Indeterminate Sentencing Model

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)

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.

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

Reduced health care coverage for substance abuse treatment has resulted in a diminished number of these programs, and the average length of stay under managed care review is much shorter than in early programs. Often, drug/alcohol abusers come into contact with the criminal justice system earlier than other health or social systems, and intervention by the criminal justice system to engage the individual in treatment may help interrupt and shorten a career of drug use. Treatment for the criminal justice-involved drug abuser or drug addict may be delivered prior to, during, after, or in lieu of incarceration.

Sentencing in the judicial system forced a sentencing for a definite term indicating a fixed time sentencing, which gave the defendant a fixed number of years to serve (Siegel, L. 2014). For example, the sentencing could be up to 20 years for robbery or a repeat offender could serve a 15 year term or a robbery with less violations might receive as little as 5 years (Siegel, L. 2014). Determinate sentencing actually reduced imprisonment (Siegel, L. and Bartollas, C. 2014).

The truth-in-sentencing law eliminates or restricts inmates from being eligible for parole and receiving good-time credits (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). Through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the United States’ Congress authorized funding to build more jails and state prisons (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). In 1998 twenty seven states, as well as, the District of Columbia received incentive grants for meeting the eligibility criteria for their Truth-in-Sentencing programs (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). The last three decades of sentencing reform includes: indeterminate sentencing, determinate sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and truth-in-sentencing (Ditton & Wilson, 1999).

However, there is often not any rehabilitation or trades offered to those arrested for drug use. Therefore, when these individuals are released from prison, often times they turn back to using or selling drugs. Simply imprisoning those arrested for drug crimes without attempting to provide opportunities for improvement once they are released is ineffective in winning the war against drugs. Instead the cycle of drug crime to imprisonment begins again. While resourcing is limited for rehabilitation for offenders, there have been some efforts put in place to help alleviate the increase in drug sells and usage around the country, such as the increase in funding, education and

We have recently seen a change in the way that drug abuse and addiction are viewed. Considering addiction to be a chronic and relapsing disease is a new concept for the public, policymakers, and even health care professionals (Leshner 46). With this in mind, we can recognize that corrections without the benefit of treatment will fall short in correcting drug-seeking and addictive behaviors (Leshner 46). These, of course, are also the behaviors that most often cause an individual to return to crimes that promote their drug use upon leaving jail or prison (Leshner

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

Those incarcerated today are not given the chance to change their behavior patterns, especially when it is in regard to drug addiction. The criminal justice system in general does not consider drug abuse as anything but a crime and does not think about treating the disease of addiction in order to reduce or eliminate the crimes that come as a

One of the most profound problems that plagues our society is drug addiction. With drug addiction comes those who offend and have run-ins with the law. Our country deals with these drug-addicted offenders by placing them in jails for a year or longer, only to have them come back out to society when their sentence is over. They are still drug-addicts and so they return to the street only to commit yet another crime. From here the cycle of crime, arrest, jail, and return to society continues, solving absolutely nothing. Therefore, placing drug-addicted offenders in jails fails to confront the major problem at hand which is that of the drug abuse. If drug-addicted offenders were placed in drug treatment centers instead of being incarcerated,

Due to all the failures throughout history in corrections, there are several changes that have been made since the initial developments of reform. Humans need to be punished in order to understand wrongdoing, therefore the corrections system will need to change not only to modern society, but also to the populations to avoid overcrowding. Americans should transition to more probations and community corrections programs, but eligibility for the new lenient methods of correction should only be available to non violent or first time offenders. As society continues changing, the way the corrections system functions needs to change as well in the way it attempts to reform offenders. From experience in the police officer side of the system, its been observed that different offenders respond differently to different approaches or explanations of punishment.

As Americans, we are very proud of our freedom. Ironically, the “land of the free” has more people imprisoned in proportion to its population than any other developed country in the world. There are over 2 million prisoners throughout the United States, and approximately 750,000 of them will be released within the year. With the current methods in place in the prison system, most offenders will likely fall back into the same way of life that originally landed them in jail. In fact, roughly two-thirds of prisoners being released today will end up back in prison within the next three years (Petersilia). This not only affects the families and lives of those serving behind bars, but it also directly affects the lives of everyone in society. In addition to the obvious public safety concerns that arise from having repeat offenders amongst the general population, there is also an economic burden placed on society by these individuals. Clearly, we are in dire need of an effective method to rectify the habits and mentalities of these inmates. Rehabilitation programs should be implemented for prisoners being released back into the community. In addition to providing a more cost-effective alternative to incarceration, these programs could potentially transform offenders into responsible, productive members of society.

Criminal punishment focuses on four different purposes, which are “incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation” (Rome, 2013, p. 269). The concept of incapacitation is the idea that criminal offenders are kept from further committing criminal acts while securely kept in jail/prison. Deterrence is based off of the idea that by others in society seeing criminals punished and put in prison for committing crimes, the chances of others committing crimes are decreased. Retribution is the idea that society will be satisfied by the fact criminals are punished by being locked in prison. Finally, rehabilitation focuses on re socializing criminals to become productive members of society. Though criticisms have been made towards the use of rehabilitation, evidence based research suggests that new rehabilitative strategies can reduce recidivism. New rehabilitative strategies include intensive therapeutic interventions that “provide rewards for pro-social behavior, and match the abilities and learning styles of the offender” (Rome, 2013, p. 269).