Classification Systems For Offenders Essay

In the United States of America there are currently two prison systems in place; the Federal prison system, and the State prison system. Every state in the U.S. has its own Department of Corrections, which is tasked with handling crimes committed at the state level (Allen, 2017). The state where the crime occurred has jurisdiction over the individual that committed the crime. An individual, whom has committed a crime within a state’s jurisdiction that results in a long sentence, is sent to the state prison system in that particular state (Allen, 2017). A long sentence encompasses a period of time which exceeds a year, and a day; which is the length of time given to an individual convicted of a felony crime. An individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime which is accompanied by a sentencing length of less than a year, will serve their respective sentence in a jail. Once the individual has received their sentence, they will go through an initial classification process (Allen, Latessa, and Ponder, 2013). The purpose of the initial classification process is to identify the individual’s custody level, work assignment, and treatment. The initial classification process will differentiate between those individuals that present different security risks, and supervision concerns. Factors such as the individual’s current offense, escape potential and prior criminal history are factored in during the initial classification. Also, an individual’s background attributes, such as mental

Prior record(s) have a huge impact on the decisions to sentence and the duration of time served. The conclusions in the Criminal Behavior and Mental Health article showed, “There is a distinct advantage when attempting to predict recidivism to employing measures such as the LSI-R, which includes dynamic variables and intervention related criminogenic domains, over a measure purely of fixed characteristics, such as the GSIR; however, if there is discordance between the risk estimates, caution should be exercised and more reliance on the more static historically based instrument may be indicated.” (MILLS & KRONER, P. 155) Meaning that prior records cannot change, they are a static dynamic and will be looked with more emphasis than the risk assessment when determining to release the offender.

Consider an example, if an offender is originally classified at higher levels of security, the process of reintegration should be reflected in successive reductions in security until release of this offender into the community. Likewise, reclassification and prompt transfer of an offender to the “least restrictive” level of imprisonment improves the likelihood of that offender being considered favourably for discretionary release. Based on the research it was concluded that that there is a strong association between security level placement and discretionary release, even when controlling for

The number of women incarcerated is growing at a rapid pace. This calls for a reevaluation of our correction institutions to deal with women’s involvement in crime. Increasing numbers of arrests for property crime and public order offenses are outpacing that of men. The “War on Drugs” has a big influence on why our prisons have become overcrowded in the last 25 years. Women are impacted more than ever because they are being convicted equally for drug and other offenses. Female criminal behavior has always been identified as minor compared to Male’s criminal behavior. Over the years women have made up only small part of the offender populations. There is still only a small

Since 2003, the National Probation Service (NPS) has incorporated the Offender Assessment Systems (OASys), (Bracken, 2010). OASys is a standardised, evidence based instrument used to measure the likelihood of recidivism and ROSH. Consideration is also given, to the circumstances of the offence, the type and vulnerability of the victim and the criminogenic needs associated with offending (NOMS, 2010). Robust risk assessments are a mandatory aspects of professional practice (Kemshall, 2007) however, there are no set guidelines which determine criminality (Howard, 2000). ROSH needs to be assessed individually, as no one static, dynamic or acute risk factor is ever indicative of a specific offending behaviours (Powis, 2002). There has been some

An Offender Manager’s (OM) role identified by Goldhill & Skinner, 2013, is to build a rapport, understand an offender’s pathway to offending, undertake a risk assessment that addresses the risk of reoffending, the risk of harm that they pose, and to devise a plan for supporting them out of offending. In order to manage the risk in both cases, I have used the risk assessment tools Offender Assessment System (OASys) and the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) to determine that both the offenders which I will be referring to pose a medium risk of reoffending. OASys was introduced in the Probation Service in

Worksheets, such as the Missouri and Washington Risk Assessments are valuable tools used by criminal justice practitioners. Moreover, Risk Assessment scales are used in both formal and informal capacities, to determine the potential risk or harm an individual poses to society should he or she be released from detention or custody. The following is an example of how the Missouri and Washington Risk Assessment worksheets can be utilized when applied in two completely different cases; it is important to remember that the primary purpose of both Risk Assessment Scales are to identify specific classifications of juvenile offenders. Offenders are classified on a scale of being low, moderate, or at high-risk behavior and each assessment places

The available empirical evidence suggests that intensive supervision programs have not reduced the rates of re-offending (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). This is partly due to the fact that these programs often target low-risk offenders, contrary to the research which suggests that high-risk offenders are most likely to benefit from intensive institutional and community-based correctional interventions (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005). I would like to note that although this may sound contradicting to what I have written prior about high-risk offenders, the program I am working with in Yorkton is geared towards high-risk offenders and that the research that I have found claims it is not. Even though there is research that suggests this, since I have started in the program, I have seen some major transformation with individuals. I did, however, find some evidence that this program has been effective. A 1998 report found considerable evidence to support the premise that a period of supervised transition from prison to the community enhances public safety and the rehabilitation of offenders. In particular, the process of selection for parole based on the assessment of risk to re-offend and

After controlling for pre-Realignment and post-Realignment release differences, Bird and Grattet (2016) found that that bookings rose by 2.6%, which indicates that different recidivism measures yield very different outcomes. Further examination found that felony arrests (4.7%) and felony convictions (1.9%) significantly increased for Post-Release Community Supervision offenders succeeding Realignment, which indicate a moderate recidivism increase. The researchers concluded that “offenders whose supervision shifted from state parole to county probation under Realignment were substantially more likely to be rearrested and reconvicted for serious crimes than their pre-Realignment counterparts” (Bird & Grattet, 2016, p. 188). However, they advised precaution and consideration when interpreting findings since the state and county systems’ operations, such as arrests and bookings, differ and different recidivism measures can potentially affect the interpretation of Realignment results as more, less, or not

Barbaree looked at 224 sex offenders. Of those men, 33 committed a new offense of some kind for a general recidivism rate of 14.7 percent. Even more interesting was the study did not support the idea that good treatment behavior, as in positive or appropriate behavior in group sessions, good homework assignments, and positive ratings of motivation, could be associated with a less of a chance for recidivism. They gave two possible reasons for this finding. Sex offenders, by the very nature of their criminal behavior, are masters of manipulation and exploitation. These individuals can exhibit behavior that contributes to favorable assessments. The second possible reason is these skills are learned, or enhanced, in the treatment setting. Data from a program

“The Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) defines recidivism as a return to incarceration within three years of the offender’s date of release from a state correctional institution.” (Schelle, 2012) The 2011 recidivism rate for all juvenile offenders was 36.7%. The recidivism rate for African American juvenile offenders was 43.8%. Eighty-two percent of the juveniles who recidivated did so with a new crime, and the other 18% returned because of technical violations. “Of all juveniles released in 2008, 40.9% of males returned to IDOC, while only 15.8% of females returned,” (Schelle, 2012). Surprisingly, juvenile sex offenders had the lowest recidivism rate at 13.6%. (Schelle, 2012)

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.

Recidivism is the result of a former prisoner relapsing into criminal activity and returning to prison for a new offense. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of

subjected to the juvenile justice system, but an alarming number of youths are transferred to

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.