The surprising reason our correctional system doesn't work | Brandon W. Mathews | TEDxMileHigh

Summary

Highlights

• Brandon W. Mathews highlights the ineffectiveness of combining punishment with rehabilitation in corrections. ⚖️
• He argues that the U.S. correctional system needs a fundamental change, similar to a 'divorce'. 💔
• Mathews suggests setting up two separate tracks: one for hardline punishment and one for thorough rehabilitation. 🛤️
• The talk emphasizes the need for community discussions and collective action to reform corrections. 🗣️
• By citing Norway's low recidivism rates, Mathews makes a strong case for a rehabilitative approach. 🌍

Key Takeaways

• Brandon Mathews suggests 'divorcing' punishment from rehabilitation in the correctional system for more effective outcomes. 🔄
• The current punishment-focused system fails to adequately address the specific rehabilitative needs of inmates. 🚫
• A two-track system could reduce the high recidivism rates by focusing rehabilitation resources on non-violent offenders. 🌟
• Mathews warns that the current system's roots in retribution hinder true rehabilitative efforts. 🚪
• He uses Norway's successful correctional model as an example of effective rehabilitation over punishment. 🇳🇴

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction: Separation Metaphor The chapter titled 'Introduction: Separation Metaphor' begins with a provocative statement expressing a strong pro-divorce stance. The speaker emphasizes the necessity of divorce in situations where the marriage is dysfunctional, ineffective, and harmful to all parties involved. The humor in the presentation is underscored by the immediate laughter following the assertion, setting a tone that, while serious, is approachable and engaging.
• 00:30 - 01:00: The Need for Systems Change The chapter titled 'The Need for Systems Change' discusses the theme of 'divorce' within the context of the correctional system, not in the conventional sense of marriage but rather a need for systemic separation or reformation. The speaker reflects on their 12 years of experience in the criminal justice system, particularly focusing on corrections, which includes the management of prisons, halfway houses, and community supervision. The chapter sets the stage for an exploration of the different types of individuals working within the corrections system and implies the necessity for fundamental changes in how these systems operate.
• 01:00 - 01:30: Roles in the Correctional System This chapter discusses the different roles within the correctional system, emphasizing the divide between roles focused on enforcing rules and those aimed at rehabilitation. It shares the personal journey of a correctional officer who began by ensuring inmates adhered to rules and progressed to a role in correctional investigations dealing with rule violations such as staff assaults and excessive force. Despite these efforts, the officer expresses frustration over the lack of perceived improvement in the system.
• 01:30 - 02:00: Frustrations and Transition The speaker moved from working in prisons to community corrections, which are more focused on rehabilitation. Despite this, they felt they weren't making a significant impact in changing behavior. This led to frustration, and six years ago, they decided to research why the system was ineffective, rather than concentrating on crime prevention.
• 02:00 - 02:30: Research into Correctional System Failures The chapter explores the corrections system from a systems perspective, focusing on the cultures, leadership styles, and social identities that shape the roles and responsibilities within it. It highlights the core issue that the current corrections system conflates punishment with rehabilitation, thereby hindering its effectiveness.
• 02:30 - 03:00: Problem with Current System: Punishment vs. Rehabilitation The chapter introduces the issue of the current corrections system, emphasizing the initial process upon receiving a sentence. It discusses the assessment process to determine whether an inmate is placed in a high or low-security prison. This decision is largely based on predictions regarding the inmate's potential for misbehavior while incarcerated, highlighting a systemic focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
• 03:00 - 03:30: How Inmates are Assigned to Prisons In this chapter, the assignment of inmates to prisons in the United States is discussed. It highlights the lack of personalized placement based on the specific rehabilitation and treatment needs of inmates, such as addiction counseling. The chapter emphasizes the problem with the U.S. prison philosophy, which focuses primarily on punishment rather than addressing individual needs, leaving inmates potentially without access to necessary treatments during their incarceration.
• 03:30 - 04:00: Critique of Prison Philosophy The chapter titled 'Critique of Prison Philosophy' examines the primary focus of current incarceration systems. The main argument is that these systems emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is depicted as an afterthought, comparable to seasoning lightly sprinkled atop a core that is fundamentally punitive. The proposal put forth advocates for a clear division between punitive measures and rehabilitative efforts. This suggests creating two distinct tracks within the prison system: one focused on individuals who require punitive justice (retribution), and presumably another that would cater to rehabilitative needs. Such a separation aims to rethink and possibly improve the effectiveness and ethical considerations of the prison system.
• 04:00 - 04:30: Proposal for System Divorce The chapter titled 'Proposal for System Divorce' delves into the concept of recidivism, emphasizing the cycle prevalent within the justice system. It highlights the striking statistic that 95% of offenders are released after serving their sentences, yet 67% end up back in prison within three years for new crimes. The chapter initiates a discourse on the repetitive cycle known as recidivism, suggesting a need for breaking this cycle and proposing systematic changes.
• 04:30 - 05:00: Revolving Door and Recidivism Concerns The chapter discusses the high rate of recidivism within the correctional system, comparing it to a hypothetical 67% failure rate in investments or medical procedures which would be unacceptable. It argues for a redesigned correctional system that separates punishment and rehabilitation into two distinct tracks to improve outcomes.
• 05:00 - 05:30: Track One: Punishment The chapter explores the concept of punishment in the context of high-risk offenders who engage in serious misconduct and have violent histories. It argues that a system focused on punishment and incapacitation is necessary for such individuals, but it implies that this approach should be more nuanced than simply incarcerating them indefinitely.
• 05:30 - 06:00: Historical Perspective on Punishment In this chapter, the discussion centers on the appropriate measures for handling violent and dangerous offenders, highlighting the necessity of incarcerating such individuals with only basic program access within a strict prison environment. The chapter delves into the penal philosophy in the United States, tracing its roots back to ancient times, specifically to the mid-1700s B.C. during the era of the Code of Hammurabi. The enforcement of Hammurabi's 282 laws provides historical context to the evolution of punishment systems.
• 06:00 - 06:30: Retribution Legacy in the U.S. The chapter 'Retribution Legacy in the U.S.' explores the concept of retributive justice, tracing its roots from ancient codes such as 'an eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth,' similar to those seen later in the Old Testament. This principle of justice has significantly influenced the formation and establishment of the correctional system in the United States, particularly evident in the period leading up to and beyond the American Revolution.
• 06:30 - 07:00: Reform and Early Rehabilitation The chapter "Reform and Early Rehabilitation" explores the historic perspective and transition in the penal system of the United States. Initially, punishments were harsh, involving public humiliation and physical mutilations as crime was seen as a sin against God, warranting severe retribution. However, by the early 19th century, there was a shift towards reducing physical violence in the system, indicating the beginning of reform and early rehabilitation efforts.
• 07:00 - 07:30: Continued Punishment Focus in Corrections The chapter discusses the historical focus on punishment within the U.S. correctional system, highlighting its religious roots which emphasized solitary confinement, silence, and hard labor as means of reform. It notes the introduction of rehabilitation concepts in the 1870s, inspired by the medical model of individualized treatment.
• 07:30 - 08:00: Real-World Tension Between Punishment and Rehab The chapter discusses the parallels between treating illnesses in patients on an individual basis and addressing criminal behavior by 'curing' it. Prisons began incorporating rehabilitative techniques such as psychotherapy and counseling, viewing criminal behavior as a sickness. This shift in perspective led to the establishment of the first reformatory in Elmira, New York. The chapter suggests that rehabilitation methods are indeed part of the current system.
• 08:00 - 08:30: Track Two: Rehabilitation Proposal The chapter discusses the necessity of separating rehabilitation from punishment within the correctional system. It critiques the intertwined nature of the two, highlighting that rehabilitation has never been truly independent and effectively practiced apart from a punitive context. The speaker calls for a clear and distinct approach to rehabilitation that does not revolve around or integrate punishment.
• 08:30 - 09:00: Importance of Rehabilitation Track The chapter discusses the contradiction between the concepts of rehabilitation and punishment in the justice system. It compares this contradiction to putting a taco between pieces of bread and calling it a sandwich—while it may have the elements of a sandwich, fundamentally, it's still a taco. This analogy highlights the difficulty in achieving true rehabilitation when the system remains rooted in punishment.
• 09:00 - 09:30: Critique of Punishment-Based Decisions The chapter discusses the experience of visiting a treatment program in a prison where both correctional staff and clinical specialists work together to ensure security and facilitate rehabilitation. The program aims to teach inmates conflict management skills, and an incident of nonviolent disagreement among inmates is observed to highlight the practical application of these skills.
• 09:30 - 10:00: Treatment Facilities and Staff Focus The chapter discusses the dynamics within treatment facilities, focusing on the interactions between inmates and correctional staff. A behavior change practice is highlighted where inmates are allowed to resolve disagreements through alternative methods. However, a correctional staff member, who is higher ranking, expresses concerns about this approach, stating that inmates are given too much freedom and not held accountable enough. This reflects the tension between innovative correctional practices and traditional accountability measures in such settings.
• 10:00 - 10:30: International Comparison: Norway's Model The chapter discusses the difference in viewing inmates as patients versus inmates, highlighting the lack of adequate punishment for inmates. A particular incident raises questions about how disagreements among inmates are handled by staff, emphasizing the need for a dual correctional system that separates punishment and rehabilitation. The importance of having both punishment and rehabilitation mechanisms in a correctional system is briefly mentioned.
• 10:30 - 11:00: Norway's Approach to Rehabilitation Norway's rehabilitation approach emphasizes the transition from punitive measures to a focus on rehabilitation after sentencing, particularly for non-violent offenders. With 53% of offenders imprisoned for non-violent crimes such as theft, drug possession, and property crimes, the rehabilitation track aims to integrate these individuals back into society. The chapter underscores that after sentencing, the priority shifts from punishment to rehabilitation, concentrating efforts on reforming behaviors and equipping individuals with the tools they need for successful reintegration.
• 11:00 - 11:30: Encouragement for Collective Action In this chapter, the focus is on the reintegration of individuals from the correctional system into communities, emphasizing the importance of preparing them for success. It critiques the current system where decisions about entry into community programs or release from prison are often based on the time served. The chapter advocates for a new structure where such decisions are instead based on whether the individual has received the appropriate treatment, rather than the duration of punishment. This marks a shift towards using the correctional system for rehabilitation and treatment rather than solely for punitive measures.
• 11:30 - 12:00: Conclusion: A Call to Reimagine Corrections The chapter titled 'Conclusion: A Call to Reimagine Corrections' emphasizes the need for a transformative approach to criminal rehabilitation. It discusses the importance of addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior, such as addiction, through rehabilitation-focused facilities. These facilities should prioritize deep therapeutic methods, free from punitive measures, and should be staffed by professionals specialized in treatment, social work, and behavioral health. These specialists should possess attitudes, skills, and beliefs aligned with promoting behavior change.

The surprising reason our correctional system doesn't work | Brandon W. Mathews | TEDxMileHigh Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Transcriber: Viviane P. Reviewer: Eunice Tan I'm here to talk to you about divorce. I have to admit I'm absolutely, positively, 100% in favor of divorce. (Laughter) What else is there to do when the marriage is dysfunctional, ineffective, creating poor outcomes for everyone involved? I say, nothing.
• 00:30 - 01:00 Just get it over with, and divorce already. Now, the type of divorce I'm talking about, it's probably a bit different than what you're thinking. What I'm referring to is a divorce within our correctional and prison system. Over the last 12 years, I've worked in various parts of the criminal justice world, with most of that focused on corrections. The correctional system includes the agencies that oversee an area's prisons, halfway houses, and community supervision programs. Now, there are generally two types of people who get into corrections work:
• 01:00 - 01:30 those who want to enforce rules and laws and those who want to help with rehabilitation. I started my career as a correctional officer, like the first group of people. I made sure inmates were following the rules and not doing anything dangerous while they were in prison. Eventually, I moved into correctional investigations, where I was looking deeper into rule-of-law violations for things like assault by staff or things like excessive use of force. But I grew frustrated because no matter what I did, it never really felt like things were getting better.
• 01:30 - 02:00 So I moved into community corrections, like the second group of people. Unlike prison, community corrections tends to be more focused on rehabilitating offenders. But even there, it didn't feel like what I was doing was changing behavior or making a lasting, positive impact. I was fed up. So about six years ago, I decided I was going to figure out why our system wasn't working. I started researching. But instead of focusing on things like how to prevent crime,
• 02:00 - 02:30 I took a look at how we manage corrections from a systems perspective. I studied the cultures, leadership styles, and social identities of corrections and how those within the system view their roles and responsibilities. And then it became clear: the underlying reason our system doesn't work today is because the practices of punishment are too interconnected with our goal of rehabilitation. Now, I suspect that most of you haven't been to prison before.
• 02:30 - 03:00 (Laughter) So let me explain a bit how it works. After receiving a sentence by the court, you enter the corrections system. And we spend a lot of time interviewing and assessing you when you get there to determine whether you go to a high- or a low-security prison. And that is key. Inmates are assigned to prisons based upon how much we anticipate they're going to misbehave while they're there. And what that means, unfortunately,
• 03:00 - 03:30 is they aren't assigned to prisons based upon their specific needs for rehabilitation and treatment. If it's addiction that got you in trouble in the first place, cross your fingers and hope that your prison has addictions counseling and therapy because it might not. And then you're stuck there at this prison for however long without access to the right treatment. This points to a fundamental problem with our prison philosophy in the United States. Punishment is the foundation of your prison experience
• 03:30 - 04:00 and the priority throughout. Rehabilitation is an afterthought and is only lightly sprinkled, like seasoning on a steak, on top of a system whose core purpose is to punish. And that is why I'm proposing a divorce. A divorce that would once and for all separate the practices of punishment from rehabilitation, creating two separate tracks: one for those requiring retribution
• 04:00 - 04:30 and one for those requiring recovery before they reenter society. You may have heard of the revolving door of the justice system. When people talk about it, what they're referring to is the 95% of offenders who will be released from prison after serving their sentences and the 67% who will return back to prison for a new crime within three years - a cycle known as recidivism. What if I told you
• 04:30 - 05:00 that 67% of your investments would go belly-up within three years? Or that 67% of your medical procedures would need to be redone within three years? You'd probably find a new financial advisor and a doctor because there's no way you would put up with these results. But when it comes to the correctional system, we do. Which is why we need a divorced, two-track correctional system: one for punishment and one for rehabilitation.
• 05:00 - 05:30 Let's talk about track one: punishment. There is a population of offenders in this world who are high-risk, who demonstrate patterns of criminal behavior, who engage in serious misconduct, and who have histories of violence. And a system of punishment and incapacitation is wholly appropriate. That doesn't mean just locking them up and throwing away the key.
• 05:30 - 06:00 For these violent and dangerous offenders, it is appropriate to incarcerate with access to just basic programs in a strict prison environment. Let's talk about our penal philosophy in the United States. Our system of punishment can be traced back to the penal philosophy of the mid-1700s B.C. in the Code of Hammurabi. During his reign, he enforced his now-infamous 282 laws, a couple of which you might be familiar with.
• 06:00 - 06:30 "If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out." How about "If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out"? Sounds a lot like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" that showed up later in the Old Testament. At its core, this is a very retributive ideal that shaped the way corrections would later be established in the United States. Let's fast-forward to pre-American Revolution times,
• 06:30 - 07:00 where there we see retribution's legacy ingrained in the fabric of the United States through things like public whippings, humiliations, mutilations, and in some instances, even castrations. Back then, crime was viewed as a sin against God, and responses to those violations were often swift and brutal. When we get to the early 19th century, the system shifted to reduce physical violence
• 07:00 - 07:30 while maintaining a strict punishment structure. The first penitentiaries in the U.S. were based upon the religious idea that solitary confinement, forced silence, and hard labor as well as penitence would reform offenders and make them change their behavior. It wasn't even until the 1870s that rehabilitation entered our prisons. At that time, the correctional system looked to the medical community and how they were using individualized treatment as a means to cure patients.
• 07:30 - 08:00 If we treat patients on a one-to-one basis to cure illness, why couldn't we do something with criminals and cure their criminality? So prisons began using rehabilitative techniques, like psychotherapy and counseling, treating criminal behavior like a sickness, which led to the establishment of the nation's first reformatory in Elmira, New York. And that is why some of you might be saying to yourselves, "Exactly! We do provide rehabilitation in the system now.
• 08:00 - 08:30 Why do we need two separate tracks?" To that, I call shenanigans. (Laughter) Because remember, our correctional systems were born of punishment, forged through punishment, and remain fundamentally rooted in ideals that are directly connected to punishment. And as such, rehabilitation has never truly been attempted separate and apart from punishment.
• 08:30 - 09:00 How is it we expect any rehabilitative effort to be successful when punishment was and still is the core of the system? Look, it would be like taking a taco and jamming it in between a couple of pieces of bread and then calling it a sandwich. Technically, it has the elements of a sandwich, (Laughter) but at its core, it's still a delicious taco. (Laughter)
• 09:00 - 09:30 I came face to face with this tension a few years ago while touring a treatment program at a local prison. The program had uniformed correctional staff members to maintain security and control, but also clinical specialists to guide and facilitate rehabilitation and behavior change. As I was walking around, I came across a couple of inmates engaged in a nonviolent disagreement. One of the goals of this program was to teach inmates how to better manage this type of conflict so they could have those skills before they exited the facility. I watched as a clinician approached
• 09:30 - 10:00 and walked them through this alternative way to have this disagreement. They tried it, the disagreement was fixed, and everyone went on about their day. I'd just seen behavior change practice in action. But then I noticed there was a uniformed correctional staff member, higher ranking, watching. Being the organizational scientist, I had to ask her what she thought. She said, "These inmates are given too much leeway. They are not held accountable enough." She told me,
• 10:00 - 10:30 "They are inmates, not patients." Translation: they're not getting enough punishment. I wondered, How would this disagreement between these inmates have been handled by this staff member had that clinician not gotten there first? And that, again, is why we need a divorced, two-track correctional system: one track for punishment and one for rehabilitation. I've mentioned punishment.
• 10:30 - 11:00 So let's talk about track two: rehabilitation. Fifty-three percent of offenders are considered non-violent - incarcerated for things like theft, drug possession, and property crimes. This group would follow the rehabilitation track. It is important to understand that sentencing would mark the end of punishment and that decisions made after the point of sentencing would be directly and narrowly focused
• 11:00 - 11:30 on these individuals reentering our communities, prepared for success. In our current correctional system, decisions about entry into community programs or for release from prison to parole are often shaded by how much time has been served. Time served is punishment at its roots. In this new structure, criteria would be based not on how much punishment has been doled out but whether the appropriate treatment has been delivered
• 11:30 - 12:00 and drivers of criminal behavior, like addiction, reduced. This rehabilitation track would consist of treatment-based facilities where deep therapeutic approaches can be used without the contamination of retribution and staffed by people specifically focused on treatment, social work, and behavioral health - specialists whose attitudes, skills, and beliefs are aligned with things like behavior change
• 12:00 - 12:30 and who are committed to modeling the appropriate conduct to help offenders reenter our communities. Although this is a radical paradigm shift in the U.S., this type of rehabilitation is happening. We just have to look to Norway and their philosophical approach as an example. Now, I understand the valid criticisms of comparing the U.S. to Norway. We differ in size, demographics, and history. So let's focus on their prison philosophy.
• 12:30 - 13:00 Norway's correctional philosophy is specifically focused on rehabilitation, with the end goal that all inmates will reenter society, having reduced their risk to reoffend. And it has allowed them to achieve an astonishingly low 20% recidivism rate compared to our 67. Former prison governor in Norway, Arne Nilsen, similar to a warden here in the U.S.,
• 13:00 - 13:30 said, "If we have created a holiday camp here for criminals, so what? We should reduce the risk of reoffending because if we don't, what is the purpose of punishment, except for leaning toward the primitive side of humanity?" He's right. Now, this type of change certainly won't happen overnight. And we are not going to be the next Norway tomorrow. But a divorced, two-track correctional system -
• 13:30 - 14:00 punishment and rehabilitation - is a step in the right direction. Ultimately, such a radical change in our correctional system will be difficult, but not impossible. It begins by questioning our beliefs about what corrections is supposed to be, by initiating conversations in our communities with like-minded people
• 14:00 - 14:30 but also with skeptics as well as civic and community leaders and those responsible for shaping and designing our correctional systems. Structural change requires collective action. So I call on you to join me in envisioning a radically different correctional system where each track's purpose is specific and independent of the other, where practitioners can flourish
• 14:30 - 15:00 because they are aligned with the track that they choose to work in, and where you, as members of the community, have your expectations met when it comes to punishment and rehabilitation. And where, finally, in this divorced, two-track correctional system, we will have drastically slowed the ever-revolving door and made our communities safer for all of us.
• 15:00 - 15:30 Thank you. (Applause)