Offender Recidivism Analysis

There are five distinct philosophies to the punishment of criminal offenders. The deterrence model is based on the belief that punishment or threat of punishment will prevent citizens, offenders or non-offenders, from committing or recommitting crimes (Fagin, 2016), 2016). A real-life example of the deterrence model would be corporal punishment. Because the children who witnessed the punishment would not want to commit the act, and the child receiving the punishment would not want to recommit their crime, it was believed to be an effective strategy in forming school children’s behavior (Fagin, 2016). The belief that criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and it would never be safe to release them back into the community falls under the incapacitation philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016). The most common type of incapacitation is imprisonment. When offenders are imprisoned, they are unable to commit new crimes, and will no longer pose a threat to their communities. Rehabilitation on the other hand, is the belief that criminals can be cured of their criminality, and can be released back into the community (Fagin, 2016). Counseling, educational programs, and work skill programs are all different real-world examples of the rehabilitation model (Fagin, 2016). The aim of these programs is to help offenders get better and become a productive member of society. The idea of punishing criminals because they deserve to be punished fits into the retribution philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016), 194). An example of this philosophy today would be

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

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

But prison without rehabilitation fails. When nonviolent inmates are mixed with violent inmates instead of being enrolled into a rehabilitation program they learn new and better ways to commit crimes and make connections that get them deeply involved in the criminal world. This increases the chances of recidivism. To rehabilitate prisoners, educational and work programs should be reintroduces .Most prisoners who suffer from post release recidivism are illiterates and have no skills that are beneficial to society, so they turn back to the life they have always known, the life of crime. But when an inmate goes into a rehabilitation program, it offers them encouragement and support to help them take control of their lives and to take responsibilities for their criminal behavior, change life-long patterns of violence and addiction, and build productive lives. Less than 22% of prisoners that go into rehabilitation programs are recidivism. An example of a rehabilitation program that works is the Bard prison initiative. It creates opportunities for incarcerated men and women to earn a college degree while serving their sentence. Less than 4 % of inmates who are engaged in the bard prison initiative end up back in

These programs serve to try deterring people from using violence by creating a form of punishment to make it so individuals will not choose the same behavior. This form of punishment does not work and as explained by David can cause people to become more violent through incarceration. Rehabilitation programs attempt to teach a violent offender new skills to avoid using violence in the future, and as exhibited by David the furthering of education while in the correctional system helped make him a person that did not resort to the same type of behaviors that had led to his incarceration. Community re-integration programs are beneficial to offenders being prepared for release, this helps them prepare for the end of their sentence and gives the offender a chance to establish some aftercare programs instead of just getting released with no services which would almost certainly lead to

In conclusion, RNR model usually brings to the fore its principles, that is risk policy, need principle and the active principle. Risk policy matches the program intensity versus the risk level there is minimal intervention to low –risk offenders and intensive levels advanced to high-risk offenders. Need policy, on the other hand, aims at the criminogenic needs. These offenders are functionally interrelated to the criminal behavior. Responsively principle tries to match intervention mode style of the offender to their learning styles and abilities (Rothman, 1980).

Taxman, F. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013). Simulation Strategies to Reduce Recidivism Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) Modeling for the Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: Springer New York.

The criminal justice system has various programs in place to better control the deviants that commit our societies crimes. However according to Przybylski (2008) prisons do not reduce the rate of recidivism and even said that longer imprisonments resulted in an increase of recidivism rates. This means that one of the practices of the justice system is not doing much in preventing crimes, especially from those who already committed crimes. This is to say that there should be another alternative to controlling crime. According to the Transforming Rehabilitation, paper (2013), there is a decent amount of evidence that supports the effects of using cognitive skills programs on criminals reduce recidivism. Are prisons still a viable option when

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.

In terms of future implications regarding the process of probation, parole, and prisoner re-entry, is that we are heading into the right direction in treating offenders rather than locking them up with no change in intervention. According to Gideon and Sung (2011), the Triple R model of rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration helped guide prison systems into finding solutions to reduce recidivism among offenders (pg. 402). Currently, while this model has shown evidence of successful treatment, there are many problems that have still yet to be fixed.

Rehabilitation will greatly help the criminal offenders in improving themselves. But there are still some exconvict commits crime after release, it’s because they are still influenced by others. According to Newbold 2003(as cited in Johnson,2008) “convectional strategies have yet to prove their effectiveness

Before I did this research project, I believed that rehabilitation was an important factor in determining whether someone coming out of prison would be a better person. The results from my survey showed that rehabilitation did not work for my most of my participants. Rehabilitation programs are meant to prevent recidivism, but the first part of the process of rehabilitation is for the inmate to admit that he or she has done something wrong. The programs are meant to help convicts identify and avoid wrong behaviors. I would like to expand this study to consider the availability of rehabilitation programs to inmates, as I believe, based on the results of this survey, that such programs should be mandatory to prevent reoffense. I believe this is the only way that someone who is being sentenced can go through rehabilitation programs. If they are forced to attend rehabilitation while they are in prison, then maybe they can turn their lives around. One part of the rehabilitation program could be that the offender would meet the victim, and by doing this, begin to understand what they have done wrong. This can be the start for them to realize what they have done and how they have impacted their victims. This can lead them toward rehabilitation. If my participants had met their victims while they were in prison, then maybe they would have changed their minds

With the highest incarcerated rate in the world, does the United States prison systems offer quality rehabilitation or just punishment? According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there was approximately 706 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or about 2.2 million prisoners in 2012 and within 3 years, almost 6 out of 10 released inmates will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. According to data from www.gpo.gov , the vast majority of prisoners are not rehabilitated. Two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of release from prison. Rates of recidivism rise to approximately 75%-85% of released prisoners are likely to be re-arrested within a decade of release. Successful rehabilitation is vital when releasing an inmate into the community as it produces a significant reduction in criminal recidivism. The purpose of incarceration is to protect the public and punish as well as rehabilitate the criminal. It is designed to change an inmate's view of life and alter their future behavior when re-entering society. Prisons offer education, labor, and other rehabilitation sources to inmates, so why is the recidivism rate so high with these programs in place?

The process of measuring recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections policies, because different people look at recidivism in different ways. Accuracy in these types of measures cannot be totally accurate, as not all violations are reported because some are more lenient than others are, as far as how or what they report. There has not been a “universally accepted measure of recidivism” (Israel & Chui, 2006, p.184) and because of the uncertainty of the ways measures are taken, policy changes should not be based off of that data as it would not be effective in its usage. While most research findings are similar, and normally lead to the same conclusions “the magnitude of the comparative findings differ” (Maxfield, 2005,

Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in