Some More Thoughts 1

Running head: SOME MORE THOUGHTS ON PETERSILIA

Some More Thoughts on Petersilia

Má rcio Padilha

Lewis-Clark State College

JS 302 – Wartel

Fall/2010
 Some More Thoughts 2

Some More Thoughts on Petersilia

In continuation to the her previous discussion, Joan Petersilia’s When Prisoners

Come Home presents, in a systematic manner, different social aspects which impact the

prisoner reintegration process. By addressing topics such as inmate release preparation,

reintegration legal and practical barriers, inmate release and recidivism, the victim’s role in

prisoner reentry and reforming parole and reentry practices, the author contrasts theory to

practical matters, leading the reader into a critical analysis regarding the antagonism

present in current day society and the prisoner reintegration issue.

In my opinion, Petersilia’s first interesting argument stems out of affirming that

“virtually all data on in-prison program participation come from in-mate self-report”.

Whereas this validates that program participation does occur, it further acknowledges the

non-existence of a system of balances and checks regarding to how this data is compiled,

which, in turn, makes the seriousness with which these issues are looked at to be

somewhat questionable. Additionally, Petersilia states that “participation in prerelease

programs increases significantly among inmates scheduled to be released within 12

months” which, to me, negates the importance that “prisoners should ideally make the

transition from prison to the community in a gradual, closely supervised process” where

“furloughs, work release and halfway houses basically are all designed to give the inmate

the chance to acclimate to the free world and develop work and social relationships that

will assist at release.” Furthermore, as stated by the author, socioeconomic status reflects

itself in the nature of the committed crimes which, in turn, is thence reflected by the

disproportionate need-participation rate amongst the carceral populations, i.e. federal

 Some More Thoughts 3

prisoner who have fewer needs yield greater program participation while state prisoners

who have greater needs yield lesser program participation and, as a result of that, most

prisoners at greater risk, such as those mentally ill, will eventually be released and

discontinue the medications and counseling begun in prison. With that reality on the

foreground I would agree that, more often than not, “prisoners return home with most of

their treatment and vocational training needs unmet”. Therefore, it would be my

contention that, at this point, the system, as it stands, is failing on its alleged purpose of

prisoner reintegration.

Other than the prerelease issues, postrealease issues also influence the successful

reintegration. As Petersilia states, the existence of a felony record implies, in most states, in

the “loss of some aspects of general citizenship” which necessarily leads on to question

whether “we are jeopardizing public safety by making it so difficult for prison releases to

succeed” in light of the fact that “29% of the United States possesses some sort of criminal

record.” Therefore, although there is the presumption that the system in place operates out

of a deep core belief in the success of prisoner reintegration, the greater society which

envelops, and legislates, this system seems to bank on sanctions destined to make the

process highly unlikely to succeed.

Petersilia also weighs the delicate balance between public safety benefits and

individual privacy, pointing out common incongruent practices which should be

scrutinized. One such item, which really caught my attention, was the illegality for an

employer to impose a flat ban on hiring ex-offenders while the simultaneous legality for

professional licensing practices to bar individuals from credentialing. In addition, legal

provisions which ban drug-related felons from receiving public assistance affects not only
 Some More Thoughts 4

the felon in question, but also their children who, in turn, become subject to other legal

sanctions regarding child-paternal rights which subsequently affects the social fabric as a

whole. Lastly, the suspension of felons’ civil rights create a possible legislative deprivation

where felons’ particular situations will lose perspective altogether within the greater

society. Therefore, in light of all difficulties presented, it is “not surprising that most

inmates who leave prison become reinvolved in crime” with the prior arrest record being

“a good predictor of both whether or not the inmate would be rearrested and how quickly”.

With more than “two-thirds of those released from prison will be rearrested” and

that “nearly half will return to jail for a new crime or technical violation”, as Petersilia

points out, it is very interesting that “virtually all of the national discussion concerning

offender reentry has focused on the needs and risks posed by returning offender, with little

thought given to the victims”. Despite the 1997 Congressional Victims’ Rights Clarification

Act which asserts that victims should have the right to both attend the proceedings and

deliver or submit a victim impact statement, not all states have complied, i.e. “thirty-two of

the 50 states have amended their state constitutions to include victims’ rights”. That, in

part, may be caused by the fact that parole-decision making issues are inherently highly

political. Furthermore, despite the fact that “crime victims often have the most detailed

knowledge of the offender and the risks he poses to public safety”, their fear “that they may

have a face-to-face confrontation with the offender” which leads “some also question

whether notifying victims of their offenders’ activities is in their best interest.” Therefore,

despite victims being able to “assist the parole board in deciding which programs and

postprision conditions to require and parole board members report relaying heavily on
 Some More Thoughts 5

victim statements for this task,” their role, i.e. the victims, in the process is not a clear cut

across the board, varying from state to state.

The prisoner reintegration machine, according to Petersilia, is one full of

incongruence and inconsistencies which, despite having a pledge of social improvement,

seems to fight in every aspect of the process with the greater society it is a part of. On a

personal note, I would say that I believe the issues Petersilia pointed out are very valid

ones which I believe society will only overcome with a major socio-educational adjustment.

If one’s rights are still rescinded long after their release from the penal system, how

released have they ever actually been?

 Some More Thoughts 6

Bibliography

Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.