Can Rehabilitation Work in Military Prison? A Theoretical Framework Based on the Israeli Case

Abstract

Israel's military prisons operate a rehabilitation program for imprisoned soldiers based on a psychosocial diagnosis. The program's essential aim is to help soldiers complete their service and avoid re-incarceration. This article describes the program, its function related to the integrative law court, and its role as the army's probation service. It further presents a unique perspective regarding military rehabilitation programs, demonstrating how rehabilitation leads to recidivism. It concludes with a recommendation for incorporating an organizational change in the program that involves redistributing the existing sections to operate under two different authorities.

Keywords

military prison military incarceration imprisoned soldiers rehabilitation program

Introduction

Military service in Israel is a watershed event for the conscripts and their families. Meisels (2002) claims that Israeli society views military service as significant not only for the security and defence of the country and its citizens, but also for its central role in national life in terms of the numbers of the population involved, the duration of service, and the intensity of the experience. Israeli society also regards army duty as critical to youth maturation, hastening the process of character building and serving as a critical stage in preparation for a future career and place in society (Livio, 2011). These developments often occur as part of a complex set of challenges facing the soldiers related to their roles in the army and their family, health, economic, and social status.

However, an examination of the challenges of military service does not provide an adequate basis for understanding the phenomenon of imprisonment in military prisons. Data on incarceration in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) show that despite its moderate decrease between the years 2000 and 2014, with a total of 13,140 and 12,144 soldiers’ serving sentence, respectively (Shawn, 2015), the number of soldiers in prison is still high. These statistics call for an in-depth investigation into the factors leading to incarceration, an examination of the experience itself, and a study of the Israeli military system's capacity for preventing recurrent imprisonment. As well, the high number of incarcerated soldiers can be attributed to the fact that most serve short sentences, ranging from several weeks to a number of months, and never more than one year. Thus, the data refer to those imprisoned for the first time and those who have returned to prison several times in the same year.

Civil prisons in Israel and other parts of the Western world operate a range of rehabilitation programs that seek to support successful prisoner reintegration into society. Research has found that carceral treatment programming can have a favorable impact on an individual's rehabilitation. Programs with a religious orientation, for example, were found to have a positive effect, resulting in a decrease in participants’ recidivism (Haviv et al., 2019). A research study by Timler et al. (2019) illustrated how a rehabilitation program focused on vegetable garden cultivation with products donated to a disadvantaged population restored incarcerees’ self-esteem. In addition, another study on the impact of an animal rehabilitation program found it to be effective in alleviating the pains of imprisonment (Hill, 2020).

The current article describes the Gahelet (the Hebrew acronym for Factors in a Return to Regular Service) rehabilitation program operating in military prisons in Israel since 2003. A study of the program would enable the existing theoretical discourse on army service in the country to be expanded by airing issues related to how the IDF supports its imprisoned soldiers as well as the army's interrelationship with its soldiers. In the final analysis, it would also include the status of the IDF as a force to be reckoned with in determining acceptance in or exclusion from society. The following is a description of army service in Israel in its various manifestations, the connection between army service and criminal activity, and the Gahelet rehabilitation program method of operations.

Army Service in Israel

The complexity of army service in Israel can be analyzed in terms of a total institution. Coined by Goffman (1961), the term total institution refers to a closed world in which staff control all facets of its members’ lives. The gap in status between the members and the staff is well defined and unalterable, corresponding to the gap between a company director and employee subordinates. It is thus possible to view the army as a clear example of a total institution, with its delineated physical boundaries and distinct hierarchy. These attributes can be seen in the relationship between an officer and under-command troops. It is predefined and, accordingly, so are the norms governing each actor's conduct as to rights and obligations. The commanding officer—who in most cases, and certainly during the initial training period, can be of the same age as that of the subordinates—is responsible for the daily schedules, including hours of reveille, duty rosters, home leave, smoking hours, meal times, and study schedules. In addition, oversight by the staff cadre is in effect throughout the day and night, frequently resulting in the imposition of sanctions and punishment in cases where the soldiers fail to meet expectations. An additional feature typifying the army as a total institution is the fact that the soldier is almost completely stripped of personal and cultural uniqueness. Goffman (1961) dubs this mental process “the death of the self.” From the viewpoint of army service, this involves a fundamental act of adaptation, since the transition to becoming a soldier, with all that this entails, means that one undergoes a process which requires one to be like everyone else, with a loss of identity at times.

This military framework can trigger high ongoing stress, finding expression in many dimensions. Firstly, the sense of individualism suffers a serious blow since the entry into the IDF goes hand in hand with forming a uniform “soldier identity,” with the attendant reduction in one's ability to make choices. This is followed by mental stress, which may be aroused due to the requirement to obey the commanding officer without question and the obligation to carry a gun and use it where necessary. There is also the alienation from parents, who can no longer provide support or intervention, requiring the new recruits to depend on themselves (Kelty et al., 2010; Lutz, 2008; Teachman & Tedrow, 2016).

Notably, an Israeli citizen who does not complete the full army service period is frequently labeled unfavorably by society, and forced to cope with limited opportunities for advancement during adult life (Benbenishty, 2008). The effects of army service appear to be lasting, touching on numerous cultural-historical aspects of life (Aldwin et al., 2009; Spiro et al., 2015).

Military Prisons in Israel—Prison and Prisoner Attributes

The prison is a total institution whose aim is to isolate lawbreakers from society and punish them for their crimes under conditions of extreme control and supervision. The inmates’ needs are met only after it has been ascertained that security and safety goals have been achieved. In Israel, IDF prisons were established by order of the Minister of Defence and have operated in accordance with the Military Jurisdiction (Military Prisons) Regulations, 1987, under the responsibility of the Chief Military Police Officer. Whether they bear the status of detainees prior to trial or are sentenced to a prison term, imprisoned soldiers are held in prison companies according to the duration of imprisonment, the offense, and the intelligence obtained on them. Female soldiers are held in a separate company.

The data on IDF prisons show that the period from 2000 to 2019 witnessed a significant rise in recurrent imprisonments, from 74.20% for the first imprisonment in 2000, to 58.11% in 2019 (IDF Spokesperson, 2020; Shoan, 2015). The distribution of offenses for which male and female IDF soldiers were incarcerated shows that the principal offense was AWOL: two-thirds of all imprisoned soldiers were serving prison sentences for this reason, as illustrated in Figure 1 (IDF Spokesperson, 2020).

Figure 1.

Distribution of offenses, 2015 to 2019.

Goffman (1961) claims that prison management policy on the part of the prison authorities is based on absolute control over the lives of incarcerees, as seen in the tight hold prison staff has over the prisoners’ time, space, and movement being determined in accordance with procedures, policies, and fixed schedules. The prison's commanding officers can impose harsh sanctions when inmates deviate from the rules, such as rescinding the right to use the telephone and receive family visits. In relatively extreme cases—violence toward prison staff or other inmates, or attempts at self-injury—the staff is authorized to isolate the individual in a special section for a period stipulated by policy.

Military prisons in Israel operate according to the Defence Service Law. Apart from the foremost goal, which is to ensure that the court order is carried out, an additional aim is to help the soldier return to regular military duty and complete a full term of service. The findings presented regarding the complexity of military service and its correlation with criminal activity among discharged soldiers, as well as the description of the military prison's operations, necessitate reference to the imprisonment experience itself. This is to explore whether the process of rehabilitation that takes place during this period can lessen the likelihood of recurrent incarceration and further criminal activity in the future.

The Military Prison Rehabilitation Program

In 1997, a riot broke out among prisoners in an IDF prison, with 10 of them overpowering staff members and threatening their lives. The team conducting negotiations for the staff's release reported that the inmates protested the lack of medical care, the absence of basic service conditions, and the want of an attentive ear. In the wake of these events, a committee was set up to formulate imprisonment policy in the IDF (Office of the State Comptroller, 2010). One of the committee's recommendations was to set up an entity whose primary purpose would be to provide comprehensive professional care to the inmates to return them to regular service on completion of their sentence, with particular emphasis on the reduction of the incidence of recurrent imprisonments. This entity, named Gahelet, was established in 2003. The essential conclusion that led to founding the program was that a person could not be imprisoned without provision of basic care (Office of the State Comptroller, 2010).

The Gahelet program, within the headquarters of the Chief Military Police Commanding Officer, integrates all the functions responsible for servicing individuals under one professional umbrella. This includes diagnosticians, a position unique to military prisons; service conditions staff, operating according to specific rules for prisoners, also unique to military prisons; and teaching and educational staff. The Human Resources Department has authorized the Gahelet program to issue directives concerning a change in the service status of a prisoner—in principle, the power to change the soldier's assignment to a unit closer to home, authority to alter the soldier's service conditions to less demanding ones, as well as the capacity to convene the Service Adjustment Committee and recommend an exemption from military service.

Activation of the Gahelet Rehabilitation Program

An inmate who is found to be eligible for services by the Gahelet program is initially sent for psychosocial diagnosis in the framework of a single session. The duration of the session is not predetermined and depends on the soldier and his story. In the course of the session, the soldier and the diagnostician converse on general issues in the soldier's life, such as relationships to family, physical and mental health, economic status and that of the family, ability to adjust to civil institutions such as school and work, and the nature of military service up to the time of imprisonment. After the session, the diagnostician provides a detailed report, which is forwarded for the next stage in the process—intervention.

At the intervention stage and based on information gathered from the soldier during the diagnosis, a treatment and rehabilitation plan begins to be assembled. Where necessary, details are transferred to prison mental health specialists for their professional involvement and for strengthening the internal and external support systems available to the soldier. In parallel, relevant details are sent to the Service Conditions Section of the Gahelet program to commence with financial assistance for the soldier and family, in accordance with the service conditions rules for prisoners. The aim is that on completion of the sentence, the soldier will benefit from all rights, and will not have to start the process afresh back in the unit. If, for example, a soldier needs financial assistance, a formal application is already made during the stay in prison. The Service Conditions non-commissioned officer in the soldier's prison company will assist in obtaining the necessary approvals for payments to the family and monetary grants to expedite the process. Thus, the soldier returns to the unit upon sentence completion with all approvals in hand and secured, with the goal of motivation of energy in the return to regular duty. The details are also sent to Gahelet's Education Section which is responsible for constructing an intervention program that reinforces attachment to country in general and the IDF in particular. This is achieved through participation in educational lessons on various topics, including Israel's war history, civics, prominent personalities, religious and other festivals, and environmental protection (Itzik, 2019).

Upon completing the procedure, the head of Gahelet's Diagnosis Section receives all the relevant documents from three sections: Diagnosis, Service Conditions, and Education. Appended to the documents are the commanding offers’ and mental health officials’ expert opinions. An intervention and rehabilitation plan is compiled at the soldier's completion of prison sentence. The program represents a directive for implementation, documenting all risk factors and resources to ensure the soldier's resilience in completing the term of army service. In this regard, a number of crucial Gahelet directives exist: in certain cases, a recommendation is made to have the soldier appear before the Service Adjustment Committee, which is authorized to recommend the granting of an exemption from military service altogether, usually for reasons of “serious misconduct.” In other cases, a directive is issued to change the soldier's assignment to a different unit, or one to the soldier's unit commanding officers regarding supportive care. Another option is to return the soldier to serve in the unit without any changes in the conditions of service that applied prior to incarceration. The distribution of the principal Gahelet directives in the period from 2015 to 2019 is illustrated in Figure 2 (IDF Spokesperson, 2020).

Figure 2.

Distribution of Gahelet directives, 2015 to 2019.

About one month following completion of the soldier's sentence, the Gahelet program initiates contact with the soldier as part of its operational doctrine to ascertain that a directive has been carried out and to determine whether any difficulties have arisen at this point which could require a return to prison.

In addition to Gahelet's principal activity—and as a consequence of several welcome changes in the area of military prisons spearheaded by various IDF authorities, including the Human Resources Department and the Military Advocate General—the program's sphere of influence has been expanded in light of its recognition as IDF's professional rehabilitation entity. The following section details Gahelet's powers related to the integrative law court (see below) and the probation service for older IDF personnel, which it represents.

Integrative Court of Law

As part of the change in perception regarding imprisonment in the IDF, an integrative court of law was established, following a pilot in 2017. This is an army rehabilitation law court whose aim is to handle circumstances when soldiers have gone AWOL. In a way, the integrative court is concerned with giving soldiers a second chance; and based on this rehabilitative approach, it believes in the principle of activating community law courts. These are regarded as an aid to enhancing criminal oversight by virtue of a greater rehabilitation orientation. That is, rather than being punishment-oriented, there is also a focus on rehabilitating the community and raising the trust of residents in law enforcement systems (Malkin, 2003; Casey & Rottman, 2005).

The community court also addresses social issues involving crime, such as psychoactive substance abuse, mental disturbances, and anger management (Zozula, 2018). There are a number of typical features of the community court (Lee et al., 2013). Firstly, it rules in collaboration with local establishments, welfare authorities, and nonprofit organizations to ensure the accused is linked to a rehabilitation process. Secondly, it conducts proceedings to involve the community in problem solving and formulation of overall policy at the local authority level. Thirdly, it specifies that treatment tools be matched to each accused individually. All of the above is achieved following an exhaustive diagnosis of the individual's case, including the circumstances of the offense and the family-social environment.

The criteria for referring soldiers to a rehabilitation process of this nature are perpetration of a first-time AWOL offense and a sentence of not more than 10 months. In the framework of the process, and following a statement expressing motivation to continue regular service and a commitment not to go AWOL again or commit any other offense, the soldier is immediately released from detention. An attendant officer whose job is to investigate the reason for the soldier's offense and to explore jointly ways to solve the problem is assigned. Overall, these activities, conducted by the attendant officer in tandem with the soldier's immediate commanding officer, support the community court's central aim that also emphasizes rehabilitation of the soldier's community. This includes the attitude of the officers and fellow soldiers to the offense and to the rehabilitation process. Follow up includes monthly sessions on the case in the integrative law court, with the soldier, commanding officers, and other professionals in attendance to assist and enjoin the process until its completion. It should be noted that like the civil procedure, in the event that the soldier's behavior does not improve, or commits an additional offense, or does not report for the monthly follow-up sessions, the court is authorized to issue an arrest warrant and reopen the case of the first offense for deliberation in the military court of law (Military Advocate General, 2018).

The case in the integrative court originates in the Gahelet program. A soldier who has gone AWOL and been detained in an army prison until the conclusion of the proceedings is sent for diagnosis under the jurisdiction of the Gahelet program. Gahelet then relinquishes to a court of law the decision regarding the soldier's eligibility for procedures in the integrative court—a decision based on the assessment of criminogenic needs and powers of coping and resilience determined during the diagnostic stage. As in the case of the community court, initiation of these proceedings goes hand in hand with a release from detention, with the soldier serving no prison sentence. In addition, should the procedure be successful, there will be no criminal record. Should Gahelet not decide on a positive diagnosis and referral to the integrative court, the soldier proceeds according to the regular juridical procedure and serves a prison sentence for the offense (Military Advocate General., 2018). During 2017 to 2019, Gahelet referred 79 soldiers to the integrative law court (IDF Spokesperson, 2020).

Probation Service for the IDF Population

The probation service for the older population in Israel is a state social service under the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Social Services. It is entrenched in the law and responsible for providing diagnosis, oversight, treatment, and rehabilitation to those aged 18 years and above who are involved in a criminal event (Penal Law, 1977). The probation service aims to reduce the incidence of illegal activity by supervising and constructing rehabilitation programs, strengthening the capacity to integrate into the community, presenting personal-psychosocial aspects in court proceedings, and influencing penal policy by developing rehabilitation options (Weinstein & Ben-Simchon, 2017). The population benefiting from this service includes those referred to it for penal review and review of detention, as well as victims of offenses.

In the matter of penal review, the persons referred to this service undergo psychosocial evaluation by a probation officer according to the type of offense. Some offenders are subjected to particular diagnoses and precise interventions, for which specific legislation exists, as in the case of substance abuse and domestic violence. The individuals are referred to the review before receiving a sentence; the focus of diagnosis being the offense committed and the life circumstances of the accused at the time the offense was committed, as well as during the court proceedings.

For the benefit of the court, the service reviews the past of the accused or detainee, as well as marital and economic status, health, and special circumstances that might have led to the crime. The procedure, which takes place routinely in the civil courts of law, has never been practiced in the military judicial system (IDF Spokesperson, 2020). This constitutes juridical severe discrimination and violation of the law, as it infringes on the fundamental rights of thousands of soldiers who are sent to prison every year. The major issue is that in the absence of a review mechanism before the passing of sentence in cases resulting in a finding of guilt according to due process, a soldier is sent for prolonged imprisonment that does not take into consideration the best chances for rehabilitation (IDF Spokesperson, 2020).

In response, a pilot penal review began operating in army prisons in January 2019. Accordingly, a soldier who has been convicted in the military court is entitled, through his defence attorney, to be referred to the Gahelet program where a probation officer will carry out a penal review. The condition for enacting the review is the soldier's admission to the charge and the consent of the prosecution, with a request for the procedure and the full removal of any criminal record. Performance of a penal review can reduce the sentence of a potential military dropout, including avoiding a repeat imprisonment term, facilitating integration as a contributing citizen following discharge from the IDF, and bridging existing gaps vis-à-vis the civil judicial system.

In 2019, a total of 26 penal reviews were carried out under the Gahelet program for soldiers who were convicted of criminal offenses, ranging from substance abuse and/or trading, theft of weapons, theft of military equipment, and sex offenses. In addition, 25 penal reviews were carried out for soldiers who went AWOL (for reasons of evasion or desertion). An analysis of these sentences indicates that the judges were assisted by the penal reviews and even cited them in their sentences. It also documents that penal reviews succeed in helping the military prosecution and defence arrange plea bargains and reduce the number of days in prison.

Discussion

Given this article's overview on Gahelet and the IDF's rehabilitation program currently in operation for imprisoned soldiers, there is an argument to be made regarding the need for change. Below is a description of the program's aims and method of operation in military prisons and its work as the army's probation service and integrative law court within the army's judicial system framework.

A comparison of the systems shows that the army's system works best with measured steps, unlike the civil judicial system. On the one hand, the penal review pilot first conducted in 2019 under the jurisdiction of Gahelet came more than 50 years after incorporating the Probation Ordinance (New Version), 1969, which defined how an accused enters probation. On the other hand, in all matters relating to the operation of the integrative court, it appears that the IDF works in parallel with the development of the field in the civil system. These two trends indicate the IDF's progress in understanding and recognizing the importance of proper treatment for imprisoned soldiers and the importance that the military establishment attaches to the rehabilitation process.

Andrews et al. (1990) proposed three key principles for constructing rehabilitation programs: (1) the risk principle, referring to the construction of precise, intensive programs for high-risk offenders and provision of minimum service for low-risk prisoners; (2) the need principle, involving identification during treatment of criminogenic needs that induce crime; and (3) the responsivity principle, referring to the need to provide treatment that is commensurate with the offender's capacity for learning. The researchers found a significant correlation between incorporating the three principles in formulating a treatment program and reducing recurrent imprisonments (Andrew & Bonta, 2010). Thus, for example, a research study that examined the treatment package administered to prisoners found a significantly lower incidence of recurrent imprisonments during 4 years following participation in the rehabilitation program (Shoham et al., 2018).

Regarding Gahelet's activities as a rehabilitation agency in military prisons, the program prepares a customized, compact correctional package for each individual according to the above three principles. Indeed, the program does not include professional training, nor does it assist in developing educational courses as do the rehabilitation programs under the Prison Service. Nevertheless, the ability of professionals in the program to accurately diagnose criminogenic factors in the imprisoned soldier permits them to design a correctional package that includes education and workshops according to need and a recommendation for including employment during the soldier's imprisonment. The program's benefits are manifested principally at the conclusion of the sentence, when the soldier is given an assignment according to his needs, based on the correctional program constructed for him.

However, the data on recurrent imprisonment in the IDF (IDF Spokesperson, 2020) present an interesting picture that belies the above agenda: it seems that since the establishment of the Gahelet program in 2003, there has been a substantial and steady in the rate of recurrent imprisonment. This stands in opposition to the program's overall goal at the time of its inception; namely, to reduce recurrent incarceration. This begs the question as to whether the program works.

There can apparently be no suitable answer to this question without taking into consideration the aims of imprisonment as perceived by the imprisoned soldier. Thus, for example, in a research study conducted by Itzik (2019) that examined the reasons for imprisoning youth of Ethiopian background in an army prison, it was found that all those who were confined for the duration of their service, that the army prison in general, and the Gahelet program in particular, served to achieve their personal goals, whether for changing their assignment to a unit closer to home, receiving a response from the service conditions system, or obtaining an exemption from military duty altogether. Another research study in an open online forum that examined how Gahelet is perceived among soldiers supports the findings of the rehabilitation program as a tool in the hands of soldiers (Itzik, 2021). In such cases, soldiers who regard prison as a legitimate means to achieve their aims will not balk at returning to prison despite the price they must pay in being deprived of their freedom. Those results can be examined from a learning point of view as demonstrated in research regarding correctional police officers’ socialization processes (Farnese et al., 2016).

Shoan (2015) studied the attitudes of 200 soldiers doing prison sentences for going AWOL. The findings show that 77% of the soldiers believed that they would obtain an exemption from army duty with additional imprisonment. In comparison, 69% stated that they would obtain this exemption with the help of the Gahelet program. The soldiers appeared to be acting based on “profit and loss” considerations. That is, the short-term goal was to commit an offense, but it paid them to be sentenced to imprisonment in an army prison since, in the long run, they would have a good chance of achieving their aim. As reinforcement, Cullen et al. (2011), by using an evidence-based approach, claims that there is little evidence to support the notion that prisons reduce recidivism. Such an attitude, described in the current article, is instrumental in rendering the pain of imprisonment insignificant and merely a personal risk worth taking for the sake of the desired end. This finding, which can explain the high percentage of recurrent imprisonment in the IDF, contradicts the prevailing attitude concerning the objective and subjective distress and deprivation that many inmates suffer during their period in prison. It also contradicts the widespread reports of the effects of imprisonment on the physiological and psychological welfare of the prisoners (Block & Ruffolo, 2015; Crewe, 2009; Crewe, 2011a; Crewe, 2011b; Haney, 2008; Toch, 2007). Gahelet plays a very important role in the rehabilitation of imprisoned IDF soldiers. Yet, and notably at the same time, the program appears to have become a hallowed destination for soldiers’ seeking to achieve their ends. The program thus misses the mark, defeating the purpose of army prison programming related to rehabilitation.

Another possible explanation for the rise in recurrent imprisonments in the IDF despite Gahelet is the program's result. The fact that it is a compact correctional package and includes no intensive, long-term treatment, as provided in the Civilian Prison Service, leads to the conclusion that the program's effectiveness and its directives regarding the soldier's service conditions following prison release is extremely limited. If no focused treatment is administered, the soldier will not have any reason to “toe the line” immediately following the release from prison. In this regard, a note should be made of a future process that has been approved in the IDF, according to which all male and female soldiers will be serviced by Gahelet, irrespective of the reason for imprisonment. The program's present method of operation is not geared to handling criminal populations. Therefore, should it fail to adopt a professional approach to specific IDF offender populations, such as substance abusers, it will not succeed in reducing the incidence of recurrent imprisonment or eradicating the phenomenon of substance abuse in the army.

Military service requires youth to gear up emotionally, mentally, and physically prior to enlistment due to the myriad changes that are about to occur in their lives. Preparedness in the appropriate direction will facilitate speedy adjustment to the new reality facing them. In light of this, and given that the IDF is the people's army, it must undertake an in-depth investigation into the weakening of social solidarity in the nation and its effect on motivation to serve in the military. Populations having a tenuous connection with Israeli society will have a correspondingly low incentive to serve in the IDF; it may then be reasonably assumed that they will not hesitate to go AWOL, punishable by imprisonment in times of crisis. Recognition of this fact is essential to effect action toward reducing the incidence of recurrent imprisonment and the phenomenon of service dropouts since it sheds a different light on the ability to measure the extent of success or failure of the Gahelet program.

Based on this article's assessment, it is proposed to view the issue of rehabilitation in military prisons according to a different perspective. In the author's opinion, there is a need to effect organizational change in order to reduce the incidence of recurrent imprisonments, continue to help soldiers in their rehabilitation process, and even broaden the program aims to implement fundamental changes with respect to its structure and role. It is recommended that the program be divided into three separate sections operating in parallel and independently. The first and second sections would be under the Human Resources Department, both professionally and administratively. The third section would operate, professionally and administratively, under the Military Police Corps.

The first section would house the Diagnosis and Service Conditions Unit and carry out its operations in the pre-enlistment stage, providing feedback on those identified as exhibiting criminogenic motivations. This section would arrange for optimal assignments for these soldiers, helping to lower the AWOL rate and lessen the extent of imprisonment resulting from criminal offenses. The process would lead to early identification of risk factors that are a detriment to army service, supporting soldiers’ access to Gahelet program professional diagnosticians who could offer insights into ways to head off criminal acts.

The second section would constitute a professional rehabilitation entity in all matters relating to the integrative law court in its capacity as IDF's probation service, operating directly with the army's defense attorneys. As in the case of the civil system, in which the Prison Service is responsible for treatment programs in prison and the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, and Social Services is responsible for the probation service, so professionals alone, including criminologists and probation officers who do not belong to Gahelet, would perform the penal reviews, acting as external specialists. This would enable the reviews to be carried out without any inappropriate influences.

The third section, which would be the counterpart of the Rehabilitation Department of the Prison Service, would be operated within the military prisons by diagnosticians belonging to Gahelet, providing offense-oriented rehabilitation services to male and female inmates. This section would provide solutions via short-term individual and group rehabilitation programs, geared to the offense types in the prison population. It would not influence the future service of the inmate but would, rather, focus on the offense itself and the rehabilitation process. It is further recommended that, at the conclusion of the rehabilitation process in prison, the soldier be referred back to the diagnosticians in the first section, who would investigate the soldier's subsequent duties and type of service. Gahelet can thus spearhead a significant drop in recurrent imprisonment, since it would become solely a professional agency, avoiding being manipulated by soldiers who would use it to achieve individual aims by committing an offense and being sent to prison.

In order to bring into sharper focus the reason for which soldiers are sent to prison, to understand ways to reduce the incidence of recurrent imprisonments, and particularly to augment the research and theoretical knowledge on the differences between imprisonment in the civil and military systems, the issue should continue to be examined at both the local and global arenas. A research study should be undertaken that involves a comparison between civil and military prisons—and between the Gahelet rehabilitation program and the situation in military prisons in other countries.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Lea Itzik, PhD, is a rehabilitation criminologist and a lecturer in the Criminology Department of Ashkelon Academic College, Israel. Her research interests include the efficiency of the Gahelet program, risk factors for military incarceration, military prison incarceration experience, and military imprisonment among immigrants’ soldiers.

References

Aldwin

C. M.

Levenson

M. R.

Kelly

L. L.

(2009). Lifespan developmental perspectives on stress-related growth. In Park

C. L.

Lechner

Stanton

Antoni

(Eds.), Positive life changes in the context of medical illness (pp. 87–104). American Psychology Association Press.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0093854890017001004

Benbenishty

(2008). Israel. In Stein

Munro

E. R.

(Eds.), Young peoples’ transitions from care to adulthood: International research and practice (pp. 102–114). Jessica-Kinksley.

Block

Ruffolo

(2015). An exploratory content analysis of offender concerns before incarceration. The Prison Journal, 95(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515587464

Casey

Rottman

D. B.

(2005). Problem-solving courts: Models and trends. Justice System Journal, 26, 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2005.10767737

Crewe

(2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press.

Crewe

(2011a). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422172

Crewe

(2011b). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811413805

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Nagin

D. S.

(2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032885511415224

11.

Farnese

M. L.

Bello

Livi

Barbieri

Gubbiotti

(2016). Learning the ropes: The protective role of mentoring in correctional police officers’ socialization pross. Military Psychology, 28(6), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000131

12.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books.

13.

Haney

(2008). A culture of harm: Taming the dynamics of cruelty in supermax prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 956–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808318585

14.

Haviv

Weisburd

Hasisi

Shoham

Wolfowicz

(2019). Do religious programs in prison work? A quasi-experimental evaluation in the Israeli prison service. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 505–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09375-0

15.

Hill

(2020). A touch of the outside on the inside: The effect of animal contact on the pains/strains of imprisonment. Journal of Offenders Rehabilitation, 59(8), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1808558

16.

IDF Spokesperson (2020). Answering requests for information based on the freedom of information law. Israel Defence Forces (in Hebrew).

17.

Itzik

(2019). Risk factors and resilience among young males and females of Ethiopian origin in the Israel Defence Forces. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).

18.

Itzik

(2021). “Urgent! I have a question”: Respondent's (talk-backers) perception regarding the “Gahelet” rehabilitation project operating in Israeli military prison. Crime and Penalties in Israel: Theory and Application, 21, 132–147 (in Hebrew).

19.

Kelty

Kleykamp

Segal

(2010). The military and the transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 181–207. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27795065

20.

Lee

C. G.

Cheesman

Rottman

Swaner

Lambson

Remple

Curtis

(2013). A community court grows in Brooklyn: A comprehensive evaluation of the Red Hook (Community Justice Center Final Report). National Center for State Courts. Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, Final Report, Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov).

21.

Livio

(2011). The right to represent: Negotiating the meaning of military service in Israel. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/openview/ce4eb823554c99c777eee196934b293e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.

22.

Lutz

(2008). Who joins the military? A look at race, class, and immigration status. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 36(2), 167–188. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/45292868 .

23.

Malkin

(2003). Community courts and the process of accountability: Consensus and conflict at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. American Criminal Law Review, 40(4), 1573–1594. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr40&div=55&id=&page= .

24.

Meisels

(2002). Young Israeli in the transition to adulthood: Impacts of military service. Education Reviews New Series, 5, 190–195 (in Hebrew).

25.

Military Advocate General (2018). Activities report of the military advocate general in 2017. IDF (in Hebrew).

26.

Military Jurisdiction Regulations (Military Prisons), 1987 (in Hebrew).

27.

Office of the State Comptroller (2010). Annual Report 60A – Chapter Two: The Human Resource: Imprisonment System in the IDF.

28.

Penal Law, 1977 (in Hebrew).

29.

Shoan

(2015). Recidivism in the IDF. Institute of National Security Studies: IDF (in Hebrew).

30.

Shoham

Zelig

Hasisi

Weisburd

Haviv

(2018). "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts": Prison staff perception of domestic violence rehabilitation programs. International Journal of Offenders Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3298–3321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741803

31.

Spiro

Settersten

R. A.

Aldwin

C. M.

(2015). Long-term outcomes of military service in aging and the life course: A positive re-envisioning. The Gerontologist, 56(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv093

32.

Teachman

Tedrow

(2016). Altering the life course: Military service and contact with the criminal justice system. Social Science Research, 60, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.003

33.

Timler

Brown

Varcoe

(2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(5), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1615598

34.

Toch

(2007). Men in crisis: Human breakdowns in prison. Transaction Publishers.

35.

Weinstein

Ben-Simchon

. (2017). Older adults involved in criminal proceedings. In Review of social services (pp. 299–328). Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Social Services.

36.

Zozula

(2018). Courting the community: Organizational flexibility and community courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 18(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817709864