Rest assured that yes, indeed, the US does this.
Rest assured that research-based programs are offered. Inmates participate.
Rest assured that inmates benefit from these programs, learn new ways of addressing problems, new ways of relating to others, new ways of relating to themselves. Many graduate from these programs to become productive members of society.
Rehabilitation relies on the effort & action of the individual....
Not looking for a link, but we have a pastor in our small city who completed his divinity training in a correctional center. He could tell you more, much more, about inmates who choose to reject rehabilitation.
YMMV LRR
Yeah, my mileage varies quite a bit on this, actually. I personally know several people who have spent time in prison for one reason or another. I myself have been involved in church-based small groups consisting largely of former inmates. The system is pretty well stacked against them. Even years later, they still struggle to make their way. One guy I know couldn't get work and had to move back in with his mother--and he was in his 50's. For a long time he spent every night crying himself to sleep. He eventually got a job as a janitor. Now in his 60's, he has no real future to look forward to. I know another guy who had no choice but to try to start his own business--and then had to close it down because there were just too many hurdles for him to overcome. Both of these guys, and others like them I know, have "adjusted" as well as possible to their lives out of prison, but in no way, shape, or form can they be considered to be as "productive" as they actually should be in society. I do know a couple of guys who never managed to get their own issues under control and eventually had to be ex-communicated, but most of the ones I've seen come and go over the years have done everything they can do to become "rehabilitated."
It's not necessarily about the ex-inmates "choosing" to "reject" rehabilitation. A lot of times, they're the ones who are rejected.
I know I'm wasting my time talking about this, especially on this forum of all places, but it is definitely something I think about a lot.
Many, many countries try to rehabilitate people while they are serving time. I am not sure that the US does.
Sure, it does, but the US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and our solution to just about every problem is to "lock 'em up!" The fact of the matter is that we don't really care about the defendants. Take our pop culture, for instance. What's the ratio of shows that are about cops vs. shows that are about defense attorneys? Maybe 10 to 1? Why is it that we consider "lawyering up" to be a bad thing? Even here on this forum people constantly complain when the defendant "lawyers up." Why have our incarceration rates and length of prison sentences been steadily going up for the last half-century? Why are "true crime" shows so popular? Why does this forum even exist, for instance? Face it: we
love this stuff. We can't get enough of it. At the end of the episode, the "bad guy" is punished, sent away, never to be seen or heard from again, and the "good guys" win and pay tribute to the innocent victim. If we didn't love this stuff so much, there wouldn't be such a large cottage industry devoted to constantly delivering it to us for our consumption.
And in all these cases, the story ends when the bad guy gets locked up. That's it. That's the happy ending everybody wants. The fact of the matter is that we don't really care about the defendants. Their role in the story is to be convicted and put in prison. When that happens, the story's over, and we move on to the next one.
That's why I really don't mind all this nonsense talk about defunding the police that's going on right now, if that's what it takes to get people out of their comfort zones and cause them to seriously consider this issue (especially white women, since at a fundamental level our criminal justice system is set up to protect them from the bad guys). I'm also completely okay with putting the police on the defensive end and making them question why they do what they do. How do we
know they know who the "bad guy" is? How do we
know they haven't approached the case with their own preconceived notions about what they think happened and then base their investigations off of that (I'm thinking of the Russ Faria case here, which happened right next to me. The cops in that case simply assumed Russ Faria was guilty and didn't even want to consider any other possibilities. I wonder how many other times things like that happen and we simply never hear about it?). How do we
know they don't have quotas? How do we
know they don't falsify evidence?
I honestly don't buy all the "most cops are good cops" talk we hear (not saying that all cops are eager to get into shootouts with people, but the very position of a police officer carries with it an air of authority that is highly attractive to certain kinds of personalities, and not always the good kinds), and I think it's important for the public to seriously scrutinize and examine the police's motivations and methods. I'm perfectly okay with cops being uncomfortable whenever they're on the job, because frankly, I'm uncomfortable around cops. Part of this is because of the time I've spent with former inmates and part of it's because of my own negative experiences with local police officers (I just don't like them, plain and simple. I have a natural suspicion of people who dress up in fancy uniforms and flash their stuff around and expect people to listen to them because they are the "authority").
Not to mention that the system is designed to favor those who have money, and punish those who don't.