Community Justice Center Case Study

Ex-offenders face challenges at every level when reentering back into society. These handicaps come in many forms that involve the community in the transitioning process. It is critical to involve the neighborhood in establishing a natural guidance in the criminal justice process (Young and Taxman, 2002). Informal agents and the community should establish an inherent connection with the offender through Re-Entry Partnership Initiative (Young and Taxman, 2002). The Re-Entry Partnership Initiative was designed to assist those facing significant barriers due to former confinement or other circumstances as they re-enter the community and the workforce. This sense of accountability and ownership is a powerful advantage. The neighborhood involvement sends a

Community justice broadly refers to different aspects of crime prevention and justice activities that include the quality of life as a goal for the community. Recent initiatives include community crime prevention, community policing, community defense, community prosecution, community courts, and restorative justice sanctioning systems. Community justice prioritizes different types of offenders to determine the sanctioning for the victims and to ensure the offender is ready to enter back into their community in good standing with no problems. In other words, they do not want them back in the community if they feel they have not learned their lesson or have been rehabilitated. Community justice’s main focus is to promote public safety and like I had said earlier to ensure that the quality of life of the community is in good standing. Community justice includes different ways of interpreting information about police, courts, and corrections that highlights problem-solving techniques. There is a strategy behind community justice such as including restorative justice practices and processes. They also include both adult and juvenile offenders to create a safer community rather than doing things for the offenders or actually to them. Community justice wants to prevent victimization to help establish public safety. It also places a high priority on the wants,

While sitting in the court proceedings, the observer noticed the abundance of support resources available to offenders if needed. The difference between the success and failure cases is truly how devoted and involved the offender is in rehabilitation. Dye (2015) emphasizes the well-known punishment versus rehabilitation debate with greater award being in the community alternatives to incarceration. These specialty courts affirm a strong sense of community involvement with court supervision as well as foster the ability to heal in

An option for Community Based treatment can be unpaid community service, which offers them an opportunity to pay back the communities they have victimized and offended. In addition to the community work, “Community work can help offenders make a fresh start in life. Offenders given work opportunities and skills are less likely to reoffend and many projects incorporate accredited training. Community work can increase offenders’ self-esteem and well-being and give their lives new purpose and direction” (Corrections, Prisons & Parole). As they work on themselves and pay their debt to society, they improve the environment in the communities and they free money in the budgets that are in place to pay for these services. When less money is spent on cleanup efforts, it leaves room for improvement in other social

Although Although theoretically conferencing may be seen as a viable alternative for adolescents to court proceedings, and indeed some evidence suggests it reduces recidivism, it will ultimately be concluded that the success of restorative justice programs depends on more than just its ability to reduce recidivism, and thus it will not always provide a useful alternative to more traditional criminal justice approaches.

Youth are often confronted with socio-economical and political challenges including poverty, ethic and minority status and are often cited as at risk for committing long-term community problems like rise in crime due to substance abuse, school drop-out and several forms of academic failures, delinquencies, criminal offenses and unemployment (e.g. Grisso, Vincent & Seagrave, 2005; Champion & Mays, 1991; Fellmeth, 2002). According to Grisso and his colleagues (2005), the argument that in order to help young offenders that were placed under rehabilitation centers reconnect to community and avoid recidivism is to provide them education and employment opportunities upon release. It is in this area where mentoring programs to

Community service programs for first time offenders allow nonviolent offenders and the community a chance to rebuild their relationship. Offenders are given the opportunity to make restitution to the community. The community gains labor force needed for project throughout the community. According to Thomas (2008), the criminal activity done by the offender should be addressed and wherever possible restore victims in some tangible way and offer opportunities for offenders (Thomas, 2008). Community service programs are supported by non-profit organizations that have developed partnerships with the department of

In the United States, each day approximately 1,600 adults are released from state and federal penitentiaries to reintegrate back into the community (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013). Reentry programs have been created all over the nation to help offenders successfully transition from prison into society. Offenders are confronted with numerous obstacles when attempting to reintegrate back into society. Ninety-five percent of offenders are released to reintegrate back into the community (Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2013). Upon release, ex-offenders realize that despite the fact that they are no longer incarcerated, they face many restrictions. The restorative justice development rose to address the disappointment of the criminal justice framework to manage victims, offenders, and communities in an integrated way. A core focus of this development has been to expand the role of the community in advocating changes that will avert the issues and conditions related with crime and the demand for a criminal justice intervention (Hass & Saxon, 2012).

Among nearly 100,000 youth under age 18 released from U.S. prisons each year, the majority “are not provided with the critical assistance necessary for successful transition back to their communities, schools, homes, and peer groups” (Youth Reentry, 2012, p. 1). Instead, these youths return to neighborhoods that tend to lack the support programs necessary to ensure a positive transition back into mainstream society. Disturbingly, these youths frequently return to neighborhoods with high crime

Once a month, year round, I am a panelist on the Ashland County Teen Court.Teen Court is a system of restorative justice set up for and run by youth in the community. The program is offered as an alternative to juvenile court, and gives them an opportunity to take responsibility for their own actions with community based sanctions given by their peers. I applied for and became a member of the panel roughly three years ago, and since then have witnessed the immense impact it can have on the youth who participate. Many of the kids who attend teen court are first time offenders that have made a poor choice and with hopes of a second chance; a chance to start over. This put me and the other panelists in a position of great responsibility as we

Rehabilitation and reintegration to guarantee that youth who have committed an offense get the treatment and

Not only this but, “offenders who commit new offenses after court contact are at risk for a variety of poor developmental and life course outcomes, including school failure, out of home placements, occupational marginality, and long-term involvement in criminal activity” (Schwalbe 2004). As seen here, this is a downward spiral. Active reform has never before been at such a demand. As recidivism and juvenile delinquency continues to increase, not only will national crime rates and juvenile prison populations inflate, but the diminishing of an educated, safe, and economically stable society will also be affected regrettably. If juveniles whom continue to commit repeat criminal offenses lack school initiative, family support, and job exposure, than relatively as recidivism and juvenile criminal activity increases, our nation’s standard of living will consequently lower.

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.

Probation and parole each require funding in order to operate correctly, but the government has placed focus in other areas of interest, leaving community corrections with little funding to operate. Probation and parole are each positive alternatives to locking offenders in jails or prisons, they are also cost effective alternatives. Probation and parole, while they have lower than ideal success rates, have much higher success rates than prisons or jails, where the recidivism rate dominates incarceration. With community corrections providing such positive alternatives for the government, it is obtuse that the government does not provide much support for community

Yet, decades of this and the pain of the crime still fester while the offender spends time in an institution focused on punishment rather than educating and restoring the sense of self-responsibility, community, and selfless compassion. Restorative justice focusses on just those progressive attributes by bringing each of the stake holders—victim, offender, and community—of these criminal acts and, subsequent, responses into the circle of education and restoration in order to heal as much as can be healed and to bring a sense of resolution to