Prisoners Receiving Free College Education: Pros & Cons - Essay Sample

Introduction

The issue of prisoners receiving a free college education is a controversial subject that stirs mixed emotions. The opinion on whether inmates should receive a free college education can go either way. Proponents of the argument advocate for free college education for inmates because they are convinced that education has the power to change people’s lives. Further, the essence of the justice system is to rehabilitate offenders, and thus prison education serves to re-direct their lives. Conversely, opponents of the argument have a contrary opinion because they perceive free college education as a privilege and a reward for criminal offenders. Besides, opponents argue that college education is not a right enshrined in the constitution, and thus taxpayer's money should not be used to finance prison education. However, the pros of offering prison education outweigh the cons as it would lower recidivism rates, increase employment, save tax money, reduce violence, and lead to long-term cost efficiency. In light of these arguments, this essay aims to support the provision of free college education behind bars.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Lower Recidivism Rate

Providing higher education programs in prison directly correlates with reduced recidivism rates. Studies carried out over the previous two decades indicate a causal and effect relationship between higher education and recidivism rates. In essence, offering college education to inmates provides long-term contributions to the community as it leads to a reduction in crime, thus promoting the well-being and safety of the societies to which former inmates return. Furthermore, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) provides discouraging statistics regarding current recidivism rates (Gorgol & Sponsler). The institute reported in 2011 that nearly 70 percent of former inmates are likely to commit new crimes, thus increasing the likelihood of them being incarcerated again within three years. The report further notes that nearly 95 percent of incarcerated people rejoin the community after serving their sentences. These figures are significant, and thus, it is imperative that correctional programs and tools are developed to effectively reduce the alarming rates of recidivism.

Prison education seems to be the most effective tool for reducing the high rates of recidivism. Indeed, prison education is more effective than other remedial measures such as boot camps, vocational training, and incarceration. A study conducted by the Correctional Education Association revealed a quantifiable reduction in recidivism rates by 29 percent, demonstrating the effectiveness of correctional education in lowering long-term recidivism (Steurer et al.). These figures indicate a general trend in support of providing free college education. The vast majority of incarcerated people have not attained higher levels of education, which is a significant factor that increases the probability of them being repeat offenders. College degree completers are less likely to be incarcerated again as compared to the general prison population. Further, projecting a future trend shows a greater likelihood of lower recidivism rates for former inmates who have received higher education compared to the rates of prisoners who did not participate in college classes. A reduction in long-term rates of recidivism is a positive gain for society, and thus postsecondary correctional education should be provided for free in prisons.

Increased Employment

A college education is a valuable asset as a bachelor's degree could be the key to gainful employment. Formerly incarcerated people with college diplomas have a higher likelihood of securing gainful employment once they return to the community. As previously mentioned, higher education degree holders are less likely to revert into crimes and more likely to readjust into society by pursuing opportunities related to the degree earned. The Correctional Association of New York asserts that college education is a valuable asset that has lifetime benefits to an individual (Ross & Gangi). Thus, lacking a higher education degree can have far-reaching implications for former inmates in their pursuit of employment opportunities as they seek to reintegrate into society. The ability to secure gainful employment is a fundamental aspect of successful reintegration into society. Subsequently, successful re-entry into society and readjustment into a new normal is likely to lower the probability of a former convict reverting back to criminal activity. Therefore, a college education is vital as it eases the transition of formerly incarcerated individuals into society, and thus it should be provided for free in prisons.

Prison education gives an employment boost as well as increased earning power. Parole officers identify the inability to secure gainful employment as a prime factor contributing to the alarming recidivism rates. More than half of formerly incarcerated individuals fail to secure steady employment when they are paroled (Taylor). However, the number significantly reduces when a college education is factored into the issue. In today's economy, the majority of job opportunities are in the service economy, where college gained skills are highly desirable. Without a college degree, it is difficult for ex-convicts to gain meaningful employment, and thus their most likely alternative is minimum-wage work. Besides, college education boosts the earning power of a graduate and can, therefore, enable ex-convicts to secure jobs that support a desirable standard of living. As such, since college education gives an employment boost and increases the earning power of ex-convicts, it should be offered for free in prisons.

Violence Reduction

There is a direct relationship between prison education and violence reduction. Prison education programs yield a noticeable improvement in the conduct and discipline of prisoners and ex-convicts. A report conducted to examine the effect of prison education on personal conduct and discipline of inmates concluded that “changes in behavior can be attributed to improved cognitive capacity as well as to the incarcerated person having the opportunity to feel human again by engaging in an activity as commonplace as going to classes.” (Ross & Gangi). Indeed, education has the power to change the culture within prisons, as evidenced by a reduction in disciplinary infractions among incarcerated students who police themselves to secure their college education program. According to a survey analysis conducted by Erisman and Contardo, inmates enrolled in the prison education program committed fewer infractions as compared to their counterparts who were not enrolled in college classes (Erisman & Contardo). Prison education programs can be an effective tool for reducing the violent nature of incarcerated individuals, thus alleviating disciplinary problems within prisons. Indeed, college programs in prisons can yield benign effects such as providing an incentive for behavior change and thus producing reformed individuals back into society. As such, free college education should be delivered in prisons as it is a proven incentive for mature and good behavior.

Long-Term Cost Efficiency

The high rates of recidivism significantly increase the prison population, thus escalating the cost of correctional expenditure. As previously mentioned, prison education is a useful tool for lowering the national recidivism rates and, therefore, has the massive potential of decreasing the prison population. By reducing the scale of the population in prisons, college education significantly serves to reduce correctional expenditure and incarceration costs. To put the effectiveness of prison education into perspective, "a $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same investment in [correctional] education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost-effective as incarceration." (Bazos & Hausman). Further, spending tax dollars to provide a free college education for incarcerated individuals saves money in the long-run. In 2013, the estimated national education expenditure per prisoner stood at an average of $1,500 per year. Meanwhile, in the state of Minnesota, the incarceration costs per prisoner are approximately $40,000 per year (Mumford). Thus, in the long-run, every dollar spent to facilitate prison education programs saves taxpayers nearly $5 in incarceration costs. As such, since the cost difference between incarceration and education expenditure is significant, college education programs should be provided for free in prisons.

Counter-Argument

Despite the proven effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism, there still exist implementation barriers. Opponents of providing prisoners with free education behind bars vehemently object to the idea arguing that it rewards crime offenders. Those opposing the plan of prison education programs say that prison should be where offenders go as punishment for committing a felony. Although, the numerous rights and freedoms of convicts are restricted while behind bars, opponents say that the treatment prisoners receive makes prison seem so ideal. With free meals, religious services, exercise equipment, counseling, and college education, prisoners are afforded privileges that many non-offenders cannot afford. In their arguments, opponents are convinced that the privileges offered in correctional facilities are too abundant and thus defeat the essence of punishing criminal offenders. For some, a college education is taken too lightly by incarcerated individuals who are receiving it for free while non-offenders strive to afford tuition fees. A college education is not cheap as average fees continue to rise steadily annually. Indeed, the College Board reports indicate that, depending on the type of college, students can expect an increase in tuition fees by an average of 6.5 percent (Henson). Besides, a college education is not a privilege for every non-offender as one must earn admission to enroll in their preferred degree program. Moreover, taxes are used to fund prison education programs, and thus, it is not fair that innocent and law-abiding citizens are taxed so as offenders can receive free college education behind bars.

Conclusion

In summary, prisoners should receive free college education behind bars. Proponents of the argument advocate for free college education for inmates because they are convinced that education has the power to change people's lives. Further, the essence of the justice system is to rehabilitate offenders, and thus prison education serves to re-direct their lives. Conversely, opponents of the argument have a contrary opinion because they perceive free college education as a privilege and a reward for criminal offenders. Besides, opponents argue that college education is not a right enshrined in the constitution, and thus taxpayer's money should not be used to finance prison education. However, the pros of offering prison education outweigh the cons, and therefore free college education should be provided to rehabilitate offenders.

Works Cited

Bazos, Audrey, and Jessica Hausman. “Correctional education as a crime control program.” UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, Department of Policy Studies, 2004.

Erisman, Wendy, and Jeanne Bayer Contardo. "Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy." Institute for Higher Education Policy (2005).

Gorgol, Laura E., and Brian A. Sponsler. "Unlocking potential: Results of a national survey of postsecondary education in state prisons." Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy (2011).

Henson, Kara. “Prison inmates shouldn't receive a free college education...