Correctional Rehabilitation Programs

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

People were concerned with the fact that some offenders served significantly longer periods of time than others for the same crime. Community treatment programs were also criticized for not being able to do much about preventing future criminal activity while offenders were under supervision. Studies concluded that some strategies worked and other programs did not significantly reduce crime. The lack of confidence in correctional programming sparked a national debate about the efficacy of rehabilitation and influenced treatment offerings within all community-based programs. One positive outcome of this was the increased attention paid to the different types of offenders and situations in which certain treatment modalities will perform

By the lack of rehabilitation programs in the state and federal prison systems, the chances of convicts releasing and returning back to prison increases rapidly. The lack of rehabilitation is one of the most leading causes to an offenders relapse or to a new crime that will be committed within 3 years from the offender’s release. A rehabilitation program

It is thought that punishment prevents an individual from committing a future crime, or reoffending. Despite this belief, research examining the effects of incarceration and prison conditions has demonstrated

Thousands of people are residing in United States prisons and jails, and they go untreated. The very institutions which confines offenders, creates people with mental illness and drug addictions disorders. Crime needs varying interventions targeting problem-specific areas due to numerous factors.

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

There is a great debate throughout our country, and in individual states, over how long criminals should be incarcerated for various crimes. The relationship between the length of prison terms and recidivism is one of the central points of the debate in sentencing and corrections policy. Many people assert that longer prison terms are more effective at deterring future crimes because they set higher price for criminal behavior and because they hold offenders until they are more likely to “age out” of a criminal life style. However, others argue just the opposite and that is more time behind bars increases the chances that inmates will reoffend later because it breaks their supportive bonds in the community and hardens their associations with other criminals. According to Oliver (2011), both of these arguments are accurate because the strongest research finds that these two theories cancel each other out. Several studies, looking at different populations and using varied methodologies, have attempted to find a relationship between the length of prison terms and recidivism but have failed to find a consistent impact, either positive or negative. There is one thing for sure and that is incarceration and recidivism is a very active cycle which affects the lives of many

Also, we need data and additional detailed information on the participants who were not satisfied. As stated in the article, “What Works in Reducing Recidivism”, the “Treatment Principle”, states “the most effective programs are behavioral in nature” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, p523, University of St. Thomas Law Journal). The report provided by staff does not clearly identify how many participants in each program and which program had the lower success rate and least

Incarceration strives to isolate offenders from society but does not provide adequate therapy to change the mental states and behaviors of criminals. The recidivism rate, the rate of known and recorded relapse into criminal behavior after release from jail, proves that offenders need more than just isolation to change their behavior and eliminate their dangers to society. Communities need not only to provide help and pay attention to offenders with short sentences because of their earlier release than others. In California, an increase in parole grants in 2014 has resulted in 2,000 murderers, classified as the “highest Criminal History Category, VI,” returning to society with no therapy or assistance from reentry programs. 80% of offenders in the most serious criminal history category, the criminal group with the highest recidivism rate, relapsed and returned to prison within five years of release, and 60% of offenders returned to prison within three years of release (Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry, 2007; Sanchez, 2014; Sipes, 2017; St John, 2014). Overall, police officers arrest ex-offenders up to forty-five times more than they arrest members of the non-criminal population (Przybylski, 2012). Criminals need specialized psychological treatment to change their behaviors and make them safe to return to their communities. As recidivism becomes increasingly more problematic in today's society, criminal psychologists analyze the motives, incarceration experiences, and mental

The United States of America has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world (Tonry, 1999). The goal of this high rate of incarceration is to deter criminals from committing more crime upon release from prison. Longer sentences are thought to deter individuals from committing more crime. Yet, recent research has questioned whether this high rate of incarceration is actually increasing recidivism rather than decreasing it. This study sets out to determine whether there is a positive relationship between incarceration of criminals who engage in drug-related crimes and recidivism in the community. This analysis examines fifty-six male offenders aged 18-22 years-old. These individuals were convicted in Maricopa County, the largest metropolitan county in the state

Impact of Rehabilitation Programs and Incarceration for Juvenile Offenders Discussing the Importance of Rehabilitation Program

The search strategies for this study resulted in the collection seven evaluations of common barriers that are believed to affect community reintegration for inmates returning back to the community, and successful interventions, that successfully reduced or increased recidivism. An additional evaluation was excluded for several reasons, including that it did not have a comparable control group and failed to show results of the program evaluations, and actual quantitative results to support the claims of the study. Additional studies were excluded for Inclusion if the studies were conducted outside of the United States, or were considered deterrence programs for first-time offenders, in lieu of prison time, in order to avoid false inferences

of the time. They offer their insight on effective corrections and individualizing treatments based on predictors for crime and behavioral knowledge, as well as conclude that recidivism is reduced by rehabilitation.

For instance, individuals with relatively higher likelihood of recidivism should be accorded the greatest treatment dosages and highly intensive intervention programs so as to minimize reoffending. Additionally, members of the society who’re believed to be somewhat susceptible to becoming victims of criminal behavior should be apportioned limited community resources. Lovins et.al (2007) assert that providing low-risk lawbreakers with high intensity correctional programs can result in greater probability of re-offending.

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.