Sarah “Viva Violet” Gorbatov 

Rabbi Koslowe  
Judaic Studies 9 
February 2, 2019 
 
The Downside of Prison Reform: What if Punishing the Criminal Will Cause them to do Even Greater Harm? 
 
Out of a population that is approaching 350 million, over 2.2 million Americans are incarcerated—our 
dubious distinction of having the world’s highest incarceration rate:​ ​more than seven-tenths of 1 percent of the 
population (about 1 in 100 adults) are in prison. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s all-inclusive 
population, contains nearly one-quarter of its prisoners. The United States, at present, has 41,000 inmates serving life 
sentences without parole, according to a recent report; England has but 41. Nevertheless, as recently as the 1970s, the 
U.S. incarceration rate was one-fifth its current level. Notwithstanding, the tough-on-crime laws then passed at the 
state and federal levels with bipartisan support, and now, the U.S. has reached “mass incarceration”—a level of 
imprisonment so vast that it forges the collective experience of an entire social group. The deterrent effect of 
incarceration is lessened if it becomes so common that it no longer carries any stigma, and reentry services for released 
prisoners go only so far. Making a real dent in the size of the prison population will require intervening in a cycle that 
begins long before any crime is committed. 
This mass incarceration rate is dynamic, as hundreds of thousands of people, primarily men, are released from 
U.S. prisons on an annual basis to strive to make a go of it in a world where they have failed before—with the added 
disadvantage of a prison record and an unattractive reputation. More than 60 percent will be rearrested within three 
years, and half will return to prison. And, even so, those released from prison are, as a group, little studied, partly 
because maintaining contact with them is so difficult. The men tend to be “very loosely attached to their families and 
jobs,” some claim. Prison time strains relationships with partners and children, and hence men form antisocial 
behaviors and often live separately after their release. They may move frequently, sleeping on the couches of friends 
and relatives, or even becoming homeless as difficulty in finding employment begets financial trouble. Tracking this 
group, though complicated, is essential to understanding what challenges prisoners’ encounter in reintegrating into 
communities, and the challenges are indeed great.  
 It states, in Turei Zahav on Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De-’ah 334:1 of the Talmud, “I am shocked at these words 
(of the Rama)! How can we focus on the prohibition that this person did if by doing so, we will bring that person to 
further their evil ways?” C
​ has V’Shalom​. The difference between the prison environment and the outside world can be 
jarring in the extreme. The outside world brings an onslaught of stimulation and the sudden need to make dozens of 
small, circumstancing decisions each day when before, the prisoners were expected to do as they were told - “adaptive 
behavior in prison is maladaptive behavior outside.” The psychological challenge of reintegrating is also often layered 
on top of other adversity—for instance, childhood trauma. The violence people bring into the world has its roots in 
violence they witnessed, or which was done to them, at very young ages. In a justice system built upon the idea of 
choice and personal responsibility, I say the path to trouble may begin long before an individual has any say in the 
matter. W
​ hat happens to a person during their childhood can have a bearing on whether they end up in a prison cell, 
or whether they are even wired to make rational decisions in regard to everyday life. It is among the most significant 
factors that shape addictive and criminal conduct in adults and even supposing that federal and state prisons are 
working to reduce their prison population and improve former prisoners’ chances of successfully rejoining society, 
those convicted of crimes often have complex problems that date back to childhood. A brief skim of their histories 
would reveal that long before they were the perpetrators, a number of them were the sufferers. ​This should even blur 
the line between victim and offender. 
In addition, a comorbid history of alcohol and drug abuse is typical among current and former inmates: at 
least two-thirds are thought to have substance-abuse problems—no surprise, given that some of them stole in order to 
get their hands on money for drugs, or committed other crimes due to impaired judgment while under the influence. 
In effect, American prisons are used as surrogate mental-health and substance-abuse facilities. The nonprofit Human 
Rights Watch found that 56 percent of U.S. inmates are mentally ill. One subject, mentally ill and addicted to drugs, 
who failed a drug test that was a condition of her parole and was sent back to prison for the remaining 15 months of 
her sentence, had received prescription anti-anxiety medication while in prison, but bureaucratic delays held up a new 
prescription once she was freed. Besieged by anxiety and desperate to feel more calm and untroubled, she used heroin. 
The medical community has determined this addiction is a disease, as well as a multitude of other addictions, but the 
criminal-justice community considers it a crime. However, in cases like these, the reasons people landed in prison in 
the first place make them more likely to end up there again. This is precisely why we should favor more robust support 
and reinforcement for prisoners who are released, especially since they most often are penniless individuals with few 
social supports, real behavioral problems, and tragic, chaotic family histories.  
 It describes, in Teshuvot HaRabdaz Volume 1 187:2 of the Talmud, “I’ve been troubled by this question (of 
whether to excommunicate a criminal) my whole life because there is the possibility of the Torah being diminished, 
and there is no way to force the wicked from their ways. And, about this, I pray every day that I should not make a 
mistake in judgment . . . A person who is accustomed to sinning and feels confident with himself and in his claim, we 
do not concern ourselves with, and we uphold the Torah, come what may. But, if he is not accustomed, and he will 
likely listen, we draw him close with words until he returns somewhat, and we do not rush to punish him, because this 
can lead to negative outcomes . . .” Researchers have identified some factors that seem to aid prisoners in reintegrating. 
Take, for example, William (not his real name). As it happens, he exited prison with several advantages. First, he is 
51—older offenders are less likely to commit new crimes and end up back in prison, possibly because youthful 
tempers fade, or because maturity brings an awareness of what one has missed. Moreover, William has housing—he 
can stay in a shelter for the first year of his release. He had $5,800 in the bank at the time of his release, saved from his 
work-release job, and his sister allows him to come over and search job postings on her computer in exchange for doing 
her dishes. And, William also has a good relationship with both of his sons, ages 28 and 29, despite his being absent for 
the majority of their lives. He speaks with each of them daily, and when thinking about the two of them, William feels 
motivated to find a job. He hopes to get his own apartment so he can offer them a place to sojourn and save up a bit of 
money to loan them if they need it. “I want to be their shelter, in the storm,” he says. “Be there for them because all 
those years I couldn’t.”  
It discusses, in Deuteronomy 15:13-14 of the Talmud, (13) “When you set him free, do not let him go 
empty-handed”: (14) “furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat with which the LORD your God has 
blessed you.” Finding work might prove difficult. William makes an excellent first impression—neatly groomed, 
intelligent, self-aware—but he struggles with emotional control. When a nurse declined his request for anti-anxiety 
medication at a recent appointment, he told her, “When you see me on the six o’clock news, you’ll know you made the 
wrong decision.” The nurse called security and William was detained for 45 minutes, frisked, and asked to remove his 
shoes and belt. “It was embarrassing,” he admits. “Very embarrassing.” Many, perhaps most, former prisoners have 
trouble handling difficult, strong emotions and keeping their cool during disagreements—crucial skills for workplace 
success. Thus, many pieces must come together to set newly released prisoners on the path to a productive, stable life. 
If someone is not on the right or at least a reasonable track after the first few weeks of their release, there is a snowball 
effect.  
 It explains, in Numbers 35: 11-15, (11), “You shall provide yourselves with places to serve you as cities of 
refuge, to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee.” (12) “The cities shall serve you as a 
refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer may not die unless he has stood trial before the assembly.” (13) “The 
towns that you thus assign shall be six cities of refuge in all.” The few inmates who do reintegrate without much 
difficulty, who are best positioned to deal with the psychological effects of the transition, have the ‘big three’ in place: 
they have a job lined up or find one quickly (e.g., through a trade union they previously worked with); they have 
housing (often with a relative or through a social-service program); they have access to healthcare and treatment for 
substance abuse and mental health issues as necessary. Only the most effective reentry programs address these factors, 
alongside one more factor that can tip the odds—a mentor. High-risk offenders who participate in such programs and 
receive such mentoring take 30 percent longer to end up back in prison and their offenses are far less probable to be 
violent crimes when they are rearrested. Although keeping expectations modest is important, as some of the most 
successful reentry programs reduce recidivism by a mere 10 percent, we can still make inroads and begin helping 
offenders avoid the pressures that lead them to fall back into their old ways and practices. We must not just be 
unfittingly optimistic about and hope for the best with the right-now monolithic approach we take toward 
rehabilitating the totality of a human being.