JAIL SHOULD BALANCE PUNISHMENT WITH REHABILITATION

Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

It seems a simple solution -- a mind-set shared by many -- to dealing with
criminals and making our communities more secure.

But reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who go to jail will
someday be set free. And how their years are spent behind bars is a pretty
good indicator of the path their lives will follow when they get out.

Simply, those who get help, who successfully complete rehabilitation
programs, stand a chance of becoming productive members of society. Those
who don't will likely end up back in the court system, continuing a cycle
that only treatment can help break.

The debate over punishment versus treatment has persisted for years,
leaving reasonable people on opposite sides. The problem is that the
discussion generally comes down to one or the other when it's both that are
needed.

Protecting the community is of utmost importance, and criminal behavior
must carry consequences and punishment. But taking people out of society
for a period of time only prolongs the problem. If a person is placed back
into the same environment, without the skills to adapt, that person will
likely make the same mistakes.

Consider that in Kentucky, nearly one in every three inmates released from
prison ends up back in jail within two years.

"The community as a whole needs to take ownership," said Daviess County
Circuit Judge Henry "Mac" Griffin III. "In a relatively short period of
time, they're (inmates) coming back, and if they learn negative skills, we
can expect a negative impact. If they learn positive skills, the community
can benefit."

Griffin was one of 10 local people who met last week for an informal
meeting convened by the Justice Resource Center to address the issue of
inmate rehabilitation programs.

Fortunately, those who attended seem to understand the importance of
balancing rehabilitation with punishment. But their views appear to be in
the minority, particularly among state legislators who, in recent years,
have chosen tougher laws and longer sentences as their means to reduce
crime rates.

Recidivism rates -- which measure the number of people who return to the
Department of Corrections within two years of finishing their term, getting
paroled or receiving shock probation -- have dropped slightly since 1994.
But there is still reason to believe that effective treatment programs
could reduce this rate even further.

Inmates are twice as likely to go back to prison for a technical violation,
such as using drugs or alcohol, than being convicted of a new crime. Help
these people kick their habits and the prison population will decline.
Which, in turn, will help the community, as obviously people in prison
can't be productive citizens.

Admittedly, it can be tough to measure the success of rehab, and there
needs to be a system to carefully monitor different programs to figure out
what works. Throwing money into programs more interested in numbers than
actual treatment offers no benefit.

But funding programs that provide drug and alcohol treatment, occupational
training and literacy skills may be the difference between helping turn a
life in the right direction or perpetuating the cycle of criminal behavior.