R3SEARCH
Recidivism, rehabilitation and the unintended consequences of helping someone released from prison
COLLECTION: Work, Economy & Society
CLASSIFICATION: Lived Experience / Criminal Justice / Rehabilitation
PUBLICATION DATE: 9 November 2026
Lived Experience
I once agreed to act as surety for someone who was in prison facing serious violence-related circumstances. I was prepared to put my trust in them and support their release, believing that perhaps an opportunity, some practical assistance and a supportive environment might help them take a different direction.
It became one of the more difficult experiences of my life.
I wasn’t simply offering encouragement from a distance. I became involved in the practical realities of their life outside prison. I tried to create opportunities for them to do something constructive, take responsibility and participate in the community.
I bought a car for them to repair. It was intended to provide a practical project, something to work towards and potentially an opportunity to develop skills. They nearly completed the repairs.
They also became involved with Food Not Bombs Hobart, where they cooked meals for people experiencing disadvantage. They completed community service hours they owed to the state.
There were genuine moments of contribution. They were participating in something useful, helping others and fulfilling an obligation.
But there was another side to the experience.
The problems associated with helping someone with a history of serious offending, drug use and violence eventually became part of my everyday life. There was theft, dishonesty, intimidation and violence. People made reports about me, without those reports resulting in action against me. Other criminal associates began intruding into my life.
There were break-ins, people attempting to get at me and situations involving weapons being used against me.
The experience extended well beyond the relationship with the individual. Other people and their associations became part of the problem.
Interestingly, the violence itself wasn’t necessarily the most difficult part for me. I grew up around violence and was accustomed to dealing with it. I managed situations that might have overwhelmed someone else.
Looking back, I wonder whether that familiarity influenced how much I was prepared to tolerate.
I survived the experience, but I came away considerably wiser about the risks of becoming personally involved in another person’s life when serious offending, addiction and unstable relationships are part of the picture.
I don’t regret believing that someone deserved another chance. But I would want the experience to be very different if I had the choice again.
Setting: Understanding Recidivism
Recidivism describes the tendency of someone who has previously offended to commit further offences.
In the criminal justice system, it is often measured through a person’s return to prison, further contact with corrective services or another recorded offence within a specified period.
It is important to understand that these measurements are not interchangeable.
Someone can be arrested without being convicted. Someone can breach a community order without committing a new offence. Someone can also commit offences that never result in a recorded conviction.
The Australian criminal justice system uses several measures to understand repeat offending.
The Productivity Commission’s 2026 Report on Government Services provides a particularly useful national picture.
In 2024–25:
- 44.5% of prisoners released in 2022–23 had returned to prison within two years.
- 53.6% had returned to corrective services, which includes prison or community corrections.
In Tasmania, the reported rate of return to prison was 46.6%.
These figures demonstrate the difficulty of breaking the cycle of imprisonment and reoffending. They do not mean that every released prisoner will reoffend, nor do they predict the behaviour of an individual.
Source: Productivity Commission, Report on Government Services 2026.
Investigation: The Journey of a Recidivist Offender
Understanding repeat offending requires looking beyond the individual offence. It involves examining the circumstances that contribute to offending, the experience of imprisonment and the challenges of returning to the community.
1. Before Prison: The Pathway into Offending
There is no single pathway into a criminal lifestyle.
For some people, offending begins during adolescence. Others become involved in crime through drug dependence, unstable relationships, financial pressures, criminal associations or prolonged disadvantage.
Factors that can contribute include:
- Childhood adversity and exposure to violence.
- Drug and alcohol dependence.
- Unstable accommodation.
- Poor educational and employment opportunities.
- Mental health difficulties.
- Criminal peer networks.
- Established patterns of offending.
These factors do not excuse criminal behaviour. Nor does experiencing disadvantage mean someone will become an offender.
However, they help explain why some people experience considerable difficulty changing their circumstances.
2. Prison: Punishment and the Possibility of Change
Prison removes someone from the community and restricts their freedom. It can also provide opportunities for rehabilitation.
Correctional programs may include:
- Drug and alcohol treatment.
- Behavioural interventions.
- Education and vocational training.
- Anger management.
- Psychological support.
- Employment preparation.
- Programs addressing violent or antisocial behaviour.
The challenge is whether these interventions produce lasting changes that continue after release.
Prison may interrupt offending for a period, but imprisonment alone does not necessarily resolve the circumstances that contributed to it.
3. Release: Returning to the Community
Release from prison can be a particularly vulnerable period.
A person may need to find accommodation, rebuild relationships, access income, manage drug dependence and establish a daily routine.
They may also return to the same social networks, environments and pressures associated with their previous offending.
Successful reintegration often depends on practical support.
This can include:
- Stable accommodation.
- Access to health and addiction services.
- Employment and training.
- Positive social relationships.
- Supervision and accountability.
- Support with everyday responsibilities.
Without these foundations, the transition from prison to community life can be difficult.
4. Bail, Surety and Community Responsibility
My experience also raises a separate question about the role of people who agree to act as sureties.
A surety is not simply someone who provides accommodation or offers friendship.
In Tasmania, a surety makes an undertaking to the court in relation to another person’s compliance with bail conditions and attendance at court. Depending on the arrangement, money may be deposited or an undertaking given to pay if the accused breaches the bail order.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania explains that a surety can face financial consequences if the accused does not comply with bail requirements.
A surety is also able to seek release from the undertaking through the court.
It is important to distinguish bail from rehabilitation. Bail is a legal arrangement governing release while criminal proceedings are ongoing. It is not a rehabilitation program, and acting as surety does not make someone responsible for providing professional treatment or supervision.
Nevertheless, the person offering surety may become an important part of the accused person’s practical support network.
This raises questions about whether ordinary community members fully understand the responsibilities and potential risks associated with becoming involved.
5. The Cycle of Reoffending
When someone returns to offending, the consequences extend beyond the individual.
There may be further victims, additional police involvement, court proceedings, imprisonment and increased pressure on public services.
Families and informal supporters can also experience repeated disruption.
The cycle may look something like this:
Offending → Arrest → Court → Imprisonment → Release → Community reintegration → Return to previous circumstances → Further offending.
Not everyone follows this pathway. Many people leave prison and do not return.
However, the national statistics demonstrate that repeat contact with corrective services remains a substantial challenge.
The question is what needs to change between release and the possibility of further offending.
Observations: When Helping and Rehabilitation Intersect
My experience provides an unusual perspective on the relationship between rehabilitation and community support.
There were several positive developments.
The person participated in cooking at Food Not Bombs Hobart. They completed community service hours owed to the state. They worked on a car restoration project that came close to completion.
These were not insignificant contributions.
They demonstrated that a person with a serious offending history could participate in ordinary community activities and undertake practical responsibilities.
But positive participation did not necessarily translate into sustained behavioural change.
There was a contradiction between the constructive activities and the destructive behaviour occurring elsewhere in their life.
This raises an important distinction between participation and rehabilitation.
Completing community service, helping prepare meals or working on a project can demonstrate engagement. However, these activities alone cannot establish that someone has addressed the underlying behaviours associated with offending.
Rehabilitation requires more than isolated examples of good behaviour.
It requires sustained change.
There was also another observation: the informal supporter can become exposed to circumstances they are neither trained nor equipped to manage.
The person offering assistance may become involved in relationships, disputes and criminal associations that extend far beyond the original agreement to help.
The consequences can affect personal safety, property, relationships and everyday life.
Interpretation: The Limits of Compassion
Working hypothesis, not established finding
This experience suggests that compassion and accountability need to operate together.
There is a tendency to discuss rehabilitation in terms of giving people another opportunity. That is important, but an opportunity by itself does not guarantee change.
A person may receive accommodation, practical assistance, encouragement and access to constructive activities while continuing to engage in destructive behaviour.
The willingness of another person to help cannot substitute for the individual’s willingness to change.
There is also a question about the expectations placed on informal supporters.
Family members, friends, community organisations and ordinary citizens may become involved in helping someone leaving prison. Their contribution can be valuable, but they should not be expected to absorb unlimited personal risk.
A rehabilitation system that depends heavily on informal goodwill needs to recognise the responsibilities and vulnerabilities of those providing that support.
Social Questions
- Why do some people repeatedly return to prison?
- What makes rehabilitation successful beyond the prison environment?
- Is imprisonment addressing the underlying causes of offending?
- What responsibility should accompany the opportunity for release?
- How can communities support rehabilitation without becoming responsible for managing serious offending?
- Are people who act as sureties adequately informed about their responsibilities and potential risks?
- What happens when informal supporters become victims of the behaviour they are trying to help change?
- Where is the boundary between compassion and enabling destructive behaviour?
- How should community organisations manage the participation of people with serious offending histories?
- Can rehabilitation be considered successful if someone contributes positively in one part of their life while continuing to harm others?
Personal Reflection
Personal — not academic finding
I don’t regret believing that someone deserved another chance. I still believe people should have opportunities to change, regardless of their criminal history.
There were positive things along the way. They cooked at Food Not Bombs Hobart, completed community service hours owed to the state and nearly finished repairing a car I had bought as a practical project.
It wasn’t all failure. There were glimpses of what might have been possible.
I grew up around violence, so perhaps I was more accustomed to it than most people. I managed situations that might have been overwhelming for someone else. But being accustomed to violence doesn’t mean it should become an acceptable part of helping someone.
If I had the choice again, I would want the experience to be different. I would establish clearer boundaries, seek more formal support and be much more careful about the responsibilities I accepted.
I learned that wanting to help someone is not the same as being equipped to manage their circumstances.
I still believe in second chances. But I have a better understanding now that a second chance must involve responsibility from the person receiving it. It cannot depend entirely on the sacrifices, patience or personal safety of the person offering it.
Perhaps that is the most important lesson: compassion needs boundaries, and rehabilitation needs more than someone willing to believe in you.
Further Investigation
This experience suggests several areas worthy of further research.
1. The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation
Investigate which Australian rehabilitation programs demonstrate measurable reductions in repeat offending.
2. Drug Dependence and Repeat Offending
Examine the relationship between substance dependence, criminal behaviour and access to treatment after release.
3. The Role of Informal Supporters
Investigate the experiences of people who provide accommodation, financial assistance, employment opportunities or personal support to people leaving prison.
4. Surety and Bail Responsibilities
Examine how people are assessed and informed before agreeing to become sureties, including the legal, financial and practical implications.
5. Community Participation and Rehabilitation
Explore whether participation in community organisations, volunteering and practical work can contribute to successful reintegration.
6. The Safety of Community Supporters
Investigate what protection, guidance and referral pathways exist for people who experience threats, intimidation or violence while supporting someone with a history of serious offending.
7. Measuring Successful Reintegration
Consider whether the criminal justice system measures success too narrowly through return-to-prison statistics, or whether it should also examine employment, housing stability, relationships, community participation and personal responsibility.
References
- Productivity Commission (2026). Report on Government Services 2026 – Justice and Corrective Services.
https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/report-on-government-services/justice/ - Supreme Court of Tasmania. Bail and Surety.
https://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/the-court/bail-surety/ - Magistrates Court of Tasmania. Accused Person – Bail and Surety.
https://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/going_to_court/accused_person - Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2019). Ravenhall Prison: Rehabilitating and Reintegrating Prisoners.
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/ravenhall-prison-rehabilitating-and-reintegrating-prisoners - Australian Institute of Criminology. Interventions for Prisoners Returning to the Community.
https://www.aic.gov.au/
Research Classification: Lived Experience / Criminal Justice / Rehabilitation
Central Research Proposition
Rehabilitation is more than the opportunity to leave prison. It requires sustained personal responsibility, appropriate support, behavioural change and the capacity to participate safely in the community. Informal supporters can make a valuable contribution, but compassion should not require them to sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing.
Leave a Reply