It can be argued that providing college education to prisoners yields practical benefits and that there are ethical reasons for doing so. If a function of the prison system is to reform prisoners so that they do not return to crime after they are released, then there is very good reason to support programs, such as that offered by Bard college, that provide college education to prisoners.
Since 2001 over a thousand prisoners have received college degrees from Bard. Of those released from prison, between 2.5 and 5% have been arrested again. In contrast, 75% of state prison inmates are arrested and incarcerated again within five years of their release. Prisoners who participate in education programs are also less likely to return to prison than former prisoners who did not participate in such programs.
Given the very high cost of incarceration (about $60,000 per year), reducing the number of people returning to prison would save the state and taxpayers money. There is also the cost of crime, both to the victims and society in general.
Of course, there is the (evil) practical concern that the prison-industrial complex in the United States is a job and profit creator (mostly transferring public money to the private sector) and having fewer people in prison would be a practical loss, economically speaking, for those who profit from the for-profit prison system. Also, scare tactics involving crime are a basic tool of politicians and pundits and addressing crime would be detrimental to them. Although, to be fair and balanced, they could just lie more about the crime statistics.
In moral terms, a utilitarian argument can be given in favor of such programs. Using the stock utilitarian moral argument, if the benefits generated by the education programs outweighed the harm, this would make them morally correct. There is, of course, also the moral value in having people not committing crimes and being, instead, positive members of the community.
One practical objection is that the cost of such programs might exceed the benefits. This is partially a factual matter, namely weighing the economic cost of crime and imprisonment against the cost of providing such programs in terms of dollars. The positive economic value of such programs should be considered as well. The cost to the state can, obviously, be offset if the programs are supported by others (such as donors and private universities). Given the cost of incarceration, practical considerations seem to favor the programs. However, this can be debated.
Another practical objection is that the benefits being discussed arise only when a released prisoner does not return to prison because of the education program. If a prisoner is serving a sentence that will keep them in prison for life, then there would seem to be no practical benefit. The counter to this is that most prisoners are not in prison for life, so this would apply in only a very few cases that would be offset by the cases in which people do leave prison.
It could also be claimed that the education programs are not the cause of the former prisoners remaining out of prison. After all, this could be a case of a common cause (that is, what seems to be a cause and an effect are really both effects of an underlying cause): the qualities that would cause a prisoner to participate in such an education program are likely to be the same ones that would make it less likely that the former prisoner would return. If this is the case, then it could be argued that such programs are not needed since they are not actually the causal factor.
While it is always wise to consider the possibility of a common cause, it does make sense that an education program would have causal role to play in a former prisoner not returning to prison. At the very least, education would increase the chances of the person getting a job and this would have an impact on the likelihood that they would return to crime. Most people, even President Trump, do not do crimes for no reason. Most people will also pick not doing crimes over doing crimes if they can get what they want or need.
It can also be argued that even if the former prisoners who would have been in the program would not have returned to prison anyway, the value of the education itself would justify the programs. I do believe that education has intrinsic value. However, this is not a view that is shared by everyone, and it can obviously be argued against, usually on economic grounds.
In general, though, the education programs seem worthwhile, if only on practical grounds. In cases in which education programs are being privately funded, there seems to be no practical reason to oppose them, especially if they have the claimed benefits regarding recidivism. Unless, of course, one considers the desires of those who profit from the for-profit prison system and those who desire that other people suffer.
One moral objection that can be raised against these programs is that resources are being expended on prisoners that could be used to help non-prisoners who cannot afford an education. One might also add that prisons (are alleged to) exist to punish people for their crimes and not to reward them. As such, prisoners should not receive such education. Instead, any resources that might have been spent on educating prisoners should be spent on assisting non-prisoners who cannot afford college. Of course, there are those who would not want to assist even non-prisoners who cannot afford college.
This moral objection does have some bite. After all, a person in need who has not committed crimes seems more deserving of assistance than someone who has committed crimes. If it did, in fact, come down to a choice between helping a non-criminal or a criminal, then it would seem preferable to assist the non-criminal—just as it would be preferable to spend money on education and infrastructure rather than on enriching the rich. It would also be preferable to spend money on addressing the causes of crime rather than creating a prison-industrial complex.
A reply to this objection is based on the fact that it is very expensive to imprison a person. While it would be preferable to avoid having to imprison people, once they are in prison it would seem desirable to invest a little more to keep them from returning to prison. Calculating this would involve using the cost of the education, the cost of keeping the prisoner in prison, the likely chance of returning to prison and for how long. To use a made-up example, if it cost $31,000 for a prisoner to get her degree and $31,000 a year to keep her locked up, then if there is a good chance that her degree would keep her out of prison for another four-year sentence, then it would seem to be worthwhile even as a gamble. After all, spending $31,000 is likely to save much more money. If the fact that she is likely to be a contributing member of society is factored in, the deal is even better. So, the gist of the reply is that spending the money education does make sense, if it has a good chance of saving money and doing some social good. If the money is not spent on education, then it seems likely that even more will be spent on dealing with recidivism. Either way society pays, the question is not whether one should spend more or less but whether one should pay for something positive (education) or negative (locking someone up). So, it is not a matter of spending money that could be spent to assist non-criminals, it is a matter of how to spend the money that will be spent either way.
I understand how someone struggling to pay for college would be outraged if prisoners were getting an education for free and this is something that evil (or ignorant) politicians exploit. However, my reply to this is that paying for the education of a prisoner, assuming it reduces recidivism, is cheaper than paying to keep locking the prisoner up. Also, it is unlikely that the money spent on educating prisoners would be redirected to pay for the education of non-prisoners.
It might be objected that the problem should be addressed before people go to prison, that there should be education programs designed to assist people who are at risk for prison, but are also likely to be able to complete college and avoid prison.
In reply, I agree completely. It is better that a person never goes to prison in the first place and education is a much better investment than prison (except for those who profit from the for-profit prison system). There are, of course, those who would disagree and argue that it is better to let people end up in prison than to spend public money on college education. Others could argue that while such plans might be good intentioned, they would not work—the money would be spent, and the result would merely be educated criminals. These objections are worth considering, but I would still contend that spending on education to keep people out of prison is preferable to spending money to keep people in prison. But I don’t own a prison, and I am not driven by a desire to make people suffer.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.