CBT Interventions And Incarceration Analysis

Prison is a place where the criminal justice system put its entire hopes. The correctional

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

The current prison and criminal justice system has not proven to be helpful in rehabilitating offenders and preventing recidivism. To successfully alter this situation it is important to understand what steps and measures are available to assist those who find themselves imprisoned. The techniques used in cognitive behavioral therapy have proven to be effective in treating depression, anxiety and drug addictions among other things. Analyzing the techniques developed in cognitive behavioral theory and applying them to psychotherapy in prison environments can assist in making improvements in the prevention of criminal activity, rates of incarceration and safety and security of the general population. The literature shows that the use of

To ascertain whether practitioners attribute the desistance of young people from offending behaviour to the effective practice of targeted youth programs. Young offender’s recidivism has been said to be the consequence of ridiculous control programs attracting reduced compliance from young offenders according to (Kempen and Young 2014). Practitioners competences has been put under scrutiny with critiques such as (Andrews, Donald and James 2010) and (Petrosino et all 2010), alleging that they sometimes deviate from their professional requisites. Much of the criticism was specifically for the private practitioners rendering inconsistent treatment regime, lacking commitment to the recommended practice. Thus, this evident knowledge gap has failed young offenders to satisfy the targeted programs aims of desisting from antisocial behaviours and other criminal activities (Woods et al

Rehabilitation is facilitated by the offering of courses, to help the offender address his/her behaviour which society has labelled as “wrong” or inappropriate (Peterson, 1989; Shaffer, 1993). Therefore, a con of the strategy may be that the offenders are unable to access courses that could assist them in rehabilitation. Another purpose of the detention centre for young people may be through the use of a military structure to try and impress on them that they have done wrong (Munice, Hughes & McLaughlin 2002).

Not long ago, I obtained a paid position as a Service Provider for Adult Probations in Yorkton, Saskatchewan. As a service provider, my job is to ensure an adequate level of supervision, surveillance and control for offenders released to Community Corrections by the court or through the authorized absence process, and provide support and assistance to offenders as an alternative to incarceration. It is important to note that Corrections service providers are not to be confused with volunteer probation officers who are appointed to enhance service to individuals already deemed appropriate for a community-based sentence.

Until as recently as the 1970s, the focus of criminal justice professionals revolved around rehabilitation of offenders (Cullen & Jonson, 2012, p. 27). Dating back to when the first American penitentiary was constructed in 1820, the idea was that by creating a system that mimicked the concept of a well-developed, law-abiding community within the prison atmosphere,

Jail and prison populations are swelling as a result of increased crime and sentencing in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system has piles of cases that need to be sorted and suspects who need to proceed with their trials. It is clear that the system needs an adjustment. One significant method to reduce the population in jails and prisons is to changing the rehabilitation strategies. Rehabilitation is important in the criminal justice system, but even more significant in keeping individuals out of jail, out of prison, and out of trouble. Mass incarceration does not work, simply put. It has been utilized in the past and based on that, has been proven to not work effectively. The state of Virginia decided to do away with parole in the year 1995, causing increased prison inmates to remain in the system, even though they should be out paying their own taxes instead of taking them from taxpayers while sitting inside of a prison cell. An individual must serve at least eighty-five percent of his or her sentence whether or not that person has proven themselves to be accepted back into society (Roeder, et al, 2015). It is clear that this method is outdated and only increases the amount of money taxpayers must put towards the swelling prison system

Because convicted offenders tend to be locked up for longer periods than jail offenders, treatment possibilities in a prison setting are more far-reaching. The prison and treatment staff are in the best position to establish

The SCC TC program will benefit offenders and the criminal justice system. Offenders will receive prison-based treatment and community aftercare services. Research has shown offenders who participated in prison-based treatment have been found less likely to re-offend compared to those who do not receive treatment (Prendergast, Hall, & Wexler, 2003). In addition, prison-based treatment is most effective when coupled with community aftercare services. Offenders who engage in prison-based treatment, in conjunction with community aftercare treatment, are less likely to return to prison compared to those who receive less, and those who do not attend at all (Olson & Lurigio, 2014).

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

Lastly, but not least is CBT. It combines the elements of cognitive and behavioral treatments in addressing psychological problems and abnormal behavior, in this case sexual offenders. The Good Lives Model-Comprehensive (Ward & Gannon, 2006) is a good representitive for CBT, as it combines the original Good Lives Model of Offender rehabilitation and the Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending. Both of which have been the prior use to helping sexual offenders. However, not all of these treatments are effective and have limitations. (Maletzky & Steinhauser, 2002) conducted a 25 year follow up on 7275 sexual offenders who were in a CBT. The results show the treatment generated long-lasting, positive results by reducing recidivism and risk to the community. Now that the types of treatments have been explained, the next section goes into the existing literature of those treatments on sexual offenders and what’s the best/worst.

The failure of imprisonment has been one of the most noticeable features of the current crisis in criminal justice systems. At best, prisons are able to provide a form of crude retribution to those unfortunate to be apprehended. At worst, prisons are brutalizing, cannot be shown to rehabilitate or deter offenders, and are detrimental to the re-entry of offenders into society. If anything, they do little else than confine most prisoners, and as a result lead to the imposition of certain undesirable learning habits and labels. Such habits include the learning of survival patterns of behavior, which do little to help the prisoner to be reintegrated as a useful and productive member of the community.