First thing first, accept that sending criminals to prison is an effective, if not the only way, to protect society. Stop thinking in terms of education as punishment for a moment and instead think about safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible violent sex offenders, trigger-happy drug dealers, and cold-blooded murderers. Education does reduce crimes to some extent; however, it is doubtful if most of them would choose to live a life that is crime-free. Since most inmates eventually return to the community, it seems not a bad idea to help them learn a trade and gain skills to make a decent living. And that is why training programs are often believed to be positive in changing criminal behavior. Nevertheless, most statistics tend to tell a different story. As it is, rather than becoming productive members of society, they turn themselves into more skilled criminals. So it is one thing that rehabilitation offers opportunities; it is quite another whether career criminals make good use of their prison time. In most cases, after serving their terms they continue commiting offences of a more sophisticated kind. Education is more a romantic option than an effective solution for crime problems. At this point, it must be made clear that the argument is not against education in correctional facilities, considering that most inmates are under-educated. Rather, the case is concerned about a control policy to strictly supervise specific released prisoners for at least two years to observe what might happen to society. Here, skeptics claim that, in many cases, prison education produces nothing more than better-educated criminals, only more dangerous. That the violent crime wave is raging while most prisons are over-crowded certainly does not reflect a significant decrease in recidivism. It merely shows the fear and impotence of innocent people in the community. The point is that sending criminals to prison is effective, if only by moving them away from the community. On the other hand, to regard prison education as an effective punishment is simply wishful-thinking, in view of relevant evidence that underlies recidivism. In all events, education provides opportunities, however limited, but it depends on the way those repeat offenders see these opportunities, the rest being pure guessing.
第一件事是，把罪犯送进监狱是一种有效的，如果不是唯一的办法，就是保护社会。停止思考教育作为惩罚一下，考虑保障无罪的人不受屡教不改的暴力性犯罪，好战的毒贩，和冷血的凶手。教育确实在一定程度上减少了犯罪，但是，如果他们中的大多数人都会选择一种犯罪的生活，这是值得怀疑的。由于大多数囚犯最终回到社区，这似乎不是一个坏主意，以帮助他们学习贸易和获得的技能，使一个体面的生活。这就是为什么训练项目通常被认为是积极的改变犯罪行为。尽管如此，大多数的统计数据往往会讲述不同的故事。因为它是，而不是成为社会生产力的成员，他们把自己变成更熟练的罪犯。因此，这是一件事，康复提供机会，这是另一个职业罪犯是否充分利用他们的监狱时间。在大多数情况下，服务条款他们继续犯的一个更复杂的类罪行后。教育更是一种浪漫的选择，而不是一种有效的解决犯罪问题的方法。在这一点上，必须清楚，这一论点是不反对教育的，在教养设施，考虑到大多数囚犯都受到教育。相反，该案是有关一项管制政策，严格监督具体释放的囚犯至少两年，以观察可能发生的社会。在这里，持怀疑态度的人声称，在许多情况下，监狱教育只会产生受过良好教育的罪犯，这才是更危险的。这种暴力犯罪波肆虐而大多数监狱过度拥挤的并不反映累犯显著下降。它仅仅表明了在社会中无辜的人们的恐惧和无能。这一点是，把罪犯送进监狱是有效的，如果只把他们从社区中移动。另一方面，作为监狱教育作为一种有效的惩罚只是一厢情愿的想法，在相关证据基础的累犯的观点。在所有的事件中，教育提供了机会，但有限，但它取决于那些重复的人看到这些机会的方式，其余的是纯粹的猜测