And they both went together: the rod and the staff –punishment and rehabilitation
Presented by Avraham Hoffmann at the ICPA 5th annual conference, Colorado Springs, USA
2013
Summary
Challenging the parallel paths of punishment and rehabilitation, I will advocate that Prison Services and Rehabilitation programs outside prison must work together like a winning team in a relay race.
For many years the systems of punishment and rehabilitation worked on two parallel paths that had no real confluence. Therefore, people were sent to prison for long term imprisonment, thus disconnecting from life in society, decreasing both their chances and will to rehabilitate and making their return to society circles much harder.
Today I would like to challenge this tendency, and propose the philosophy of the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA)[1] and it programs as an answer.
The two basic principles that led the Israeli PRA find their roots in the biblical verse “And they both went together: the rod and the staff”, thus combining punishment and rehabilitation.
Principle 1
The first principle states that rehabilitation of prisoners and delinquents is possible only within a world view that acknowledges the ability of human beings to change, that it is both his obligation and his right as well as society’s obligation to look for appropriate ways to prevent crime and rehabilitate the criminal. It was only Abraham’s unconditional belief in the human being’s ability to change his ways that led to beg God to have mercy for the people of Sodom.
Principle 2
The second principle believes that only the perception of the rehabilitation of prisoners as a fundamental part of the rule of law and of the law enforcement can ensure harmony and balance between punishment and rehabilitation. Perceiving them not as opposing, but rather as complimentary.
These 2 basic principles are the foundation of the Israeli PRA. I believe that since human beings haven’t fundamentally changed, our sages’ tradition is still valid in the 21st century. To illustrate these principles I would like to present three studies from the Talmud that deal with criminals and rehabilitation. The first one deals with an ideological decision and the following stories deal with ideology in light of practice.
The first story presents an ideological decision:
Rabbi Meir had gangster neighbours. For their salvation, he requested that they die before committing further transgression. His wife Bruria said to him, what do you rely on when you pray for their death? It says in the Psalms: “Let sins cease” and you believe that the world is better by destroying the wicked.
But does it say “sinners” cease? It says “sins”‘ so you have to pray for the disappearance of the wickedness not of the wicked. She further explained that if the villains repent the wickedness will disappear eventually. Hence, realising his wife was right, Rabbi Meir prayed for them and they repented.
So the PRA’s work is based upon this principle: the disappearance of sins not the sinners.
The next 2 stories deal with ideology in light of practice. The second story is similar to the first one but ends differently.
Reish Lakish tells us that: bullies were living close to Rabbi Zera, and he tried to help them repent. Rabbis asked him why he tried so hard to deal with these bullies, especially since he didn’t succeed. When Rabbi Zera died the bullies said, while Rabbi Zera was alive he would pray for us so we wouldn’t get punished for our many sins, now who will pray for us. And they decided to repent. So he did well by trying to bring them closer until they eventually repented.
The story that deals with ideology in light of practice presents tragedy and failure.
It tells us about Rabbi Yohanan who was swimming in the Jordan River one day. Reish Lakish who was a leader of bandits jumped into the river in order to rob him. Rabbi Yohanan said to him, such a brave person like you should invest efforts in studying the Torah. Reish Lakish replied: you are a handsome man, you are as beautiful as a woman. Rabbi Yohanan answered: if you return to study Torah I will give you my sister, who is prettier than me, to be your wedded wife.
Reish Lakish became one of the greatest scholars of his generation.
One day while arguing about different kinds of knives, Rabbi Yohanan replied to Reish Lakish with anger: you surely know everything that there is to know about thievery. In other words, since you were a bandit when you were young, you still know these matters now.
Reish Lakish was offended and replied: what good have you done by helping me come closer to the Bible? There among the bandits I was called a rabbi [leader], and here I’m also called a rabbi.
Rabbi Yohanan replied: I have helped you come close to God. Why aren’t you grateful?
Reish Lakish became sick, and his wife came to her brother – Rabbi Yohanan – and begged him, saying: pray for my husband’s recovery so my sons will have a father. But he refused.
Eventually, Reish Lakish died and Rabbi Yohanan regretted both Reish Lakish’s absence and what he had done to him.
These 3 stories testify to how much our sages were concerned with the complexity of our attitudes toward the criminals. They show that although the moral decision in the first story is in favour of helping the criminals rehabilitate. The two other stories demonstrate that in practice it is hard to apply this ideology. There is no easy way to repent and be forgiven.
Dilemmas and Lesson learned
The First question is: Are we allowed to give up on the delinquent?
Our sages present two stories from the Bible, that of Abraham confronting God’s decision and begging him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if only he could find a few righteous people, as opposed to the story of Noah, who built the ark without asking God to spare his generation of sinners. This opposition presents a social choice between living in a fortress and doing social rehabilitation.
The Second question is: What is the sages’ obligation?
A real righteous person even if he cannot improve his generation’s ways, must prevent sinners from severe judgement and pray for a merciful judgement. Hence he must plead in their favour even if they are delinquents.
The Third question is: Punishment and rehabilitation?
A continuum that assures the rule of law.
In a verse of Deuteronomy our savant great commentator noted a dualism. The sinner is called a villain, but after he has been punished he is called “your brother”. Hence the bible makes a distinction between punishment and rehabilitation. Punishment has a beginning and an end, while rehabilitation is a never ending process. When he becomes “your brother” you have the obligation/duty to rehabilitate him.
As king David said in Psalms 23: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me” – the punishment after being completed, becomes a staff [a wooden stick] you can lean on – a rehabilitation tool!
In other words, the rehabilitation process becomes complementary to the punishment process, only when there is balance between the two. Thus the rule of law is assured.
Delinquency isn’t only the individual’s fault but also a result of social policy. Hence if the public is also responsible for the criminality, it has the obligation to fund the rehabilitation.
The bible tells us that when a murder is committed and the murderer is not found, the heads of the justice system had to come to the scene of the crime and say “our hands did not shed this blood”. Does anyone believe that the courts judges have partnered with crime? The answer is that the judges are blamed for not conducting a good enough social policy, and therefore as leaders they are indirectly responsible for the crime.
We must therefore perceive crime not only as the individual’s failure, but nonetheless as society being responsible for the factors that brought about the crime. Therefore, society’s duty is to correct its social policy and assure means of prevention and rehabilitation, including the allocation of means and resources. Our sources tell us how king David assisted in this process when the criminal was fined, yet didn’t have the resources with which to pay. The king offered him a loan from the royal coffers which he had to repay on a monthly basis. In this way punishment was meted out, and, at the same time, the criminal was checked and observed on a regular basis.
Hence I propose that courts should shorten the punishment-imprisonment period but at the same time prolong the ” compulsory” rehabilitation period following the release from prison – i.e. instead of giving 4 years of imprisonment, give 2 years of imprisonment and 2 years of “obligatory” rehabilitation in a residential hostel, since the majority of imprisonment sentences are of less than 4 years.
Hence, the Prison Services and the rehabilitation programs outside prison (such as correctional programs) should cooperate as runners do in the “relay race”. All runners must do their best separately, but if they fail to pass the baton effectively the whole team loses time and may even lose the whole race.
Advantages and Benefits
The main advantages of this approach are both for the prisoner, the society and the state:
Giving hope – the purpose: A person, who knows in advance, that he has a worthwhile alternative outside prison, if he behaves properly and does not fail while in prison, has a greater chance to succeed and rehabilitate.
Family reunion: the residential rehabilitation hostel has a clear advantage for family men, for which it is important to go back home. It offers proximity, leaves and opportunity to work (breadwinning).
State budgets: In light of the economical crisis around the world, many countries have difficulties in allocating enough resources and budgets to develop additional incarceration facilities for the increasing number of prisoners (also caused by the economic crisis). In many cases the budgets of prison services decrease.
Imprisonment’s costs are 3 times higher than rehabilitation in a hostel. And consequently, a successfully rehabilitated prisoner can contribute to society, as opposed to a criminal that causes damage and financial burden to society.
Benefits for the Prisons Services: By being a partner in the rehabilitation process from the outset, the prison services can operate with a clear rehabilitation work plan based on clear and measurable goals. Hence the prisoner will leave prison ready to continue his rehabilitation program outside prison.
Advantage for the rehabilitation systems outside prison: this system will be able to receive more accurate information regarding the prisoner, than can be obtained today, and will be able to integrate the last stages of imprisonment.
Conclusion: vision and rehabilitation
The PRA is our attempt to realise our sages’ heritage in our era. We perceive rehabilitation as an integral part of the rule of law: only when we create a continuum, when punishment is followed by rehabilitation, thus allowing the released prisoner to begin a new life, we can achieve society’s goal to decrease the number of delinquents amongst it.
To fulfill this vision we have to train our personnel to be able to integrate this vision both in their body and soul. To paraphrase Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin: “if you want to pull out a person that is submerged in mud and slime, you cannot stay above and outside and lend your hand. You must go down into the mud and only then can you hold him firmly with both arms and pull him and yourself out into the light.”
[1] The Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA) is a state entity. The PRA was founded in 1984, to deal with all prisoners: male and female, Jewish and Arab, single and married, as well as with their families. It is mandated to deal with prisoners’ rehabilitation 4 to 6 month preceding their release and in the community during the year following their release from prison. During the pre-release period, an individual rehabilitation program is set with each prisoner. Participation is voluntary.
The PRA offers every released prisoners an equal chance to a successful rehabilitation, by developing programs to fulfill the special needs of the different populations.