Based on my personal work experience in our social welfare system, if one wished to acquire a mental illness, the surest way to do so would be to enter our nation’s prison system. While the topic of prison reform has slowly begun to gain traction versus the “tough on crime” rhetoric that has dominated the politics of crime and punishment since the 1960s, the task of creating a prison system that, while a sufficient deterrant to crime, doesn’t strip a human of their God-given rights remains a necessary task in search of a solution. The cost of prisons, public or private, is both monetary as well as human, and it’s high time we looked at what we are getting for our tax dollars as far as post-prison human outcomes. Thankfully, my home state of Virginia has begun looking into the mental health toll on prisoners (http://wavy.com/2017/06/20/virginia-addressing-mental-health-within-jails/).

But making sure that we leave former inmates mentally intact is one thing once they’re out of the system. Ensuring they do not return should be another. Imagine for a moment what it would be like to be released from prison after a 5, 10, even 30 year stay. Where would you go? What would you do for income? For many who leave, the aforementioned mental illness is the ticket to (very modest) financial stability, via our Social Security disability system. For many, including those receiving disability prior to incarceration whose benefits must be reapplied for post-incarceration per SSA guidelines, the process is long, bureaucratic, and at times demeaning as they must prove to doctors, lawyers, and judges exactly how damaged they are. This doesn’t get into the likelihoods that former inmates will soon return to prison. The US Justice Department’s most recent measurements put the recidivism rate at 76.6% within 5 years of release (https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx#statistics). So why is this rate so high? Part of this can be blamed on the justice system itself and what we classify as a felony versus a misdemeanor. Take drug-related crimes. There is a 76.9% likelihood that drug offenders will be rearrested. While this number from DOJ doesn’t designate between the selling of or possession of drugs, one can assume, based on a lack of job opportunities for former felons, that selling drugs is one of their few opportunities to generate income. Back to the issue of job opportunies, this raises the question: how do we expect former felons to break the cycle of backsliding into habits that land them back in jail when they have so few opportunities due to discrimination? It’s an immoral cycle that continues to break human beings and throw them on the slag heap of law and order.

So what can be done to ensure that former prisoners have the best chance possible to break the cycle? While it would be preferable to never send nonviolent offenders to prison at all, the drug war and the cycles of povery it caused are a bell that cannot be unrung. We have an overburdened vocational rehabilitation system that has to look after the needs of everyone from the intellectually disabled who’ve never as much as driven by a prison, to the parolee out after 25 years. Probation and parole systems are correctional in the sense that they monitor, not rehabilitate. The Ban the Box movement, while an urgent necessity, is still working to gain support and may never do so in communities that still pride themselves on toughness towards anyone that comes in contact with the criminal justice system (look no further than those who nodded approvingly when our president excused Police Officers to rough up suspects in a speech earlier this year).

The ability to be rehabilitated, even the ability to thrive, after prison should be unconditional. I view issues from both a Christian and Humanist perspective, and neither accepts the idea that we should not forgive and merely allow the disadvantaged to find there own way, a way that often leads back to prison in this case. That is why a basic income, paid unconditionally to all citizens not currently residing in prison, would be so vital for this population on the margins. Rehabilitation could begin on day one of their release and not be dependent on overburdened bureaucracies, at least not immediately or until they need job training or further support. It would immediately disincentivize criminal enterprises that contribute to the high rate of recidivism. It would put treatment in reach and hopefully reduce the potential for mental decompensation and its consequences. And it would be a down payment on a future that could not just pay back a debt to society, but allow them to invest in themselves and eventually provide themselves as well as society with the sort of constructive and fulfilling life that everyone should have the right to pursue.