If America Wants Safer Communities, It Must Rethink Its Prisons | Opinion

The United States has long grappled with making prisons more effective, through sentencing reforms and budget discussions. However, little attention is given to the impact the prison itself has on a person's transformation. Over the years, the author has observed the differences between punishment-focused facilities and those designed to prepare inmates for re-entry.

While the industry evolves, many facilities still mirror an older era. The consequences are evident: the U.S. has one of the world's highest incarceration rates, with around 1.8 million people in state and federal prisons and jails. Yet, 66% of released state prisoners are rearrested within three years, and 82% within a decade. These statistics indicate that sentencing policy alone cannot prevent repeat offenses.

Locked in small, dim cells for hours, inmates do not emerge unchanged. Extended confinement and deprivation can worsen depression and aggression. In Alabama, formerly incarcerated individuals have reported drug use, assaults, and murders occurring within facilities. These conditions signal that systems can exacerbate the very issues they aim to contain.

Basic human physiology dictates that people are influenced by their surroundings. If this principle applies elsewhere—schools, workplaces, hospitals, homes—why not at prisons? Since 2018, federal policymakers have focused more on education, mental health support, and post-release skill-building. States are investing in behavioral health units and alternative methods that isolate individuals with severe mental health issues from environments that may exacerbate their conditions.

Facilities with recreational areas, improved living spaces, natural lighting, technology, and meaningful programs can foster better decision-making and safety. Regular exercise, such as physical activity and sports, can reduce aggression, improve sleep, and provide a constructive outlet for frustration caused by confinement. Incentive-based facilities reward good behavior with access to better equipment and living conditions.

However, environments dominated by concrete, isolation, and deprivation can leave people less prepared for society than when they entered. An accountability-focused system without rehabilitation is likely to perpetuate the cycle, while one that prioritizes rehabilitation can break it. Critics question why taxpayers should fund prison improvements.

A fair point, but the cost of failure—repeated incarceration—may be even higher. Rehabilitation should not condone criminal behavior but should coexist with accountability. Some individuals commit serious crimes and remain high-risk, while others enter the system young and demonstrate genuine behavioral change. A correctional system that acknowledges human potential for improvement can lead to safer outcomes.

The primary obstacle is the entrenched mindset from previous generations. Corrections has traditionally focused on containment. Today, that definition must evolve. Technology, virtual healthcare, enhanced programs, and smarter facility design can make agencies safer and more efficient, especially as staffing shortages persist. The next generation of corrections should not be built on past assumptions.

Policymakers and corrections leaders should assess whether facilities' physical environments genuinely support rehabilitation. Public funds should follow evidence, not tradition. If America desires safer communities, it must transition from measuring prisons by their ability to confine people to evaluating what happens after the doors open.

Develop facilities that enable rehabilitation. Fund environments that promote it. Demand outcomes that demonstrate its efficacy. The prisons of the future should focus on the idea that public safety improves when rehabilitation has a genuine opportunity to occur.