He eludes what appears to be a police manhunt and stows away on a truck which takes him to what he now recognises as London. A Mrs. Butterworth now occupies his old townhouse and drives his Lotus Seven. She is unperturbed when he approaches her, seems intrigued by his plight, and feeds and clothes him. He mentions that the next day is his birthday. Receiving Number Six's promises that he will return, Mrs. Butterworth says she might even bake him a birthday cake. He returns to the underground car park/office from the theme sequence, where he presents himself to his old boss. His photographs and other evidence of The Village meet with considerable scepticism. Former colleagues "The Colonel" and "Thorpe" are not entirely convinced that Number Six has not defected and now returned as a double agent, but after verifying all the details of his escape and evasion story, they seem to be more reassured.
[NEW] “The Prisoner” Returns
With the assistance of some military officers and a map, they determine the general vicinity of the Village ("coast of Morocco, southwest of Portugal and Spain"; "might be an island"). He leads a jet fighter pilot in a sweep of the area and spots the Village from the air, but it turns out the pilot was switched at the base with an agent of The Village, who causes Number Six to be unceremoniously ejected. Number Six parachutes in, and is greeted in his cottage by the new Number Two: Mrs. Butterworth. She offers him "Many happy returns!" and a birthday cake, while Village residents once again parade outside on the piazza.[1]
What can be done to help people who are released from prison keep from being rearrested? With no job, no money, and no place to live, returnees often find themselves facing the same pressures and temptations that landed them in prison in the first place. Assisting ex-prisoners in finding and keeping employment, identifying transitional housing, and receiving mentoring are three key elements of successful re-entry into our communities.
The Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Labor has just released the "Prisoner Reentry Toolkit for Faith-Based and Community Organizations." The toolkit is a guide for faith-based and community organizations interested in establishing or enhancing their prisoner reentry programs. The document covers a variety of topics such as recruiting volunteers and clients, case management, job placement, mentoring, and forming successful partnerships. The toolkit can be accessed at -resources.htm.
Plato posits that one prisoner could become free. He finally sees the fire and realizes the shadows are fake. This prisoner could escape from the cave and discover there is a whole new world outside they were previously unaware of.
This prisoner would believe the outside world is so much more real than that in the cave. He would try to return to free the other prisoners. Upon his return, he is blinded because his eyes are not accustomed to actual sunlight. The chained prisoners would see this blindness and believe they will be harmed if they try to leave the cave.
The text is formatted as a dialogue between Plato and his brother, Glaucon. Within this conversation, they discuss what would happen if a group of prisoners realized the world they were watching was a lie.
The scene holds many direct correlations with the "Allegory of the Cave." For starters, the tethered family stands in front of a fire, casting shadows on the room. This is a direct reference to the fire in the cave, casting shadows for the prisoners to view.
The film centers on the escape of the sinister Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) from Azkaban Prison; Sirius was convicted in Voldemort's plot to murder Harry's parents, and now it's suspected he must finish the job by killing Harry. As Harry returns for his third year at Hogwarts, grim wraiths named Dementors are stationed at every entrance to the school to ward off Sirius, but the Dementors are hardly reassuring, with their trick of sucking away the soul essence of their victims.
OK, staying with developments from Russia, let's turn to this one. Today at an airport in Turkey, a Russian plane pulled up next to an American one. From each plane, a prisoner emerged and walked across to the other. The U.S. returned to Russia a pilot convicted of drug smuggling charges, sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Russia returned to the U.S. 30-year-old former Marine Trevor Reed, who was serving time for assaulting a police officer. He has maintained his innocence. And this was a remarkable prisoner swap for any moment, but especially during this time of war in Ukraine.
This publication presents the final technical report for a pilot study of Returning Home:Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. This pilot study, which examined the process of prisoner reentry in Maryland and more specifically, within the city of Baltimore, involved self-administered surveys with 324 male and female prisoners approximately 30 to 90 days prior to their expected release date, and two post-release interviews with subsets of the original sample, one within 30 to 90 days after release, and one approximately 4 to 6 months after their release. In addition, 41 family members of prisoners were interviewed and focus groups were conducted with residents in two Baltimore neighborhoods experiencing high rates of returning prisoners. The purpose of this pilot study was both to examine the process of prisoner reintegration in Baltimore through the experiences of released prisoners in our sample, as well as to test our survey instruments and research design in preparation for implementation of the study in the three full-study sites.
For the pilot study, our goal was to recruit a sample of male and female prisoners who: (1) had been sentenced to at least one year by a Maryland court, (2) were returning to the city of Baltimore, (3) were within 30 to 90 days of release, and (4) were representative of all releases for the year (in terms of release reason, offense type, time served, race, and age). In accordance with Institutional Review Board approval of the study, only those prisoners who were 18 years of age or older were eligible for recruitment. Working with the Maryland Division of Correction, we chose nine facilities (six for men and three for women) that were in close proximity to Baltimore, housed prisoners of a range of security levels, offered a variety of programming, and would enable us to reach our sampling goal of 350 respondents within four months. As implemented, we surveyed 324 prisoners before release. Our pre-release sample is generally representative of all state prisoners returning to Baltimore with the exception that the Returning Home sample has fewer parole violators and more prisoners whose sentences expired than the general population of prisoners returning to Baltimore.
Limited resources and the pilot nature of this study dictated smaller samples for the interviews conducted after respondents had been released from prison. The first post-release interview was conducted with 153 of the original respondents and the second post-release interview was conducted with 104 of the original respondents. When we compared those we interviewed at the first post-release interview with those we did not interview, we found virtually no differences between the two groups, including similar rates of reconviction and return to prison or jail. However, readers should exercise caution in generalizing our research findings from the second interviews at four to six months after release to the larger population of prisoners returning to Baltimore for two reasons. First, analyses of outcome measures were limited due to the relatively small sample of former prisoners interviewed a second time. In addition, those whom we did not interview a second time were more likely to have been returned to prison or jail, suggesting that those we did interview were generally more successful at remaining crime free than the average released prisoner.
This report is structured to present findings on specific types of reentry challenges faced by men and women released from prison and factors that might influence post-release success or failure, such as employment, substance use, individuals' expectations and attitudes, health challenges, criminal histories, and the family and community contexts awaiting them. The purpose of this report is to inform policymakers and service providers about how released prisoners returning to Baltimore navigate these challenges of reentry, what services they need that are not currently being provided, and the extent to which certain individual and contextual factors can serve as either risk or protective factors with regard to subsequent drug use and criminal behavior. Highlights from the report are presented below by topic area.
The policy implications of these findings are wide-ranging and pertain to the roles that families, jobs, the community, and substance use play in the reentry experience. Perhaps the greatest resource in reentry planning is the family. Families are an important source of housing, emotional support, financial resources, and overall stability for returning prisoners. Strategies and resources designed to strengthen family ties during the period of incarceration and after release (e.g., prerelease family conferencing sessions) are recommended.
Families were also a source of support with regard to employment; returning prisoners who were employed after release relied largely on personal connections—family, friends, and former employers—to find their jobs. Social connections that are maintained during the period of incarceration can be an important resource in helping released prisoners achieve positive postrelease outcomes. It is also noteworthy that those who found jobs after release were more likely to have participated in work-release jobs while incarcerated than those who did not find jobs. Expanding work-release programs could increase the employment rates of former prisoners in Baltimore. 2ff7e9595c
Comments