Is integrating rehabilitation into prison more effective than harsher prison sentences? This is a complex question of high debate that directly impacts millions of lives. For hundreds of years, humans have been using prison time to punish offenders. Although it does punish offenders, incarceration alone is an ineffective form of punishment that lacks the ability to deter offenders from continuing a lifetime of reoccurring offenses. There is evidence of this when considering current prison systems in the United States and Norway. The United States has a prison system that prioritizes the punishment of long prison sentences while Norway applies rehabilitation as the solution to rapidly inflating imprisonment rates. The answer is evident when observing the outcome of these prison systems and the drastically lower reoffending rates and average prison sentences that Norway experiences. Integrating rehabilitation into prison instead of simply punishing prisoners with more jailtime yields better outcomes. The prison system has a unique opportunity to provide rehabilitation to an array of offenders that may not have previously had access to it. Rehabilitating prisoners is more economic, provides support for reoffending drug users, and provides a pathway to the reintegration of prisoners into society.

    The first challenge, and the most debated one, when implementing rehabilitation into prison, is the cost. It is the common consensus that doing this would not be cost feasible, but the truth is, it is more cost efficient than harsher prison sentences. The initial implementation cost can be discouraging, but if done correctly, the long-term effects of reduced recurring offenses and shorter prison sentences allows it to be the most cost-efficient prison system. There are many costs that go into making an effective prison system such as food, housing, security, and health care to name a few. In the article, “Why rehabilitation – not harsher prison sentences – makes economic sense”, written by Bandyopadhyay S. (2020), a respected researcher and professor in economics, Bandyopadhyay states; “The US, for example, imprisons more people per capita (over 700 per 100,000) than any other country in the world. At the other end of the spectrum are the Scandinavians. Norway, for example, has one of the lowest, at 66 per 100,000.” (Bandyopadhyay, 2020). Through research and examples of the prison system approaches of the US and Norway, he explains why a rehabilitative approach to prison systems is more economical. The United States, who’s prison system prioritizes punishment of harsh prison sentences, spent $182 billion dollars in 2017 on imprisonment. Therefore, when confronted with a rehabilitative prison system, the United States is hesitant since it would initially cost more per prisoner. In Michigan, US, cost per prisoner is $38,051, compared to Norway’s $129,222 cost per prisoner, it may be discouraging to want to invest in Norway’s rehabilitative approach to prison (Bouffard, 2019). Although a large cost, Norway’s investment pays off with one of the lowest recidivism rates of 20%, compared to America’s 76.6% (Gerhold, 2021). America also has a much longer prison sentence average of three years and Norway’s is six months (Gordon and Magne, 2020). The longer prison sentences and whopping rate of recidivism, means that, in the United States, the cost per prisoner is a reoccurring expense which lasts for a much longer sentence. These costs arise once again when 76.6% of prisoners get reincarcerated. The US prison system, which consists of harsh prison sentences with a lack of rehabilitation, is an example of the non-feasible, in-effective, and uneconomic prison system.

    The main contributor to increasing offences, and lifetimes of crime, is drug abuse and the negative mental and physical affects that it has on people. Drug abuse goes hand in hand with mental health issues which both require therapy and rehabilitation programs to combat. For many prisoners, this is something that they do not have access to, and therefore, continue to struggle and reoffend. Integrating rehabilitation into prisons enables drug abusing offenders to receive support that they may not have had access to if not in jail. The prison system has an opportunity to make rehabilitation programs required for prisoners throughout their prison stay. The article, “Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice System: Improving Public Health and Safety," written by Redonna K. Chandler, Bennet W. Fletcher, and Nora D. Volkow (2010), provides insight into the direct correlation between the increase of the rate of incarceration with the increase of drug use. The authors emphasize the importance of rehabilitation for drug abusers, specifically how successfully doing this can benefit both the individuals and society. The authors explain; “This is evidenced in that most prisoners (80%–85%) who could benefit from drug abuse treatment do not receive it” (Redonna, Bennet, and Nora, 2010). The issue then arises when considering that most prisoners that struggle with drug abuse and mental health issues, simply receive no support or resources to try to better themselves and therefore, bettering the lives of the people around them. There is a detrimental lack of attention and work to support drug abusing offenders.

    The final issue when considering a rehabilitative prison system is integrating prisoners back into the world after their release from jail. Most prisoners struggle to mold into the expectations and responsibilities of life outside of prison. Implementing programs that are mandatory during a prisoner’s sentence, which prepare and start to integrate prisoners back into the work force and the real world, provide a pathway back into society. A high number of offenders are not employed prior to incarceration and therefore, once again, prison systems have a unique opportunity to apply programs to allow prisoners to have a life that they previously did not have access to. In the article “The Benefits of Rehabilitative Incarceration,” by Gordon B. Dahl and Magne Mogstad (2020), the authors explore the benefits of the rehabilitative incarceration and how integrating prisoners back into society can reduce reoffending. The authors state; “Third, the reduction in crime is driven by individuals who were not working prior to incarceration. Among these individuals, imprisonment increases participation in programs directed at improving employability and reducing recidivism, and this ultimately raises employment and earnings while discouraging criminal behavior” (Gordon and Magne, 2020). This displays that a prisoner that was not employed prior to incarceration can integrate back into society and therefore increase employability, benefit the economy, and benefit those around them. The authors also posit that it is not possible to create an effective prison system without looking at the spillover that affects family, peers, and partners. Dahl et al explain that children of the incarcerated are more likely to offend as well. This fact makes the integration of prisoners back into society much more demanding and allows insight into the array of people that are affected by a prison system that employs long prison sentences to combat crime.

    Overall, the evidence and results prove that integrating rehabilitation into prison is more cost effective, provides support for drug abusing offenders, and integrates prisoners back into society. A prison system that employs harsher prison sentences to combat crime is ineffective and lacks the ability to deter reoccurring offenses. The lack of rehabilitation in prison leads to overcrowding in prison, reoccurring costs of prisoners, and a high rate of recidivism. Prisoners deserve the right to access programs to better themselves throughout their prison sentences as that is the very reason that they were sent to prison. When prisoners are eventually released, they will ultimately continue to reoffend unless action is taken to integrate and rehabilitate the prisoners when the chance presents itself. This chance is prison, which people overlook as simply a way to punish, but prison is more than just punishment, it is an opportunity to change offenders’ lives by rehabilitating prisoners.

    Justice reinvestment is an effective approach to the reduction of crime in modern day westernised communities. The term ‘justice reinvestment’ refers to the movement to “reduce the number of people in prison, to strengthen the communities that are most vulnerable to imprisonment, and to facilitate the permanent closure of prison facilities, which is where the opportunities for the most significant cost savings lie” (Brown et al. 2016, p. 57). There are many positive and negative aspects that can influence governing powers to develop such strategies, however, through the synergy of government and state entities, justice reinvestment can enhance the opportunities for the criminal justice system. These opportunities can benefit potential perpetrators, victims and those who are exposed to or are likely to be exposed to crime. The reduction of crime and criminal justice interventions are the underlying principles of justice reinvestment. The implementation of justice reinvestment is determined by political and legal contexts of a country whereby the government allocates monetary expenditures into different sectors of society. These financial forecasts give attention to sectors that require immediate attention, one sector being the criminal justice system. The redistribution of public expenditure in crime preventive initiatives are justifiable in the sense that this approach offers greater development opportunities in community assets that will potentially decrease crime rate and prison occupancy in a cost-effective way (Brown et al. 2012, p. 96). Although the justice reinvestment approach can be beneficial in diverse communities, there are negative impacts also. This paper will contrast the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the allocation of government resources into the criminal justice system and how it is an effective approach in our global world today. Australia is an important example of the effectiveness of justice reinvestment especially in consideration to Indigenous communities.

    Justice reinvestment has two components according to Allen (2007 cited in Fox et al. 2011, p. 122), these include: measures and policies that improve prospects for individuals and areas, and prevents people from reoffending. Minimizing criminal onset and behaviour are a common goal in any society to ensure that community solidarity is substantial. Crime is an ongoing issue world-wide and requires effective intervention to prevent further undoing of strong community structures. Justice reinvestment can assist in crime reduction by introducing new crime preventive schemes. This approach has emerged as a response to racial disparity and mass incarceration and is evident in the Australian Government (Brown et al. 2016, p. 17). Australia has adopted a community based justice reinvestment approach that is somewhat decentralized from government authority (Brown et al. 2016, p. 17). In the circumstances of Australian Aboriginal communities, justice reinvestment is a situational and place-based approach that is effective within the criminal justice system. Mass incarceration of indigenous Aboriginals and Torres Trait Islander people play a major role in the emergence and requirements of justice reinvestment to increase criminal and social justices since 2013 (Brown et al. 2016, p. 50). The development of justice reinvestment at a community-based level has increased the representations of Aboriginal people through projects that prevent criminal onset and reoffending situations. For instance, in the Kimberley, Northern Territory Australia, justice reinvestment has emerged from the support of internal powers such as the Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Association and the Northern Territory Council of Social Services according to Allison (2015 cited in Brown et al. 2016, p. 15) This paper primarily focuses on remote areas of Australia such as Western Australia and Northern Territory as they have high Aboriginal populations and communities that lack financial, legal and educational resources producing poor criminal justice systems. By improving community safety under justice reinvestment approaches, criminal injustices can be addressed through the synergy of government powers and community based entities. The role of governments in justice reinvestment is of importance regarding the success of such a cost-effective approach. Through neo-liberal political structures in Australia, governments enact policies and fiscal budgets that determine the strength of a given sector. Governments release a yearly budget on what financial resources will be allocated to different sectors, in the case of justice reinvestment, these sectors include rehabilitation facilities, youth centres, Social health and investing in community assets such as education.

    Upon reviewing the advantages of justice reinvestment, there is an apparent correlation between the decrease in offenders on probation returning to prison and the adoption of such policies (Fox et al. 2011, p. 123). A positive impact that the justice reinvestment approach takes is the improvement in rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation facilities are designed to deter ex-offenders away from criminal behaviour and patterns that can cause criminal relapse. According to Sentencing Advisory Council (2016) Northern Territory, Australia, had the highest rates of ex-offenders returning to prison in the nation at 57.5% between 2012-2013. With statistics as high as this, there is need for rehabilitation services that can intervene potential relapses that provoke criminal behaviour. If a government budget reallocates monetary resources to rehabilitation facilities this could potentially decrease the prison populations which in return will minimise the costs of infrastructure, food and utilities (Fox et al. 2011, p. 119-120). If these rehabilitation services are properly funded and allocated, the costs in the prison sector will ultimately fall as will potential crime rates. In the context of Aboriginal communities in Australia, the overrepresentation in prison populations is an underlying problem that seeks attention and intervention of the government to overcome reoffending inflations. By adjusting the criminal justice system from a detention to a prevention approach, Aboriginals have more chances to break away from the cycle of reoffending as the government will invest in programs that deter criminal behaviour. Another advantage to justice reinvestment is the investment in youth detention centres to help Aboriginal youth in remote areas including Western Australia and Northern Territory to steer clear from repeated crime.

    Early development in youth detention centres can decrease potential deficits by distributing the governments expenditure effectively in areas that can prevent early onset of crime and reoffending cases. Justice reinvestment is driven by data-based approaches that collect necessary information on areas that experience high imprisonment rates to intervene and prevent detrimental criminal patterns from unfolding (Brown et al. 2012, p. 97). Regarding the collection of data, Australian Aboriginal communities are highlighted as many families live in low-educated, social isolation, disadvantaged housing and low-employment areas (Austin et al. 2013, p. 5). Australian areas that can greatly benefit from youth detention centres are the NT and WA where criminal behaviour is somewhat considered ‘normal’ as a high percentage of reoffenders are Aboriginal, children grow up to believe that these actions are habitual. Justice Reinvest NSW (2017) claims that the percentage of Aboriginals that are admitted into prison are extremely high as the past ten years there has been a 50% increase in imprisonment. Although the Aboriginal population within Australia is made up of 3%, a quarter of people imprisoned are Aboriginal (Just reinvest NSW, 2017). This highlights the severity of crime rates in remote areas of Australia that need justice reinvestment approaches to prevent the criminal justice system collapsing from the overrepresentation of a minority. Other areas that the government can redistribute monetary resources rather than in prison systems is the investment in community assets such as education, employment agencies and the community housing development (Austin et al. 2013, p. 6). By marginalising detainment and prison initiatives, the government can invest in the grass roots of crime and utilise public expenditure on goods and services that increase prevention. The Department of family and Community services is a government funded initiative that improves the living standards and options for those seeking social housing in Australia. This is an important area that needs strong investment initiatives to ensure that Indigenous families have strong and fair rights to social housing.

    Additionally, areas that need attention in Aboriginal communities include public health services and education. If the level of education is of higher standards, this allows individuals of disadvantaged backgrounds greater opportunities in employment. By reinvesting the capital of taxpayers into preventive mechanisms, the growth of prison populations can decrease, however this does not decrease the number of prisoners (Austin et al. 2013, p. 1). Preventive mechanisms can positively impact re-offenders rather than prison whereby most people that are released back to society are unprepared and experience psychological disillusionment where their only sense of home is prison where they are ‘safe’. Hopkins (2014) furthermore argues that an increase in prison rates is not necessarily due to an increase in crime but tough policy making and enforcement in the criminal justice system. Through the synergy of strong policy making and the adequate distribution of public expenditure, justice reinvestment can improve the living standards of Indigenous Aboriginal people in the evolving criminal justice system. The most important deterrent from crime is community solidarity and social inclusion that strengthens support networks and opportunities. The promotion of justice reinvestment in the Kimberleys, Australia by Aboriginal organisations has been consistent for many years according to Collins (as cited in Brown et al. 2016, p. 133). However, early intervention and prevention mechanisms cannot be entirely effective based upon a community driven discourse that is not funded without government involvement (Brown et al. 2016, p. 133). High rates of Aboriginal youth crime threaten community solidarity; therefore, it is crucial that justice reinvestment place-based initiatives are enforced to prevent relapses of criminal behaviour as prison programs continue to fail to eliminate this vicious cycle (Brown et al. 2016, p. 132). Higher investment in Indigenous community assets and criminal justice reforms increases the opportunities to alleviate criminal behaviours that are perceived as ‘social norms’ in low socioeconomic areas including family violence and burglary (Brown et al, B. P. 143).

    Although justice reinvestment can have positive impacts at an individual and community level, there are few downfalls that can occur when implementing such an approach. Just Reinvest NSW (2017) claim that the disadvantages of justice reinvestment vary from geographical and data limitations, unpredictable inflation rates, potential budget deficits and difficulties in community involvement. As justice reinvestment is a data-based approach for community development it is important that geographic aspects are of first consideration. In respect to Indigenous people of Australia that live in the NT and WA, geographical and data limitations exist in the sense that these areas face high levels of isolation. As a result, justice reinvestment approaches become difficult to implement with little access to community assets and minimum resources to collect accurate data regarding crime and reoffending rates. Justice Reinvest NSW (2017) claim that remote communities in NT and WA have little service provision and the closest access to such services are hundreds of kilometres away. Another disadvantage to implementing a justice reinvestment approach is the unpredictability of inflation rates. Inflation rates play an important role in the distribution of government expenditure. Inflation is the substantial increase in the price of goods and services that will impact an economy’s purchasing power. Initially, this is also a disadvantage for prison expenditure. Justice Committee (2009 as cited in Fox et al. 2011, p. 19) reports that due to inflation, the costs of services, infrastructure and food for prisoners will increase regardless of prison population intake. However, if inflation were to affect prison expenditure it is also expected to increase the price of criminal prevention sectors including: educational and employment programmes and costs to build community assets that prevent reoffending. Therefore, it is important to note that a negative aspect of justice reinvestment is the unpredictable inflation rates as it can increase public expenditure that can be used in other important sectors.

    Additionally, fiscal constraints are another negative aspect to the implementation of justice reinvestment. Fiscal constraints include a government’s inability to value benefits correlated with crime reduction (Fox et al. 2011, p. 131). By looking at the value of the market, goods such as property that is damaged can be determined. However, in contrast, psychological and physical damage to a person cannot easily be determined, this can cause a misallocation of monetary resources resulting in a potential budget deficit (Fox et al. 2011, P. 131). A negative aspect of implementing preventive mechanisms includes that reduction of finances in the prison sector which can minimise the standards of correctional centres. It is extremely risky for the Australian Government in remote areas such as NT and WA Aboriginal communities regarding reallocating fiscal recourses towards justice reinvestment from prison sectors. Although increasing the public expenditure in preventive areas can attack the underlying principles of crime, it is uncertain whether these mechanisms are effective in low- socioeconomic areas.

    In the historical context, many Aboriginal communities live in low socioeconomic areas that restrict the access to necessary resources and the fundamentals of education and employment. As incarceration rates increase, the relationship between poverty and crime rates becomes stronger. Hudson (2015) argues that an increase in educational programs and services can transform the staggering statistics of Indigenous incarceration with the support of private investment synergised with government expenditure. The theoretical framework that justice reinvestment proposes is that by funding preventive schemes, prison expenses will fall. The average cost to build a prison in Australia is $300 million (Hopkins, 2014) and a further $2.6 billion is spent on adult imprisonment yearly (Simpson and Doyle, 2013). As Aboriginal people make up most of those incarcerated, the attention must be drawn to the underlying causes of crime, one being the lack of education in low socioeconomic communities. As an informal social control, education plays a critical role in the early cognitive development of youth and the deterrence of criminal onset that is so common in their community background. “Closing the Gap” is an Australian Government initiative that aims to minimise the disadvantages between those of Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage in areas such as education (Closing the Gap, 2017). Although this policy offers grants and bursaries for those in higher education in highly populated areas, ‘Closing the Gap’ continues to face difficulties tackling remote areas with small populations and high crime rates (Austin et al. 2013, p. 14). These areas include the Northern territory, whereby 85% of the prison population is Aboriginal and according to the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare only 38% of those imprisoned obtained year 11 and 12 education (Davidson, 2017).

    More than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are isolated within Western Australia (Australian Bureau Statistics, 2010). These communities are restricted to legal services, professional health care and teaching facilities that need to be discreetly addressed through justice reinvestment approaches funded by inter-governmental parties (Australian Bureau Statistics, 2010). If more money was distributed towards the grassroots of cognitive development and preventive mechanisms, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have a higher chance to reduce mass incarceration and racial disparity. However, investing in education to prevent crime can be highly risky with low school attendance rates of Indigenous people. Regarding the NT, 57% of government schools are in the bottom 10% of Australian disadvantaged socioeconomic areas due to lack of English speaking skills, employment and education (Australian Bureau Statistics, 2010). As these areas are isolated, through the enhancement of justice reinvestment approaches in remote areas of Australia, education can be used as a tool to fix the incarceration of Indigenous people. This includes the increase in youth support programs, educational resources and rehabilitation services to improve employment prosperity.

    There are many advantages and disadvantages encompassed in justice reinvestment approaches that impact both the individual and community level. Justice reinvestment is an approach founded on the conceptions of reinvesting savings from a monetary budget into areas that can reduce reoffending in high prison populated areas and eventually increase public safety (Brown et al. 2016, p. 5). Although it is of high financial risk to implement community and place based justice reinvestment initiatives, the advantages can increase social solidarity and potentially depreciate reoffending. Although the issues of justice reinvestment are based on potential financial losses, the possibilities of crime reduction are endless by targeting criminal onset at the grassroots. It is important to allocate financial resources to preventive mechanisms as well as detention services as it targets the key areas in which crime stems and repeats. The decisions of Australian Government policy makers significantly influence the opportunities for Indigenous Australians to elude the criminal justice system. Strong policy reforms in the criminal justice system focusing on the grassroots of crime are crucial in the development of communities and the success of justice reinvestment schemes. The mass incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is an ongoing issue in Australia that needs to be alleviated by place-based justice reinvestment. According to the Indigenous Expenditure Report (2014) the Government directed a total of $30.3 billion to Indigenous citizens while the expenditure of non- Indigenous Australians was $468.9 billion. By investing in safer communities and expanding the amount of expenditure in the Indigenous sector, crime reduction can become more achievable today. An equilibrium of financial resources in the criminal justice system allows those living in disadvantaged areas with high prison populations a chance to escape the vicious cycle that societal weakness and criminal behaviour has created.