the solution
The appropriate response to the problem of behavior is not punishment, it is treatment and education” (Rolf 2006).
My proposal is based in part on the model framework developed by the psychoanalyst, James Gilligan, in his paper, A Modest Proposal to Universalize the Insanity Defense. Gilligan’s proposal represents a complete reversal of traditional reform efforts. In his recommendation, Gilligan clarifies that he is not calling for improvements within prison systems in order to make them effective treatment facilities. In contrast, he argues that it is necessary to completely reject the “futile goal of reforming our unreformable prisons and jails” in favor of “creating an entirely new type of secure residential college and therapeutic community system that could function as a human development center” (Gilligan 2015). Gilligan’s vision is to establish a new type of residential facility, analogous to a teaching hospital. Gilligan cites historical evidence that the development of “teaching hospitals,” revolutionized the knowledge and treatment practices within the medical field.
The mission of teaching hospitals: treatment of the sick, training of caregivers, and research into causes and treatments of disease.
The mission of Gillian's treatment hospitals: treatment of the mentally ill, training of mental health experts, and research into causes and treatments of mental illness.
Gilligan argues that the issue with imprisoning the mentally ill is that “instead of learning as to why they committed their violent crimes and what we can help do to facilitate their discovering and opting more successful strategies” we simply “lock them up and inflict every punishment on them including beatings, rapes, and solitary confinement” (Gilligan 2015). Gilligan laments the injustice that pervades the prison system. Although it is untraditional, the plan represents an opportunity to remedy the criminal justice systems failures. By establishing a treatment center with the goal of providing care and inspiring change, we have the ability to change the narrative.
in support of the proposed reform
Professional opinion and empirical data attest to the viability of establishing effective treatment programs and rejecting traditional incarceration. Dr. Soderstrom, an expert psychological analysis argues that “successful mental health programs focus on treating serious mental illness and reducing patients’ destructive, disruptive, assaultive, and self-injurious behavior, thereby increasing staff and public safety as well as reducing the cost of incarceration” (Soderstrom 2008). Soderstrom’s professional opinion on the efficacy of rehabilitation corroborates Gilligan’s treatment-centered plan.
Mental health programs that focus on rehabilitation rather than detainment yield progress. In 2000, Gilligan substantiated his claims by conducting a 10-year experiment in a San Francisco jail. With the assistance of his colleague, Gilligan implemented a intensive program of psycho-social therapies and re-educational activities for violent offenders. The experimental group of mentally ill individuals receiving treatment was carefully matched with a group of similar individuals who remained incarcerated without treatment. The intensive rehabilitation program required a commitment of 12 hours a day for 6 days a week. At the end of the program, “a previously epidemic level of violence was brought down to zero for an entire year” within the mentally ill population. Moreover, the program reduced post-release recidivism by 83% compared to the untreated control group (Gilligan 2015). Once treated individuals were released, they were significantly less likely to reoffend than untreated individuals. The program not only fixed issues temporarily, but treated them permanently. The program was able to curb violent behaviors by transforming the corrosive prison environment into a progressive atmosphere.