Phila D.A.’s Rehabilitation-Centered Criminal Justice Reforms
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, in which life without parole was imposed on juveniles for murders committed at age 14. In Jackson, the appellant is a non-triggerman accomplice to a felony that devolved into a murder. The appellants seek to extend Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, which have already, in the past decade, respectively held that capital punishment for homicides by juveniles and life without parole for non-homicide crimes by juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments.” In the course of this week’s arguments, Justice Scalia–who dissented in both Roper and Graham–remarked, “I thought that modern penology has abandoned that rehabilitation thing, and they no longer call prisons reformatories or whatever, and punishment is the criterion now. Deserved punishment for crime.”
Not quite. Justice Scalia was apparently referring to the broad abandonment in the U.S. of incarceration as a means of reforming criminals. Despite vestigial terminology like “penitentiary” and “corrections,” the concept of rehabilitation via imprisonment was largely discarded in the mid-1970s, after a study deemed two decades of efforts along those lines a failure. Yet, other rehabilitation-minded initiatives, such as diversionary programs—which allow qualifying offenders to avoid jail and sometimes even a criminal record if they complete program requirements such as rehabilitation and restitution—have flourished of late.
Yesterday, District Attorney Seth Williams touted the recent implementation of a fledgling such program for defendants facing drug-dealing charges for the first time. Under the program, defendants plead no contest and get the benefit of education, job-training and social services programs. The records of those that successfully complete the program are expunged. The program will be administered by a broad coalition of governmental and non-profit entities, including the Center for Literacy and the Pennsylvania Prison Society.
In addition to the societal benefits of the program’s expected recidivism reduction are fiscal benefits. The $1.3 million pricetag will be funded by the Lenfest and William Penn Foundation and is expected to save $7 million in incarceration and court costs. Moreover, in conjunction with the D.A.’s small amounts of marijuana (SAM) program, this shift in handling of drug crimes could have long-term benefits. If these programs prove successful, they should reinforce the trend of prison population decline. Whereas the first phase of inmate population reduction came largely from cutting pre-trial detention time, these programs would reduce the proportion of lower-level offenders serving prison time as well as the incidence of re-offense.
Of course, if these programs are successful, they will also lend credence to Graham, but they will leave unanswered the question of how to reduce recidivism by incarcerated felons, the vast majority of whom will eventually be released and have to attempt reintegration into society.
Disclosure: The author works at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. However, any views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Office.