The cattle call of reentry

• Date: 01 November 2011
• Published date: 01 November 2011
• Author: Faye S. Taxman
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00780.x

POLICY ESSAY

MONTANA EARLY RELEASE PROGRAM

The cattle call of reentry

Not all processes are equal

Faye S. Tax man

George Mason University

With budget crunches capturing the attention of state and local governments,

the affordability of long prison (jail) sentences is being questioned. States

have taken daring steps to use early release tactics, with the expectations that

such moves will both save money and reduce recidivism. Kevin A. Wright and Jeffrey

W. Rosky (2011, this issue) explored the impact of early release efforts in one state. Not

surprisingly, the results are disappointing in that those individuals who were released early

were more likely to recidivate than those who served their time. Wright and Roskypoint to

several explanations, including the potential actions of parole officers and other attributes

covered under the umbrella of “criminal justice thermodynamics” where the mechanics of

the criminal justice system continue working in such a fashion to “backfire.” The findings of

this study are predictable—early releases are more likely to recidivate—andthose thr ust back

into society without preparation are doomed to fail. In this essay,I consider the importance

of the messages that are attached to different policy initiatives, the messages that basically

support the cattle call that “all things should work.” Unless we focus on the messages and

the “punitive culture,” most of our efforts will fail to reform the justice system or people

involved in justice environments.

Today’s Scenario

The state legislature declares that one strategy to reduce the budget deficit is to release

imprisoned drug addicts early and send the offenders to a residential treatment program.

The released prisoners are freed up to 18 months early on parole (or supervised release) and

placed in a treatment program. After the residential treatment, the person is mandated to

continue treatment in the community as part of supervised release with drug testing and

Direct correspondence to Faye S. Taxman, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason

University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030 (e-mail: ftaxman@gmu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00780.x C2011 American Society of Criminology 925

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 10 rIssue 4