Post Your Response For This Discussion Forum And Don' 180837
Post Your Response For This Discussion Forum Anddont Forget Torepl
Post your response for this discussion forum, and don't forget to reply to at least one of your classmates: In 1994, Bill Clinton signed a law that placed a ban on people in state and federal prisons from receiving Pell Grants. President Obama authorized an experimental program to allow certain colleges to apply on behalf of individuals in prison for Pell Grants and attend college courses while incarcerated. Trump continued the program. On December 21, 2020, Congress moved to lift the long-standing ban on federal student aid – specifically, the Pell grant – for those who are incarcerated. See the article below: Congress lifts long-standing ban on Pell grants to people in prison. For the first time since 1994, incarcerated individuals can get federal aid to pay for college. A prison education scholar explains how higher education helps those who have run afoul of the law. PBS NewsHour. If you were a lawmaker, would you have supported this law? Provide three reasons to support your opinion. Use research and empirical data to support your opinion. Remember your post must be at least 300 words, and you must reply to at least one classmate's post with a 100-word reply. You will not be able to see your classmate's posts until you post your original response. Make sure your reply is completely different than your main post.
Paper For Above instruction
The decision to support or oppose the lifting of the ban on Pell Grants for incarcerated individuals is complex, involving considerations of social justice, recidivism reduction, and the potential benefits of higher education within correctional facilities. As a lawmaker, I would have supported the legislation, primarily due to three compelling reasons supported by empirical data and research.
Firstly, providing access to higher education confers significant benefits in reducing recidivism rates. A comprehensive report by the RAND Corporation (Davis et al., 2013) found that inmates who participated in educational programs were 43% less likely to recidivate than those who did not. Education fosters skills, enhances employability, and promotes social reintegration, which are critical factors in reducing repeat offenses. Denying incarcerated individuals access to education perpetuates a cycle of incarceration and societal marginalization.
Secondly, supporting higher education in prisons aligns with principles of social justice and equal opportunity. Many incarcerated individuals come from impoverished backgrounds with limited access to quality education prior to incarceration. Providing them with the opportunity to obtain a college degree while imprisoned offers a chance to break free from systemic cycles of poverty and inequality. Studies such as those by the Vera Institute (Vera Institute of Justice, 2017) indicate that educational programs help mitigate disparities in educational attainment and promote social mobility.
Thirdly, investing in prison education programs can have positive economic impacts. According to a report by the Abt Associates (Lopoo & London, 2015), every dollar invested in prison education yields approximately five dollars in savings related to reduced crime and increased employment prospects for ex-offenders. These economic benefits also translate into decreased reliance on public assistance and lower incarceration-related costs over time, creating a net positive return on investment for taxpayers.
In conclusion, supporting the restoration of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals is a pragmatic and equitable choice. It contributes to reducing recidivism, addresses systemic inequalities, and offers economic benefits, ultimately fostering safer and more inclusive communities. As a lawmaker, these multidimensional benefits would motivate my support for the legislation.
References
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, R., & Calderón, C. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis. RAND Corporation.
Lopoo, L. M., & London, D. (2015). The Impact of Prison Education on Post-Release Outcomes. Abt Associates.
Vera Institute of Justice. (2017). Education in Prisons: Promoting Opportunities for Social Mobility. Vera Institute.
The decision to support or oppose the legislation to lift the Pell Grant ban for incarcerated inmates depends on considering the profound societal impacts. Closing the educational gap within prisons not only benefits individual inmates but also has broader societal implications, including reducing future criminal activity, promoting equality, and saving public resources. Empirical data consistently shows that education reduces recidivism and enhances employment prospects, which are key factors in criminal justice reform. Furthermore, supporting prison education aligns with a commitment to social justice, recognizing that access to educational opportunities should not be denied based on incarceration status. Overall, the evidence favors supporting the legislation, emphasizing its potential to foster a more equitable and safer society.