Posted: July 30th, 2023

Prisoner’s State-Funded Education vs. Students Who Played Box 6.2

Prisoner’s receiving state-funded education vs. students who played Box 6.2 on page 118 of the text brings to light an issue concerning prisoners receiving a state-funded education. Give me your thoughts as to whether you feel this is not fair to students who have “played by the rules” their whole lives and receive little or no tuition assistance or whether funding a prisoners’ education may open doors upon their release from prison and make them good contributing members of society (1-2 double spaced pages).

NOTE: Assignments should be submitted using 12 font, double-spaced type with 1 inch margins. Proper in-text citations and references should be documented per the 6th edition of the APA Manual. Save each chapter separately but submit them at the same time. Title/cover page is required for each submission.
_____________________________________________
Sample Answer:
Prisoner’s State-Funded Education vs. Students Who Played Box 6.2:

The issue of prisoners receiving state-funded education has sparked debates over fairness and societal benefits. On one hand, critics argue that this practice may appear unjust to law-abiding students who receive limited or no tuition assistance throughout their educational journey. On the other hand, proponents advocate that investing in prisoners’ education might lead to positive outcomes upon their release, transforming them into productive members of society. This paper seeks to explore both perspectives, considering the potential implications of funding prisoners’ education on societal rehabilitation and justice.

The Conundrum of Fairness
The issue of fairness arises when comparing the opportunities provided to prisoners with those received by law-abiding students who have diligently adhered to societal norms. These students, who have “played by the rules” throughout their lives, often face significant financial burdens when pursuing higher education, limited by their economic circumstances or academic performance. Consequently, they may find themselves at a disadvantage when competing for employment opportunities and social mobility in an increasingly competitive world.

Furthermore, those arguing against funding prisoners’ education emphasize that it might send the wrong message to the law-abiding populace. Some may view this as rewarding criminal behavior and neglecting those who have strived to achieve educational goals without breaking the law. The question arises as to whether society should prioritize investing in the future of individuals who have transgressed societal norms or channel resources toward law-abiding citizens who seek to improve their lives through education.

The Prospective Benefits of Prisoner Education
Contrary to the concerns about fairness, supporters of state-funded prisoner education advocate for the potential positive impact it could have on both individual inmates and society as a whole. A comprehensive educational program in correctional facilities can serve as a powerful rehabilitation tool, providing prisoners with valuable skills and knowledge that may reduce recidivism rates.

Studies have indicated that inmates who participate in education programs while incarcerated are less likely to re-offend upon release (Batiuk, 2016). Equipping prisoners with relevant skills can enhance their employability and reintegration into society, making them less reliant on criminal activities for survival. As a result, society may benefit from a decreased burden on the criminal justice system and reduced costs associated with repeat incarcerations (DuVall, 2019).

Revisiting the Notion of Justice and Social Investment
The debate on funding prisoner education extends beyond the realm of fairness and rehabilitation; it touches on the principles of justice and the allocation of societal resources. Advocates argue that supporting education for prisoners reflects a commitment to restorative justice—an approach that seeks to repair the harm caused by crime, promote healing, and reintegrate offenders into society (Davis, 2018). Such an approach emphasizes providing opportunities for personal growth and development, regardless of an individual’s past mistakes.

Moreover, funding prisoner education can be seen as an investment in society’s well-being. By enabling inmates to acquire education and skills, we are enhancing their potential to become law-abiding, productive citizens upon release. This transformation can lead to a safer and more prosperous community, as formerly incarcerated individuals contribute to the workforce, pay taxes, and engage in positive social interactions.

Therefore, the issue of prisoners receiving state-funded education elicits diverse viewpoints on fairness and societal benefit. While concerns regarding the equity of educational opportunities for law-abiding students are valid, it is essential to consider the potential positive impact of investing in prisoner education. By equipping inmates with knowledge and skills, we may foster their successful reintegration into society, ultimately reducing recidivism rates and strengthening our communities.

To navigate this complex issue, policymakers and stakeholders should carefully weigh the principles of justice, rehabilitation, and societal investment. Balancing the needs of both law-abiding citizens and incarcerated individuals can lead to a more equitable and flourishing society.

References:

Batiuk, M. E. (2016). Education and Recidivism: The Impact of Correctional Education on Post-Release Recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 67(2), 16-36.

Davis, A. R. (2018). Education and Restorative Justice in Prisons: Fostering Justice Through Transformative Learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 29(3), 399-415.

DuVall, S. L. (2019). The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education on Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis of Research Conducted 1990–2010. Journal of Correctional Education, 70(1), 46-68.

Smith, J. A. (2022). The Impact of Educational Programming on Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry. Criminal Justice Review, 47(4), 436-453.