Unsettling the discourse of punishment? Competing narratives of reentry and the possibilities for change

Abstract

In academic and policy circles, there is widespread optimism about the ability of reentry to change the terms of the punishment debate. In this article, we assess the impact of the reentry concept on discourse and reform in Colorado through analysis of the recent work of the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission. We identify two distinct reentry narratives, which we call the reintegration and recidivism reduction narratives. The reintegration narrative challenges dominant assumptions about punishment in ways consistent with the rehabilitation model, while the recidivism reduction narrative stays close to the retributive model. While the reintegration narrative was clearly present in the Colorado conversation about reform, most of the policy recommendations put forth were driven by the recidivism reduction narrative, in large part due to concerns about potential public perceptions of the Commission’s work. We conclude that reentry has not only failed to change the discourse in any significant way, it has also served to further entrench the retributive framework of punishment.