Incapacitation Offenders: A Case Study

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)

Australian society has ultimately rejected the idea of the practice of capital punishment making a return into the Australian law books. However, events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the Bali bombings have ensured that the spotlight once again shines on the controversial subject. I am in favour of the practice returning to Australia for heinous crimes such as murder, child molestation, serial rapists, and people who commit acts of animal cruelty. This is because:

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.

After abolition of capital punishment in Australia, the imprisonment is considered as severe penalty. Life imprisonment is imposed mostly in cases of murders after considering the severity and circumstances of crime. Prisoners are to serve long period of their lives in jail with no hope or less hope to be released. The term life imprisonment changes jurisdiction to jurisdiction or state to state, as it can be sentence until death, twenty years or indeterminate period. The uncertainty here becomes more cruel. A few dies in prison committing suicide or natural death in prisons due to stressful and unnatural environment of prison. A long term isolation also changes attitude and behaviour in such a way that these prisoners become incapable to survive in normal society. Offenders who serve long time in prisons are also discriminated in our society whether in relation to social activities in community or employment matters. In Australia aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are victims of such discrimination and it can be the reason behind their growing population in Australian prisons. Thus life time sentencing has become an inhumane penalty and subject of important consideration at international level. Even harsh conditions results in higher rates of

This essay intends to address the role that state agencies, both within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and more broadly the institutions of education, employment and health, play in supporting and implementing diversionary programs for offenders with mental health problems. Mental health is clearly one of the most critical issues facing the Australian and New South Wales (NSW) CJS with research indicating that offenders with mental health problems constitute the majority of those within the prison system. The current strategies for diversion will be critically evaluated in order to determine their effectiveness with regard to the delivery and production of justice, cultural sensitivity for Indigenous Australians will also be considered.

REFERENCESAustralian Law Reform Commission (1980), Sentencing of Federal Offenders, Discussion Paper No. 15Law Reform Commission NSW (2001), Discussion Paper 33(1996)-Sentencing, (Chapter 7. Parole), Lawlink New South Wales, Online. Available. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP7 3.4.2006No Author (2006), Sensible Sentencing NZ Justice: Why Parole?, Safe NZ, Online. Available. http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/paole.htm 3.4.2006Travis, L.F. (1995). Introduction to criminal justice (pp307

The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that

The evaluation was looking at three components of re-offending to see if circle sentencing was effective. Firstly, if circle sentencing reduced the frequency of offending. Secondly, did participation in circle sentencing increase the time to the next proven prison offence and lastly, did circle sentencing reduce the seriousness of any further offending (Circle Sentencing). Fitzgerald used a quantitative method of study for this evaluation. Attending to the first component, Fitzgerald examined 68 offenders from circle sentencing, 40 from Dubbo, 24 from Nowra and 4 from Brewarrina. Fitzgerald also used a control group of offenders from local courts outside of Sydney (Circle sentencing). In addressing the second and third components, Fitzgerald examined 153 offenders from circle sentencing, 12 from Armidale, 10 from Bourke, 11 from Brewarrina, 63 from Dubbo, 14 from Kempsy, 15 from Lismore, 2 from Mt Druitt and 26 from Nowra (Circle sentencing). 21,324 indigenous offenders sentenced outside of Sydney between 2002 and 2007 were used as the control group. Overall, Fitzgerald reached the conclusion that circle sentencing had no impact on the frequency, seriousness or timing of offending (Circle sentencing, 30). However, this should be interpreted with caution. The results from this evaluation have the potential to be skewed as over fifty per cent of circle courts analysed were from Nowra and Dubbo. Fitzgerald also assumed the profile of communities, the kind of offence or offenders, the overall appropriateness of Aboriginal elders, project officers and resources available in each community were the same (Circle sentencing). Instead, nothing points to this being true. The CIRCA found each of these factors have the potential to impact the effectiveness of circle sentencing (circle sentencing, 31). Fitzgerald also noted “it should not be concluded that circle sentencing has no value simply

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians account for fewer then 3 per cent of Australia’s population, but a staggering 27 per cent of the adult prison population, and approximately 50 percent of juveniles in detention. It is argued that there is a large bias in our criminal justice system, more imposed to refuse bail and to enforce more and longer prison terms for Aboriginal offenders in contrast to non-aboriginal Australians.

Resettlement has been an important element in prison life throughout England and Wales for many years. It is when “prisoners and their families receive assistance and support from the prison and probation services and voluntary agencies to help them prepare for life after prison” (Justice, 2002). The objective is to hopefully lead prisoners towards recidivism, which will hopefully return ex-offenders to normal life, employment and housing. Criminological and social research done by Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) identified the following factors to be what influenced reoffending. These are; education, employment, drug and alcohol misuse, mental and physical health, housing, financial support, debt and family networks. The aim of this essay is to discuss the impact that resettlement has in imprisonment today by looking at the factors within prison life and also looking at the effects that resettlement has on the prisoners.

The main objective of the criminal justice system is to control crime rate in Australia and broader consensus proves that it should remain as a dominating feature in administration of criminal justice. Decrease in crime rate can be achieve by the effective means of reacting to the call for help or service, collection of evidence from the crime scene and arresting if necessary. The system also helps administration by serving the sentence enforced by the court. The criminal justice system also helps in identifying and eliminating the conditions that leads to criminality. The main strength of the criminal justice system is to do justice and consider the person innocent until the person is proven with the charges and declared guilty. This system

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

The current political agenda in regards to criminal justice policy in the modern conservative Canadian government is a “tough on crime” approach. This right-wing conservative view on the correctional system is very much similar to that of the United States in how justice should be served. This approach is a very detrimental form of justice, as it only focuses on punishment and has no consideration for utilitarian goals for society to create a greater good for the future. With this right wing conservative approach to corrections, the government appears to have a political agenda to move away from a rehabilitative approach to a more retributivist approach that exemplifies that of just deserts theory. With this type of philosophy, the government ignores the importance of rehabilitation and the impact it has for the future of offenders and society as a whole. This paper will discuss the importance of rehabilitation model in correctional policy and how it can improve the lives of offenders and increase public safety for the long-term. With rehabilitation, it is important to focus on practices and programming that are proven with empirical evidence to actually work and make a difference. It is evident with increasingly high rate of crime, high rates of recidivism, the California three strikes rule, and the “tough on crime” Republican Policy in

One aspect of rehabilitation is the use of individualised sentences - penalties aimed at the individual needs of the offender. This is in direct contrast to the concept of set sentences seen in the aim of retribution. One of the criticisms of this approach is, therefore, that it leads to inconsistency in sentencing. Incapacitation means that in some way the offender is made incapable of re-offending.

It can be argued that imprisonment has been widely found to have failed to achieve its stated goals. Rehabilitation as perceived within the prison context is a myth. The predominant objective of control has developed in such a manner as to exclude the successful operation of any rehabilitation process. In looking at the nature and operation of the New South Wales prison system, for example, one is confronted by a system preoccupied with notions of control and security. A very disturbing feature of the system is that the availability of such prison accommodation helps to define the nature of the offender rather than the offender being defined by the nature of his offence (Wilkinson, 1972).