
for dealing creatively with the problem of other chronic offenders.
This person would be a peer of the chronic offenders
in every sense:
He or she would have a long history of crime and punishment.
He or she would have the same kinds of family background
that seems to create new chronic offenders in every generation.
He or she might have the same problems of substance abuse
if that is a common factor among chronic offenders.
Poverty is also likely to be a common factor.
Poor education is another likely part of the chronic offender's
background.
But in contrast to the others who continue to be
chronic offenders,
this former-offender has found a way to get beyond all of the negative
behavior
that used to lead him or her back thru the revolving door of crime and
punishment.
It does not matter how this former-offender has
rehabilitated.
If the thesis of this article is correct,
the rehabilitation probably did not occur as a result of the criminal
justice system.
However the former-offender turned his or her life around,
he or she is now in an excellent position
to help others to achieve a similar turn in their lives.
We need a better expression for this person than
"former-offender".
This would be one of the first things to ask such persons
when we consider hiring them as new kinds of public servants
to deal with the large number of people who continue to be chronic
offenders.
For the present, we shall call them simply "peers".
Probably peers should not be employed by the
criminal justice system.
That system has been so ineffective with the chronic offenders
that any new efforts will have to be completely independent of the
criminal-justice system
---and be known to all to be in fact not another effort by the police.
Perhaps community organizations or private charities could hire peers.
And there are probably examples in various cities of
the United States
of peers creating their own organizations for working with chronic
offenders.
Whatever structure works should continue to be supported.
Tax dollars might be one source of funding for peers.
But public-spirited private organizations such as churches and
foundations
might also be willing to fund efforts
that might eventually develop better track records
than the traditional criminal-justice system.
Certainly organizations that do actually save some chronic offenders
will be able to point to their successes.
And some of these successfully-rehabilitated chronic offenders
will themselves become peers for the next generation of offenders.
Here is how peers might work:
Everyone who knows the chronic offenders well
could compile a list of 100 top chronic offenders.
Then they should discuss which of these chronic offenders
has the greatest potential for being rescued from a life of crime.
The peers would then talk with the chronic
offenders,
telling them first that they have also been thru the same problems in
life,
suffered the same kinds of bad childhoods and poor educations,
struggled with the same kinds of addictions and failed relationships.
If the chronic offenders and the peers
find that they do in fact identify with each other's life-stories,
then there is a foundation for possible rehabilitation.
If the chronic offender rejects the offered friendship,
the peer will just go on to the next prospect on the list.
Out of 100 chronic offenders,
at least a few should be able to turn their lives around
with the help of these peers.
The others will have to be put in jail again and again.
But the story of help from the peers should become
known
within the communications systems used by the chronic offenders.
And at least some of the chronic offenders
will come forward to volunteer to be helped by the peers.
The stories of former chronic offenders
who chose a better path for their lives will become known to all
concerned.
And when people employed in the criminal justice system
see that their law-enforcement efforts have not worked,
they can refer the peers to the chronic offenders
who did not change as the result of repeated times in jail.
A major weakness of peer rehabilitation will be
that it suits only a small proportion of the chronic offenders.
But every chronic offender who is helped to leave a life of crime
will be a benefit to the community that would otherwise have continued
to suffer crimes committed by this person.
And even tho the savings to the taxpayers would be
difficult to calculate,
because there is no way to estimate the amount of future crime that was
avoided,
the individuals who are saved from a life of crime and punishment
will be worth the cost---from whatever sources.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library