> Recidivism rates were actually higher than those who just were sent to prison with a 67% recidivism rate for halfway house residents compared to 60% for prison-only convicts.
In this comparison, the virtue of each institution has been blindly discarded in favor of highlighting the substantial failures of both. That is -- "Because both institutions have failed at achieving their intent, neither institution appears to be capable of achieving a good result."
If we were to include the virtue designated by each approach then it should be clear to see the short term & long term differences between incarceration and rehabilitation.
> And of course those rates are just within 3 years. They get much higher over time.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
---
In response to the opinion you've stated:
> In my opinion the major problem is once a culture develops around criminality it becomes practically impossible to detach the criminality from the culture, as resisting reform becomes part of the culture.
In response to the assertion you've made:
> Prison is not seen as game over. It's just another part of the game, and prison time is worn as a badge of honor once people are out, as it shows how 'hard' they are, and gains instant respect.
And in response to the questions you've raised:
> The more important question then is where did this culture come from, how did it emerge and spread, and how could that be stopped in the future?
Reformation as an act is a change of system and not a change in culture. Reformation will lead to a favorable cultural shift if and only if the system effectively addresses the needs of the individuals within the culture.
1. Anything less than reformation is utter neglect.
2. Accompanying neglect is malnutrition.
3. Cultures don't develop with criminality as an end all be all. Cultures develop with nutrition as an end all be all.