Prison 101 another example of society=s desire for quick fix

 

We live in a society that seems to want instant gratification and quick fixes to pressing social problems.  Many people in our society staunchly believe that we can use fear to prevent wrongful or harmful behavior.

There are many examples: driver education courses show gory accident scenes; smoking-cessation programs show lungs damaged from smoking; and programs like Ascared straight@ try to scare juveniles by having prison inmates tell them of the horrors of prison life (often using obscene and graphic language).  The assumption is that people will be sufficiently scared and then modify their behavior.

One of the most recent variations on this theme is a Clark County program called Prison 101.  As proposed, it is similar to the basic formula of the original Ascared straight@ program in Rahway Prison in New Jersey, which was begun in the late 1970s.

This program has a great deal of appeal to it. It seems simple, quick and is consistent with the widespread belief that you can prevent delinquent behavior if you instill fear into the minds of youngsters. In a Dec. 10 Review-Journal story it was claimed that Aleading students down prison corridors and into cells alongside inmates would shock them into reality.@  This experience Acould dissuade students from pursuing a criminal career.@

The Review-Journal in an editorial admitted that the program “won=t deter all youngsters, but it should open the eyes of some. Even with a success rate of 10 or 20 percent, it would be worthwhile.” It seems that everyone involved uncritically accepts the assumptions of such a program and is convinced it will work.  However, everywhere careful research has been done on these kinds of programs; there has been no evidence to show they are effective in reducing delinquency.  What is especially troubling, however, is that some studies have discovered such programs may do more harm than good.

In one of the first (and most widely quoted) studies, James Fickenauer of Rutgers University compared a group of youths who went through the original Ascared straight@ program with a control group of youths who did not attend the program.  The result: a six-month follow-up found that about 40 percent of whose who attended the program had further recorded offenses, compared with only 11 percent of the controls.

An evaluation of a similar program in Michigan arrived at almost identical results: 43 percent of those who went through the program were subsequently involved in delinquency, compared with only 17 percent of the control group.

Many more examples could be cited, but the important question is this: How do we account for the obvious failure of such programs?  Perhaps of greater importance, how do we account for the many people who continue to believe that such programs work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?

The first question is easier to answer than the second question.  These kinds of aversive techniques often have a tendency to backfire.  This is because, in the words of Finckenauer, when Apeople are given frightening descriptions of possible consequences if they behave in a certain way, they often are unimpressed initially, but later push the ugly or unpleasant information out of their minds.@  Another reason: As research has shown, it is not the perceived severity of punishment that acts as a deterrent but the perceived certainty.  In other words, if one is quite certain he or she will be caught, then the likelihood of committing a crime is lessened. Just observe drivers on local freeways and watch what happens when a highway patrol car is nearby; then watch what happens if the patrol car exits the freeway.

Another variable is that adolescents are far more apt to engage in risk-taking behavior than adults and such risks may be disregarded if they believe that committing delinquent acts will enhance their status among peers.  Finally, another variable is that in many delinquency treatment programs, youths who participate tend to form relationships with other (often more serious) delinquents.  In other words, they are introduced to a network of delinquents.

As for an answer to the second question, I think many people steadfastly believe in the effectiveness of such programs because, as I stated above, they want a quick fix, an easy solution that requires little effort.  Support for such programs is also the result of frustration over repeated failures of many delinquency prevention and treatment programs, plus the fact that the problem seems to get no better and, in many respects, is getting worse.

Actually, there are many programs that work very effectively, but they take a long time for the results to be realized. Space does not permit a complete listing of them all, so I will just mention a few.