Middleton 1
Jeffrey Middleton
Professor Julie Saul
English 1010
08 December 2011
Annotative Bibliography
Griswold, Daniel. "Higher Immigration, Lower Crime." Commentary (2009): 42-46.
Daniel Griswold’s’ article, “Higher Immigration, Lower Crime,” came out in the
Commentary on December 2009, and is an article on the controversial topic of illegal
immigration in the United States. Griswold begins by stating that the rise in immigration has in
no way correlated with a rise in crime. He writes, “the past two decades have seen the fastest
increase in immigration,” but “the past 15 years have seen the most rapid drop in crime rates in
the nation’s history.” Griswold points out that many studies have shown that immigrants do
not participate in the majority of the crimes that are committed today. Griswold continues by
arguing that an increase in immigrants has not added to the expansion of the underclass in the
U.S. Instead, he states that the increase in immigration actually, “increases the incentive for
young native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills to
avoid having to compete with immigrants for low-wage jobs.” Griswold argues that due to
more immigrants the average American has more opportunities in the job field. Griswold
argues that the greatest thing about immigrants is their, “propensity to work.” He said that
male immigrants had a, “labor-force participation rate in 2004 of an amazing 92 percent.”
Illegal immigrants work, that is the bottom line and they are too scared to commit crimes with
the fear of deportation on their minds. Griswold concluded by arguing that a policy in favor of
allowing immigrants into the, “United States legally is a strong one.” Such a policy would help
the transformation of the underclass as well as give incentive for, “American’s to acquire the
education and skills they need to prosper.” Griswold claims that higher rates of immigrants
migrating to the United States is not creating problems and that we should stop worrying about
them and wasting valuable money on keeping them out of American borders.
This article makes very good argument because most if not all of Griswold’s arguments
are backed up by statistical facts. Therefore, Griswold does a great job with the use of logos in
order to validate his claims. This article is also very relevant to the topic of crime in the US
because it talks extensively on the effect that illegal immigration has on the crime rate in
America.
Middleton 2
Reiman, Jeffrey. "The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison." Reiman, Jeffrey. The Rich Get
Richer and the Poor Get Prison. New York City: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.
11-37.
In Jeffrey Reiman’s book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison he analyzes the criminal
justice system and his main point is that “the criminal justice system serves the powerful by its
failure to reduce crime, not by its success.” Reiman has worked for many years in an area of
the Department of Justice; however, by 1988 he began to hold a full time position at the
Department of Philosophy and Religion and since 1990 is the William Fraser McDowell
Professor of Philosophy. Reiman has always been interested in criminal justice and wrote this
book in order to change some of the many misconceptions that the public holds about the
criminal justice system. In chapter one of his book, his main goals are to: first, discredit the
government’s excuse that greater urbanization and youth have caused an increase in crime.
Second, to discredit the claim that “we [the government] simply are not yet smart enough to
solve the problem,” and lastly, that in reality crime pays and he shows this through the Pyrrhic
defeat theory. Reiman makes many compelling arguments about why the criminal system has
failed and more importantly shows the reader that this topic is not as black and white as the
popular and elite democrats would like the public to believe.
This book source is also very good and pertinent to the topic of crime in the US. Reiman
introduces many new ideas that shine a new light on why crime continues to rise her in
America. Reiman does a great job at using pathos in his book in order to appeal to the beliefs
and values of the reader.
Henry, Stuart. On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment. Indiana, 2003.
In the article “On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment,” by Stuart Henry, he states
that education is the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals. Henry says, “research over
the past 10 years has constantly demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce offending
is through education, particularly literacy training and GED.” He tells the reader that the
programs most frequently used in the prison systems today are ineffective in helping criminals
become better individuals. The prison system has now just turned into a place where criminals
sit and wait for their sentence to be over with, when they really should be getting educated and
trained so that they can be more successful once they finish their prison sentences. Henry
states, “an Arizona Department of Adult Probation Study showed that probationers who
received literacy training had 35 percent re-arrest rate compared with a control group that had
46 percent re-arrest, and those who received a GED had a re-arrest rate of 24 percent.” He
proposes that the American prison system needs to focus more on giving the criminals better
education when they are in prison so that they can leave prison with the tools to make a living
and not have to resort back to crime in order to survive.
Middleton 3
Henry uses ethos in order to aid his own reliability and validity as an author. By using
the language of a lawyer he gains the trust of the reader. His arguments that prisons are not
the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals is a very strong claim and he does a great job at
backing it up with his own research.
Miller, Jerome G. "The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is It True that Nothing Works?"
Washington Post (1989).
Jerome G. Miller is the author of the next article called, “The Debate on Rehabilitation
Criminals: Is it True That Nothing Works?” Miller speaks about how governmental officials are
working to abolish rehabilitation in prisons, and states how this is wrong and will hurt the
chances of convicts to be productive citizens outside of prison walls. . He says that the
Supreme Court “in Mistretta v. United States, upheld federal ‘sentencing guidelines’ which
remove rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing offenders.” Miller then
argues that specific rehabilitation programs do work in helping convicts and the real problem is
the programs that the US has introduced in the past in order to rehabilitate its prisoners. Miller
claims that, “most correctional systems had few, if any trained psychiatrists, psychologists, or
social workers. Virtually all correctional budgets went to staff that operated traditional prisons,
jails and reform schools. This last sentence appeals to logos because it is logical that if a prison
system has no one who is trained to rehabilitate inmates then obviously rehabilitation will fail.
In conclusion Miller argues that rehabilitation really does work to keep criminals out of prison
and America needs to continue to use these programs and improve on them to see decreases in
recidivism and crime in the US.
Miller uses logos in order to prove his points that the governmental officials do not
believe in rehabilitation efforts for the American criminal. He makes many good arguments and
backs up his arguments with suggestions of his own on how we can fix the system that is now in
place.
Petersilia, Joan. "Beyond the Prison Bubble." Federal Prbation (2011): 2-4.
Joan Petersilia’s article, “Beyond the Prison Bubble,” came outin the Federal Probation
journal in 2011. This article focuses mostly on what is wrong with the prisons today and then
Petersilia gives suggestions on what the government can do to make the prison system more
effective. She begins by saying that the costs are much too high to run the prison systems
today and that the state of California spent nearly “$50,000 per prisoner” per year. This
number is much too high and because of this the government has less money to spend on
things like roads and schools. Petersilia continues by stating that most prisoners leave the
prison system no better than when they entered she says, “the average offender today leaves
prison at a greater disadvantage (and more primed for trouble).” She feels that if America is
not helping at least some of its criminals become better people then the system needs to be
Middleton 4
changed. She argues that it is “no longer justifiable to say that nothing works” in rehabilitating
prisoners. Pertisilia concludes that although “criminality is a problem that [cannot] always be
solved” America can do better in introducing programs known to work in order to rehabilitate
its criminals.
Petersilia makes many claims that the prison system of today is too costly and is not
helping criminals become better citizens. Her arguments are very well constructed and backed
up with stats and opinions of experts on the prison topic. Also, the ethos of the paper is very
high because she is Petersilia is the co-director at the Stanford Criminal Justice Center,
therefore, making her a very credible and reliable source on the topic of the prison system.
Issue Summary
In the article “On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment,” by Stuart Henry, he states
that prisons are not the most effective way to rehabilitate criminal. Henry says, instead of
prisons we need much more focus on helping convicts learn how to read and receive their
GED’s or higher education. Stuart gives the statistic that, “inmates with at least two years
college education have a 10 percent re-arrest rate compared to the national re-arrest rate of 62
percent.” Jerome G Miller agrees with Henry in his article, “The Debate on Rehabilitation
Criminals: Is it True That Nothing Works?” Miller says that prisons are unsuccessful in
rehabilitating our prisoners also that, the “specific techniques” that work best to rehabilitate
prisoners are, family therapy, “reading and job training.” Henry and Miller are each advocates
of more proper programs aimed at educating and rehabilitating prisoners incarcerated in our
prison systems today.
Jerome G. Miller is the author of the next article called, “The Debate on Rehabilitation
Criminals: Is it True That Nothing Works?” Miller speaks about how governmental influence is
Middleton 5
prohibiting rehabilitation in prisons, and states his opinion of how this is wrong and will hurt
the chances of convicts to survive once outside the prison walls. Miller argues that much of
what is wrong about government officials is what they perceive as successful rehabilitation and
what programs they implement to be used in prisons to rehabilitate prisoners. Miller presents
a study that has been done to show the effects of family therapy sessions used as a method to
rehabilitate “hard-core delinquents”. At the end of the study the scientist waited until 15
months to perform a follow-up on the delinquents and found that “only 60 percent of the
family therapy group had committed a new offense” while a stunning 93 percent of those who
had not received such treatment committed new offenses. Miller’s arguments correlate with
the arguments of Jeffrey Reiman in his book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, when
Reiman also points to the ill effects that government influence has had on the prison system.
Reiman says that the government officials do not want the prison system to succeed because
“the system serves the powerful by its failure to reduce crime, not by its success.”
Third is a chapter from the book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, by Jeffrey
Reiman. Reiman says that the government attempts to give the American public many excuses
as to why the crime rate is so high in the United States; one of these false excuses is that higher
crime is due to more youth in our society. To disprove the excuse Reiman argues that from
1973 to 1981 the number of youth grew “slightly under 2 percent” while in that same time the
“crime total increased 54 percent”. Reiman concludes that, “if crime has increased faster than
the youth population, then that increase cannot be explained by the increase in youths.”
Reiman states that although it may be true that more youth in the U.S. can account for some of
the rise in crime it cannot by itself take all the credit for the huge rise in crime in the last 40
Middleton 6
years. Reiman agrees to some degree with Daniel Griswold, who wrote the article, “Higher
Immigration, Lower Crime.” Griswold also claims that the government is lying to us about some
of the reasons for the rise of crime in the US. Rather than saying the youth is a false excuse,
Griswold states that higher immigration is a false excuse to why the US is experiencing record
high crime rates. Griswold’s argument for this is that, “illegal immigrants have the incentive to
avoid committing crimes to minimize the risk of deportation.” Reiman and Griswold both agree
that the government is feeding the public lies about crime in the US.
In the article, “Beyond the Prison Bubble,” by Joan Petersilia, she argues that too severe
of penalties for drug use and an attempt of white men to dominate social and racial conditions
are some of the reasons that US prisons are so full and crime rate so high. Petersilia points out
that “two-thirds of those imprisoned in federal and state facilities are African Americans and
Hispanics” and that this is just another form of the Jim Crow laws that put down the color
people to white rule. She also states, “imprisonment has reached often counterproductive
levels, particularly in the case of drug possession.” Petersilia suggests that the criminal justice
system should not have such harsh penalties for simple drug use and that she even conducted
her own survey that showed that nearly all prison administrators “say that 10 to 15 percent of
their inmates could be safely released. Jeffrey Reiman in his book, The Rich Get Richer and the
Poor Get Prison, agrees full heartedly with the assertions of Petersilia. Reiman states that the
government should do a better job at the distribution of drugs so that addicts of drugs like
heroin are not forced to steal and commit other crimes in order to get the drugs they need
because of the ridiculous black market price of drugs. Reiman also argues that a huge problem
with the criminal justice system is that they rich are the ones that define what a crime is and
Middleton 7
because of that, they will define crimes that hurt the poor and protect themselves. This
correlates with what Petersilia was saying about mostly minorities and poor people filling the
prisons, this is the will of the rich and powerful.
Lastly, in the article, “Higher Immigration, Lower Crime,” by Daniel Griswold, his
argument is that illegal immigrants are beneficial to the US and do not commit as much crime
as they are perceived to commit. Griswold states that, “no satisfactory evidence has yet been
produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the
increase in adult population.” He says that in reality immigrants do much good for the US
including motivating American citizens to work harder so that they are not replaced by cheap
immigrant labor and that immigrants bring with them the desire to find work and to work hard.
It is true however that many immigrants do not know how to read and they do not graduate
from high school therefore those immigrants who are criminals would be greatly helped by the
programs that people like Stuart Henry believe would help rehabilitate criminals. Henry in his
article “On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment” he states that the people with
educations and training tend to be citizens that do not commit crimes. With that being said, if
these programs were used to educated illegal immigrants then they would be much less likely
to commit crimes.
Middleton 8
Analysis of Sources
In the article, “Beyond the Prison Bubble,” by Joan Petersilia, she argues that the costs
to run and sustain the criminal justice system are much too high. Petersilia says that, “we are
seeing today a growing recognition that our approach to dealing with convicted criminals is
simply too costly.” The cost are especially too high because the US continues to see a steady
rise in the crime rate. Petersilia states that, “the states now spend an estimated $50 billion on
corrections annually” and in 2009, California spent nearly “$50,000 per prisoner” per year.
When Petersilia uses these statistics it gives proof and validity to her words and really appeals
to the logos in her argument. In addition, her argument has a very high amount of ethos
because she works at the Stanford Criminal Justice Center so I can trust that she has a large of
knowledge in this field of the criminal justice system. Petersilia has also conducted her own
studies that add to her reliability and ethos, “I have conducted an unscientific survey of prison
administrators and nearly all of them say that 10 to 15 percent of their inmates could be safely
released.”
Petersilia also argues that prisoners often leave prisons in worse or in the same
conditions as they entered them. She argues, “the average offender today leaves prison at a
greater disadvantage (and more primed for trouble).” What Petersilia says appeals to pathos
when she says that, “many- if not most- will be no better equipped to make successful, lawabiding lives for themselves than they were before they landed in prison.” This sentence
appeals to pathos because it resonates with my emotions, if the prison system is not helping
criminals become better citizens than it is not fulfilling its purpose. Petersilia continues by
stating that, “California spent less than $3,000 per year, per inmate, on rehabilitation programs,
Middleton 9
and that 50 percent of all prisoners released the year before had not participated in a single
program. This last sentence is a strong use of logos because Petersilia is giving facts and
statistics in order to prove her point.
In the article, “On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment,” by Stuart Henry, he claims
that education, not prisons, is the most effective way to reduce crime. Henry says, “research
over the past 10 years has constantly demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce
offending is through education, particularly literacy training and GED.” He uses logos when he
provides this statistic that states, “an Arizona Department of Adult Probation Study showed
that probationers who received literacy training had 35 percent re-arrest rate compared with a
control group that had 46 percent re-arrest, and those who received a GED had a re-arrest rate
of 24 percent.” These numbers prove Henry’s point that education helps reform criminals. He
also uses pathos when he claims that, “it seems that policy makers peering in the justice
toolbox only see one tool, the hammer of punishment, and they try to use it to fix everything.”
This appeals to people’s beliefs that behavior is not changed through force or punishment but
instead love and education.
Another strong point that Henry makes is that severe punishment is not a strong
deterrence for criminals. He argues that many criminals believe prison to be severe
punishment, but that criminals are not preoccupied with the thought that they may go to
prison for a large number of years for the crime that they may commit. In making this
argument Henry uses very professional language and a very professional tone and this is
evident when he says, “mid punishment can be effective in changing behavior, but the evidence
is less clear about the effectiveness of severe punishment.” Through the words that he uses my
Middleton 10
trust in him rises as a reliable source, thus adding to the ethos of the author. However, Henry
fails to use many logos as he argues this claim. It is easy to believe in his words and just trust in
him, but he never backs up his claims with facts or numbers. Due to the lack of logos, his
argument is not taken as fact or proved.
In Jerome G. Miller’s article, “The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is it True that
Nothing Works?” he explains that government officials are fighting to stop rehabilitation in
prisons and this is to the detriment to prisoners. He says that the Supreme Court “in Mistretta
v. United States, upheld federal ‘sentencing guidelines’ which remove rehabilitation from
serious consideration when sentencing offenders.” Miller’s words add to the ethos of his
article especially when he states that, “defendants will henceforth be sentenced strictly for the
crime, with no recognition given to such factors as amenability to treatment.” He uses many
legal terms and it seems that he may be a lawyer or be in field where he has studied the ins and
outs of this topic. Miller also uses logos to prove his point by using quotes of governmental
officials. One official said, “the represent array of correctional treatment has no appreciable
effect- positive or negative- on rates of recidivism of convicted offenders.” By using the
testimony of this official and others, it proves his point that they are trying to abolish
rehabilitation programs from prisons.
Miller then argues that specific rehabilitation programs do work in helping convicts and
the real problem is the programs that the US has introduced in the past in order to rehabilitate
its prisoners. Miller claims that, “most correctional systems had few, if any trained
psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers. Virtually all correctional budgets went to staff
that operated traditional prisons, jails and reform schools. This last sentence appeals to logos
Middleton 11
because it is logical that if a prison system has no one who is trained to rehabilitate inmates
then obviously rehabilitation will fail. Miller states, “most rehabilitation programs chalked up
as failures, were heavy on rhetoric and slim on services.” He then goes on to give his opinion
on what programs do work, like family therapy, individual therapy and group counseling. This
adds to the ethos of the author because he gives good suggestions that are also backed up by
other experts on the subject. My trust in Miller as an author rises as what he is saying lines up
with what other experts are saying on the topic, it shows that he is a reliable source.
In the book source by Jeffrey Reiman titled, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get
Prison, he makes the argument that the statement make by the government that we as a
society simply are not yet smart enough to solve the crime problem is false. He says, “in fact,
things that we do know about the sources of crime. We know that poverty, slums, and
unemployment are sources of street crime.” This appeals to logos because it is logical to know
that we are smart enough to solve and reduce crime. It is easy to know that by working at
solving the sources of crime that then in effect crime would fall. Reiman also states that, “the
United States, with virtually limitless resources, capable of spending hundreds of billions of
dollars to fight” a war and “capable of placing a human on the moon” must possess the
expertise to at least dent the rising crime rate and if not then this “is just too much to swallow.”
Miller uses pathos here because this statement is in line with most people beliefs that if the US
is the most powerful country in the world and has so many resources it should be able to solve
many of the problems that the US has domestically.
Perhaps the strongest argument that Reiman makes is that government will do little to
prevent crime because crime pays. Reiman invents a theory called the Pyrrhic defeat theory
Middleton 12
that states that, “the failure of the criminal justice system yields such benefits to those in
positions of power that it amounts to success.” This theory adds much to his credibility, which
adds to his ethos on top of his already very high credibility by having a Ph.D. in philosophy.
When Reiman says that “a community makes good use of unacceptable behavior and that it
positively needs unacceptable behavior,” it appeals to pathos because many people believe
that it is through trials and hardship that people are brought together and relationships are
formed. Therefore, it makes sense that community desires crime because it brings the
community closer together.
Blog
Being enrolled in many political classes at school this semester, I have become very
interested in the social and racial issues that surround America domestically. The prison system
interested me because it deals heavily with those social and racial issues in America. Many of
our prisons are filled with poor people and minorities and I wanted to know what the experts
on this topic of the criminal justice system thought on this matter.
The first article that I found was “Higher Immigration, Lower Crime,” by Daniel Griswold.
I was doubly excited about this article because it not only talked about crime and the prison
system in the US, but also touched on the very controversial topic of illegal immigration with I
am very interested in as well. The thing Griswold said that stuck with me the most was that,
“no satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an
Middleton 13
increase in crime.” I had always heard that immigrants were committing tons of crimes and
were a huge detriment on our society. However, after reading Griswold’s article I found that
this just was not true. Griswold’s article helped me to learn to accept immigrants and see them
as a benefit to the American society.
The next article that I found was, “On the Effectiveness of Prison Punishment,” by Stuart
Henry, which takes an in depth, look at whether or not prison is the most effective form of
punishment. Henry concludes that prisons are perhaps the worst form of punishment if we
want to rehabilitate our criminals. The most critical claim Henry made is that education is the
most vital and effective way of rehabilitating criminals. He says, “inmates with at least two
years of college education have a 10 percent re-arrest rate, compared to the national re-arrest
average rate of 62 percent.” Henry’s article really helped me learn that our prison system is
failing to properly rehabilitate our inmates. It seems that the government has no real intention
in helping our criminals become better people; instead, they are content with just making them
sit in prison and not learn anything.
The next article that adds to the prison system debate is, “The Debate on Rehabilitating
Criminals: Is It True that Nothing Works?” by Jerome G. Miller. He really talks about two things
first is what is wrong with the prison system and second, what should be done to make the
prison system a success. He starts of by saying what is wrong with the prison system is that
many government officials are getting involved to take away any rehabilitating programs from
prisons. Miller points out that the reason government officials have this stance against rehab
programs is because in their eyes nothing works to rehabilitate prisoners. Miller says, “the idea
that nothing worked in rehabilitating offenders appealed to Left and right alike,” and then he
Middleton 14
quotes a leading government official on the subject when he said, “…rehabilitative efforts that
have been reported so far have no appreciable effect on recidivism.” Recidivism is essentially
when criminals that have already been in prison commit another crime after being released
from prison. Miller opposes the view that nothing works, instead he proposes that the prison
system does have many programs that are effective in rehabilitating criminals. He says that, “in
one study of a family therapy program geared to hard-core delinquents, 30 adolescents, were
matched with a control group of 44 delinquents with similar offense histories. At the end of a
15-month follow-up, 60 percent of the family therapy group had committed a new offense.
This looked like failure. But then, we see that 93 percent of the control group which didn’t get
therapy had been so charged.” Therefore, Miller is making the claim that the government
officials who oppose rehabilitation programs are just looking at the statistics wrong because
these programs really are working to help criminals. Miller ends by saying that family therapy,
group counseling and intensive supervision programs are all programs that help to make
criminals better people and stop them from continuing to commit crimes even after prison
sentences. What I learned from Miller’s article is that this subject of prison rehabilitation is a
big topic and is being discussed by many government officials. I also learned that although
many government officials are looking into the topic many of them are misinformed or are
looking at rehab stats in the wrong way.
A very interesting article that I read was, “Beyond the Prison Bubble,” by Joan Petersilia.
She talks about many things that are wrong with the prison system today she says, “what we
are seeing today is a growing recognition that our approach to dealing with convicted criminals
is simply too costly.” Petersilia states that the government is wasting too much money on
Middleton 15
rehab programs that do not work or wasting too much money on prisoners that really do not
want to be helped. She also says that, “the average offender today leaves prison at a greater
disadvantage (and more primed for trouble) than his predecessors did.” Petersilia argues that
too many of Americas criminals are leaving the prison system and still committing crimes.
However, she states, “there is scientific evidence that prison and parole programs can reduce
recidivism.” She says that we now know the things that are effective in rehabilitating criminals
we now just need to implement those programs that work and get rid of the ones that do not
work and are just wasting our money. I learned that as Petersilia said America is wasting much
too much money of prisoners. I was shocked to find out that in some states we are spending
around $50,000 per prisoner per year.
The final thing that I read was my book source, by Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer
and the Poor Get Prison. I read the first chapter, it was very informative, and Reiman stated
that the government lies to us about the prison system and about what it can do to have a
positive impact on it. He says although we may never be able to get rid of crime all together we
do know many things that can be done in order to reduce crime in America in order to make
America’s crime rates comparable to other advanced societies in the world. Reiman gives many
solutions that could reduce crime in the US, among these solutions are to loosen drug laws and
to strengthen gun laws. He says that too many drug addicts are committing crimes in order to
get drugs because the cost of black market drugs are so high and then if we had better gun laws
America would see less violent crimes. Reiman also says that the main reason America does
not see lower crime rates is because the people in positions of power in the US do not want to
reduce crime because it keeps the poor down and lifts the rich. I learned many things from this
Middleton 16
book source; I felt that it was the most helpful and the source that provided me with the most
new ideas. I never had really thought that the rich would want to keep the system the way it is
because it is hurting the poor, and when I really thought about it, it is true; most prisons are
filled with poor people. I really learned from this book that no topic is black and white and that
there are always areas of gray. The prison system is not perfect, but there is no easy fix either
to reduce crime.
The prison system is failing right now, but that is not to say that it cannot be fixed. From
my readings, I found that educational programs if introduced would have a large impact on the
effectiveness of prisons. Right now recidivism rates are very high, around 70 percent, which
means that prison, as punishment is really doing nothing to deter criminals from committing
crimes. Therefore, instead of just sending all our prisoners to prison we need to look at
alternative means to rehabilitate criminals so that they never end up in prison after they have
been there for the first time. One thing is for sure, that to make this happen America needs the
help and support of its government, who seems to care little with rehabilitating its criminals.
Middleton 17
Works Cited
Griswold, Daniel. "Higher Immigration, Lower Crime." Commentary (2009): 42-46.
Henry, Stuart. On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment. Indiana, 2003.
Miller, Jerome G. "The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is It True that Nothing Works?"
Washington Post (1989).
Petersilia, Joan. "Beyond the Prison Bubble." Federal Prbation (2011): 2-4.
Reiman, Jeffrey. "The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison." Reiman, Jeffrey. The Rich Get
Richer and the Poor Get Prison. New York City: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.
11-37.