Does Imprisonment Promote Rehabilitation and Reduce Reoffending: A Critical Analysis

By Zoe Humphries – 3rd Year Undergraduate Student – Criminology & Sociology

Introduction

Across the world imprisonment has been used as a method of deterrence and punishment, however, its ability to rehabilitate and reduce reoffending is widely debated (Bullock and Bunce, 2020; Maguire and Raynor, 2006). Historically, the purpose of imprisonment was retributive being imposed as punishment for a wrong, however, prisons today emphasise their rehabilitative intent (Bullock and Bunce, 2020; Spitzer, 1975).

Rehabilitation in prison intends to help offenders to not reoffend by teaching them new skills and providing opportunities to allow them to reintegrate successfully into society (Forsberg and Douglas, 2020). However, despite the inclusion of rehabilitative programmes in prison, reoffending remains a problem with a proven reoffending rate of 26.4% and rate of 56.6% for those released from sentences shorter than 12 months in 2022 (Ministry of Justice, 2024).

 Therefore, this essay will argue that imprisonment does not promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending by examining the availability of rehabilitation programmes in prisons, how imprisonment can hinder reintegration and the impact of imprisonment on individuals, while drawing on relevant theoretical explanations throughout. Moreover, this discussion will highlight how the digital era has affected a prison’s ability to rehabilitate and how a strength-based approach to rehabilitation may offer a better way forward.

Rehabilitation Programmes

Overall, the success of prison rehabilitation programmes in reducing reoffending has been widely acknowledged, especially the success associated with using the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011; Parhar et al., 2008). Rehabilitative programmes in prison are designed to focus on criminogenic needs and dynamic risks factors to reduce reoffending (Prison Reform Trust, 2017). Dynamic risk factors often targeted in rehabilitative programmes include substance misuse, unemployment, homelessness, lack of education, mental health problems, and pro-criminal attitudes (Ministry of Justice, 2014; Ward and Stewart, 2003). However, recent prison inspections have highlighted that these programmes are not readily available to prisoners across England and Wales, with problems regarding limited spaces and long waiting lists (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2024).

This may explain why the reoffending rates for those serving shorter sentences are higher at 56.6%, as they are put on a waiting list that extends their sentence (Ministry of Justice, 2024; HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2024). Furthermore, criteria to take part in rehabilitative programmes can be exclusionary, as an IQ requirement of 80 or above is often required, resulting in those who may need help the most, such as those who are neurodiverse and have complex needs, being ineligible to participate in such programmes (PBNI, 2021; Bunn, 2019). Therefore, improvements need to be made to promote rehabilitation for everyone and reduce reoffending.

When looking at rehabilitative programmes, the RNR model argues that people should be matched to treatment programmes based on their risks, needs and the formats that they respond the most to (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). Risk involves deciding how intense treatments should be, for example, if offenders pose an elevated risk of reoffending, then an extensive treatment plan will be used (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). Needs refers to focuses on targeting an offender’s criminogenic needs which may be contributing to their offending (e.g. substance use, unemployed, mental health issues, etc.), while responsivity involves matching programmes to the offender’s learning style and abilities (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). While this model is used across the world and has been successful in promoting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, there are some limitations (Ward, Melser and Yates, 2007).

Through highlighting risks, the RNR has been criticised for being negatively focused causing motivational problems when seeking to promote change and engagement (Ward, Melser and Yates, 2007). Therefore, incorporating a strengths-based approach, such as the Good Lives Model (GLM), may promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending further (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011). Overall, a strength-based approach may promote rehabilitation more than current prison practices, as its focus on a person’s strengths and goals, increasing their sense of autonomy and demonstrating how they can make a positive contribution to their community, which is key to overcoming the pains of imprisonment and reducing reoffending (Maruna and LeBel, 2009; Ward and Maruna, 2007; Burnett and Maruna, 2006; Sykes, 1958).

The effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes in prison for promoting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending has been shown through peer support schemes, for example, the use of peer mentors, buddies and through informal relationships (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016). Peer mentoring helps those imprisoned as stigmatisation is limited due to having shared or similar experiences (Devilly et al., 2005). Overall, the benefits of peer support schemes include offering more opportunities inside prison and on release, for example, working with Samaritans (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016).

Advantages also apply to those who become mentors as according to Riessman’s helper therapy principle, aiding others promotes self-reform and provides autonomy to allow for desistance (Riessman, 1965). Peer support is backed up by former prisoners, as Allan Weaver highlights that the relationship he built with another prisoner provided credibility and gave him the motivation to change (Weaver and Weaver, 2013). Therefore, through peer support schemes and relationships, imprisonment can promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending as change is encouraged (Buck, 2021).

However, there are problems associated with rehabilitation programmes in prison, with critics stating that mandatory programmes that are mostly used for substance misuse and sexual offences are controversial (Haviv et al., 2024; Day, Tucker and Howells, 2004). Due to there being negative consequences such as reduced incentives for not taking part in rehabilitative programmes, they can be viewed as coercive (Haviv et al., 2024; Day, Tucker and Howells, 2004). Despite this coercion, the benefit of enforcing programmes has been argued to exceed the negatives (Day, Tucker and Howells, 2004). However, research has highlighted that compulsory programmes in prison may be less effective compared to voluntary participation in programmes (Parhar et al., 2008). Support for this can be found in The Road from Crime documentary, where Allan Weaver describes his prison experience (Iriss, 2012).

Overall, Weaver highlights how the prison environment had not changed in over 25 years, with those imprisoned still only partaking in rehabilitative programmes because it is necessary and not for personal improvement (Iriss, 2012). This can be linked to perceptions of procedural justice as imprisonment prisoners feel coerced to participate in programmes rather than voluntarily choosing programmes that they believe may be the most beneficial or useful to them (Ryan and Bergin, 2022).

The Prison Environment

It is a widely accepted view that the prison environment encourages behavioural problems such as aggression (Butler, McNamee and Kelly, 2021; Bottoms, 1999; Sykes, 1958). Prison violence can be viewed as a way to assert dominance and masculinity as Butler, McNamee and Kelly (2021) argue, due to the restrictions of prison life, men will become, or pose as, aggressive to gain a higher social position in prison. This idea can be explained through social learning theory, as new prisoners observe aggressive behaviours of others in prison and imitate them to appear tough (Pratt et al., 2010). Participating in prison violence is a consistent predictor of recidivism in research, with studies highlighting violent misconduct is linked to reoffending regardless of prisoner background and participation in rehabilitative programmes (Rodríguez-Menés, Gómez-Casillas and Ruís-Vallejo, 2022; Cochran et al., 2014). Therefore, it may be that imprisonment teaches violence and aids reoffending rather than promoting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

The challenges associated with promoting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending can be examined through a mixed model approach including both the deprivation and importation models (Sykes, 1958). The deprivation model highlights that the prison environment and conditions can cause both misconduct and psychological distress, impacting on rehabilitation and reoffending (Hochstetler and DeLisi, 2005; Sykes, 1958). The importation model explains how people bring past experiences and issues into the prison with them, which continue to impact on their offending and ability to partake in rehabilitation while in prison (Kigerl and Hamilton, 2016; Hochstetler and DeLisi, 2005; Sykes, 1958).

The pains of imprisonment, such as a lack of autonomy and independence, as well as unclean cells and long periods spent locked up, can cause psychological distress, resulting in increased frustrations and reducing prisoners’ ability to rehabilitate (Rocheleau, 2013; Crewe, 2011; Sykes, 1958). Due to overcrowding and understaffing in prisons, rehabilitative programmes are overloaded and under-resourced while maintaining order and control is prioritised (Craig, 2004). In England and Wales, the ratio of officer to prisoner is high at 1:4.8, with crowded cells and limited staff to unlock meaning tensions are increased (Nudd et al., 2024; Prison Reform Trust, 2014). Therefore, limited prison resources cannot provide the rehabilitation needed to prepare prisoners for release, meaning the likelihood of reoffending is elevated (Craig, 2004).

The attitudes, past experiences and issues that prisoners had brought into prison with them, may also continue to affect their thoughts, behaviours and emotions while in prison and on release if unaddressed. In this way, the causes of their offending are not addressed, and people can continue to reoffend on release from prison. For instance, while theories on desistance stating social bonds such as family and peer relations are important for desisting from crime, this is only the case if these relationships are promoting pro-social behaviour as if family and peers are involved in offending, it may encourage reoffending (Harding, Morenoff and Herbert, 2013; Maruna, 2001).

Impact of Imprisonment:

Imprisonment can also hinder rehabilitation and reducing reoffending due to the impact of being labelled a criminal and the stigmatisation that comes from it. Labelling theory produced by Becker (1963) explains how behaviours can be viewed and labelled a crime, depending on social norms at that time. Similarly, people can be labelled criminal and deviant through their detention in prison, influencing how others interact with them and reducing their ability to obtain employment, housing and other resources (Deakin and Fox, 2022). Labels associated with being imprisoned such as ‘convict’ or ‘criminal’ can be damaging, causing the person who is labelled to turn into what they are called (Bemenga, 2021; Tannenbaum, 1938).

While prisons have tried to tackle labelling, for example, the language used inside Hydebank College has changed to describe those imprisoned as students, labelling still results in stigmatisation of those imprisoned worldwide (Deakin and Fox, 2022; Martin, 2021). Problems resulting from increased stigmatisation include reduced employment opportunities and difficulties gaining financial loans (Deakin and Fox, 2022). Issues with obtaining employment can create extreme knock-on effects including financial, housing and relationship difficulties (Keene, Smoyer and Blankenship, 2018).

The effects of labelling and stigmatisation can be viewed through Adam’s experience with obtaining employment, as despite having the qualifications, a criminal record check meant he was automatically rejected for jobs (Carey, Grant and Tompkins, 2022). Therefore, due to stigmatisation and the challenges faced by those who have been imprisoned, they are stuck in a cycle of offending, as research demonstrates that increased contact with the criminal justice system increases the potential to be labelled, making it difficult to stop reoffending (McAra and McVie, 2007). As a result, it may be that imprisonment does not promote rehabilitation and increases the risk to reoffend.

Rehabilitation in a Digital Divide

While the regulation of technology in prisons is a vital security precaution for individuals involved in hacking or terrorist offences, its absence from prison causes a digital divide in criminalised individuals serving both short and long sentences due to unpredictable changes in technology (Blomberg et al., 2021). Overall, a lack of technology inside prison shows prisoners will not be prepared for release, with rehabilitation programmes not emphasising changes to society (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022).

In contemporary society, the use of technology and need for digital skills dominates many areas of life, with its limited use in prison leading to problems on release (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022). For example, looking for and applying to jobs and accommodation is an essential step for individuals on release, but services are focused more online with those imprisoned unable to navigate this change (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022).

This is important as stable accommodation and employment are well known factors in facilitating rehabilitation and reducing reoffending (O’Leary, 2013; Grimwood and Berman, 2012). Moreover, access to technology will allow criminalised individuals to stay connected to family and friends who are unable to attend prison visits, which is key to aiding rehabilitation and reducing reoffending (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022; Grimwood and Berman, 2012). Therefore, without prisons offering support for digital skills, it may be argued that imprisonment does not promote rehabilitation or reduce reoffending.

Conclusion

While imprisonment can somewhat promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending through the use of prison as a deterrent, rehabilitative programmes and peer support schemes, overall reoffending rates remain high (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016; Parhar et al., 2008; Spitzer, 1975). Therefore, imprisonment cannot fully promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending as it provides a violent environment that lacks autonomy, causes stigmatisation and labelling, and rehabilitation falls short in a digitally driven society (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022; Butler, McNamee and Kelly, 2021; Sykes, 1958). In the future, imprisonment needs to adapt and offer more autonomy to those imprisoned by focusing on strength-based approaches to successfully promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending in the 21^st century (Maruna and LeBel, 2009; Sykes, 1958).

Reference List

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., and Wormith, J. S. (2011) ‘The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?’, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 38(7), pp. 735-755.

Becker, H. S. (1963) Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.

Bemenga, L. (2021) Good Intentions Don’t Blunt the Impact of Dehumanizing Words. Available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/04/12/good-intentions-don-t-blunt-the-impact-of-dehumanizing-words (Accessed: 9^th January 2025).

Blomberg, M., Altschwager, D., Seo, H., Booton, E., and Nwachukwu, M. (2021) ‘Digital Divide and Marginalised Women during COVID-19:  A Study of Women Recently Released from Prison’, Information, Communication and Society, 24(14), pp. 2113-2132.

Bonta, J., and Andrews, D. A. (2007) Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

Bottoms, A. (1999) ‘Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in Prisons’, Crime and Justice, 26(1), pp. 205-283.

Buck, G. (2021) Peer Mentoring in the Criminal Justice System, Mildenhall: Clinks.

Bullock, K., and Bunce, A. (2020) ‘The prison don’t talk to you about getting out of prison’: On why Prisons in England and Wales Fail to Rehabilitate Prisoners’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20(1), pp. 111-127.

Bunn, R. (2019) ‘Intersectional Needs and Reentry: Re-conceptualising ‘Multiple and Complex Needs’ Post-Release’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 19(3), pp. 328-345.

Burnett, R., and Maruna, S. (2006) ‘The Kindness of Prisoners: Strengths-Based Resettlement in Theory and Action’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(1), pp. 83-106.

Butler, M., McNamee, C. B., and Kelly, D. (2021) ‘Risk Factors for Interpersonal Violence in Prison: Evidence from Longitudinal Administrative Prison Data in Northern Ireland’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15-16).

Carey, L., Grant, A., and Tompkins, S. (2022) ‘Swinging Doors: An Autoethnographic Look at the Challenges Faced by Previously Incarcerated People in the USA and Australia’, Journal of Prisoners on Prison, 30(1), pp. 38-63.

Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., Bales, W. D., and Stewart, E. A. (2014) ‘Does Inmate Behaviour Affect Post-Release Offending? Investigating the Misconduct-Recidivism Relationship among Youth and Adults’, Justice Quarterly, 31(6), pp. 1044-1073.

Craig, S. C. (2004) ‘Rehabilitation Versus Control: An Organizational Theory of Prison Management’, The Prison Journal, 84(4), pp. 92-114.

Crewe, B. (2011) ‘Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisiting the Pains of Imprisonment’, Punishment and Society, 13(5), pp. 509-529.

Day, A., Tucker, K., and Howells, K. (2004) ‘Coerced Offender Rehabilitation – A Defensible Practice?’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(3), pp. 259-269.

Deakin, J., and Fox, C. (2022) ‘Labelled as ‘Risky’ in an Era of Control: How Young People Experience and Respond to the Stigma of Criminalized Identities’, European Journal of Criminology, 19(4), pp. 653-673.

Devilly, G. J., Sorbello, L., Eccleston, L., and Ward, T. (2005) ‘Prison-Based Peer-Education Schemes’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 10(2), pp. 219-240.

Forsberg, L., and Douglas, T. (2020) ‘What is Criminal Rehabilitation?’, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 16(1), pp. 103-126.

Grimwood, G., and Berman, G. (2012) Reducing Reoffending: The ‘What Works’ Debate. Research Paper, 12/71: House of Commons Library.

Harding, D, J., Morenoff, J. D., and Herbert, C. W. (2013) ‘Home is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647(1), pp. 214-236.

Haviv, N., Harel, G. K., Sternfeld, M., Wolff, M. (2024) ‘Exploring the Impact of Voluntary Entry on Dropout Rates in a Therapeautic Community for Substance Abuse Rehabilitation: A Survival Analysis and Logistic Regression Study’, Probation Journal, 71(3), pp. 275-293.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016) Life in Prison: Peer Support. London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2024) HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales: Annual Report 2023-24. London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

Hochstetler, A., and DeLisi, M. (2005) ‘Importation, Deprivation, and Varieties of Serving Time: An Integrated-Lifestyle-Exposure Model of Prison Offending’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), pp. 257-266.

Iriss (2012) The Road from Crime – English Subtitled. Available at: https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/videos/road-crime-english-subtitled (Accessed: 8^th January 2025).

Kigerl, A., and Hamilton, Z. (2016) ‘The Impact of Transfers between Prisons on Inmate Misconduct: Testing Importation, Deprivation, and Transfer Theory Models’, The Prison Journal, 96(2), pp. 232-257.

Keene, D. E., Smoyer, A. B., and Blankenship, K. M. (2018) ‘Stigma, Housing and Identity After Prison’, The Sociological Review, 66(4), pp. 799-815.

Maguire, M., and Raynor, P. (2006) ‘How the Resettlement of Prisoners Promotes Desistance from Crime: Or Does It?’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(1), pp. 19-38.

Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

Maruna, S., and LeBel, T. (2009) ‘Strength-Based Approaches to Reentry: Extra Mileage toward Reintegration and Destigmatization’, Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology, 34(1), pp. 58-80.

Martin, A. (2021) ‘How a stretch in Hydebank Wood can change your life’, The Guardian, 20^th August. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/long-reads/hydebank-wood-prison-qualifications-b1905212.html (Accessed: 9^th January 2025).

McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). ‘Youth justice? The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending’, European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), pp 315-345.

Ministry of Justice (2014) Transforming Rehabilitation: A Summary of Evidence on Reducing Re-Offending. London: HMSO.

Ministry of Justice (2024) Proven Reoffending Statistics: October to December 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-october-to-december-2022/proven-reoffending-statistics-october-to-december-2022 (Accessed: 7^th January 2025).

Nudd, E., Aon, M., Kambanella, K., and Brasholt, M. (2024) ‘Overcrowding in Prisons: Health and Legal Implications’, Torture Journal, 34(3), pp. 41-53.

O’Leary, C. (2013) ‘The Role of Stable Accommodation in Reducing Recidivism: What does the Evidence Tell Us?’, Safer Communities, 12(1), pp. 5-12.

Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., and Beauregard, A. M. (2008) ‘Offender Coercion in Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness’, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35(9), pp. 1109-1135.

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Thomas Winfree, L., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., Fearn, N. E, and Gau, J. M. (2010) ‘The Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory: A Meta- Analysis’, Justice Quarterly, 27(6), pp. 765-802.

Prison Reform Trust (2014) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile Autumn 2014. London: Prison Reform Trust.

Prison Reform Trust (2017) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile Autumn 2017. London: Prison Reform Trust.

Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) (2021) Guide to Group Work Programmes and Individual Interventions. Belfast: PBNI.

Riessman, F. (1965) ‘The ‘Helper’ Therapy Principle’, Social Work, 10(2), pp. 27-32.

Rocheleau, A. M. (2013) ‘An Empirical Exploration of the ‘Pains of Imprisonment’ and the Level of Misconduct and Violence’, Criminal Justice Review, 38(3), pp. 354-374.

Rodríguez-Menés, J., Gómez-Casilllas, A., and Ruíz-Vallejo, F. (2022) ‘Prison Misconduct, Prisoners’ Background, and Reoffending’, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 48(4), pp. 305-325.

Ryan, C., and Bergin, M. (2022) ‘Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prisons: A Review of Extant Empirical Literature’, Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 49(2), pp.143-163.

Spitzer, S. (1975) ‘Punishment and Social Organization: A Study of Durkheim’s Theory of Penal Evolution’, Law and Society Review, 9(4), pp. 613-638.

Sykes, G. (1958) The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum-Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tannenbaum, F. (1938) Crime and the Community. Boston: Ginn.

Ward, T., and Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ward, T., Melser, J., and Yates P. M. (2007) ‘Reconstructing the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model: A Theoretical Elaboration and Evaluation’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 12(2), pp. 208-228.

Ward, T., and Stewart, C. (2003) ‘Criminogenic Needs and Human Needs: A Theoretical Model’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(2), pp. 125-143.

Weaver, A., and Weaver, B. (2013) ‘Autobiography, Empirical Research and Critical Theory: A View from the Inside Out’, Probation Journal, 60(3), pp. 259-277.

Zivanai, E., and Mahlangu, G. (2022) ‘Digital Prison Rehabilitation and Successful Re-Entry into a Digital Society: A Systematic Literature Review on the New Reality on Prison Rehabilitation’, Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), pp. 1-14.