Hello there! Want a discount? Grab 5% OFFon your first order!
tutorfaith.com logo
Hello there! Want a discount? Grab 5% OFF on your first order!

Our Services

Get 15% Discount on your First Order

Instructions are attached  Your reply post should consist of 300 to 400 words. The use of quotations is not allowed. Please upload a

Instructions are attached 

Your reply post should consist of 300 to 400 words. The use of quotations is not allowed. Please upload a copy of your article with your reply post.

MUST be APA format with in-text citations and references

Peer: Lila

Taxpayer dollars often fund rehabilitation programs. Because of this, many people feel they are ineffective and a waste of money. However, several studies have shown that in the long term, these rehabilitation programs can help inmates from re-offending and be able to reintegrate back into society. Compared to how much it costs to feed, clothe, and house inmates in prison, it is more cost-effective to fund rehabilitation programs that better support them after release and reduce the likelihood of re-offending and being placed back in prison.

When it comes to how much it costs to maintain a prison, it is directly correlated to how many prisoners are incarcerated. By releasing inmates and reducing incarceration rates, it would cut down on the costs of maintaining prisons and allow for funding to be used elsewhere. According to research done in 2020 on European prison systems, the re-offending rates range anywhere from twenty to seventy percent across countries, showing that current programs are not supporting recidivism rates (Kruze & Janis, 2020). To better understand why this is the case, Kruze and Janis looked at the European system regarding the legal framework of the standard imprisonment rules. They compared it to different punitive and rehabilitation systems to see which system was the most effective at reducing the re-offense rate. Several correlations were found, the most important one being that countries with higher GDPs had lower incarceration rates and allocated more funds to improve convicts’ lives (Kruze & Janis, 2020). Another statistic that was revealed was that the countries that spent less on imprisonment per year saw a higher recidivism rate, which was more costly in the long run, further proving that rehabilitation programs support the reduction of re-offending inmates (Kruze & Janis, 2020).

Another study looked into the correlation between substance misuse and criminal offenses. Often, those who suffer from substance abuse also engage in criminal activity, resulting in their incarceration. Casey and Day (2014) looked into the rehabilitation programs offered in prisons and reviewed the effectiveness of prison-based treatment in Australia. They concluded that because of the positive impacts these programs have on inmates and the reduction of re-offending, these programs should be considered critical and should be incorporated into all rehabilitation programs across prisons (Casey & Day, 2014).

Based on several articles from over the years, rehabilitation programs should have more funding than punitive systems. This reallocation of funding will not only reduce the number of inmates in prisons but also save taxpayers money in the long run. Many people consider rehabilitation programs a waste of taxpayer dollars because they feel they are ineffective and don’t work. However, the rate of recidivism is so high because these programs are underfunded.


Casey, S., & Day, A. (2014). Prison Substance Misuse Programs and Offender Rehabilitation.
Psychiatry, Psychology & Law,
21(3), 360–369.

Links to an external site.

Kruze, E., & Priede, J. (2020). Cost-Effectiveness of Prison System Development – Comparison of the European Countries.
European Integration Studies,
14, 69–79.

Links to an external site.

Share This Post


Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Related Questions