Recidivism In Corrections

The United States prison system is considered today to be one of the most flawed and corrupt systems of the modern world. Given this fact, it is unsurprising that one of the most talked about issues in the US today is prison reform. Prison reform is a phrase which refers to the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, establishing a more effective penal system, or implementing alternatives to incarceration. The US has spent the past twenty years gradually working to improve its prisons, and even recently strives to better the federal and state prison system as a whole. One of the main goals of prison reform is reducing recidivism, which is the chance of an incarcerated person re-offending. One of the main ways to do this is to give inmates ways to spend their time that will better them and prepare them to re-enter society as a fully productive, rehabilitated citizen. This facet of prison reform is the basis for the Prison Reform and Redemption Act of 2017. This bill, which was to be reviewed on Wednesday, April 25 but is

We can date the United States criminal justice policies all the way back to the 17th Century. Although it is nothing compared to what we have today, there have been improvements along the way. One of the major reform needed in our corrections system are the war on drugs and overcrowded prison. The history of corrections in the U.S. has been seen through four major eras known as the Penitentiary, Reformatory, Reintegration, and Retributive Era. Each era has tried to explore the best way to deal with people who have broken the law. Based on the ideas of each era, we’ll explore which reform needs to be implemented.

In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).

The United States of America is phrased by many, as being “the land of the free.” Yet, the Unites States currently has the highest per capita prison population than any other country. The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population and of that 5%, 25% of our overall nation’s population is currently incarcerated. A few factors that attribute to our high rates of incarceration include, sentencing laws: such as mandatory- minimum sentencing, lack of initial deterrence from crime, the war on drugs and the presence of recidivism. With our ever growing incarceration rates and the cost of housing individual offenders averaging $22,000 a criminal justice agenda. Recidivism refers to a person 's relapse into criminal behavior resulting in rearrests, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner 's release (National Institute of Justice.) Many programs have been implemented in our prison system to help reduce the recidivism rates. Programs such as educational/ vocational programming, reentry programs, substance abuse programs and subsidized employment are among many programs in which have been proven effective. Yet, due to costs deficits, the clock is ticking to find evidence based programs to invest in. So, the question currently being sought after is, which method is most effective in reducing recidivism rates?

The proliferation of prison overcrowding has been a rising concern for the U.S. The growing prison population poses considerable health and safety risks to prison staffs and employees, as well as to inmates themselves. The risks will continue to increase if no immediate actions are taken. Whereas fighting proliferation is fundamentally the duty of the U.S. government, prison overcrowding has exposed that the U.S. government will need to take measures to combat the flaws in the prison and criminal justice system. Restructuring the government to combat the danger of prison overcrowding, specifically in California, thus requires reforms that reestablishes the penal codes, increases the state’s budget, and develops

Today, more than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in either a state facility, federal correctional facility or a local installation (Batey,2002). Due to longer sentences, incorporating harsh sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum punishments (NeSmith,2015). With each inmate costing taxpayers an average of $30,000 annually. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were increased sentences for a broad range of offenses, as well as establishing federal penalties for most murders and a large number of other crimes already subject to state law (Batey,2002). In addition to reducing the discretion of state judicial systems; as well as 85 percent of sentence satisfaction and establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (NeSmith,2015). .

Corrections are an important part of the criminal justice system and they work in concert with law enforcement and the courts. Citizens in the United States expect criminals to be monitored, with some in secured facilities, so they will not fear of becoming continual victim of crime. To illustrate this expectation further, there are 2.5 million individuals on probation or parole and 1 million individuals in jails or prisons (Morris & Tonry, 2013, p. 370). However, does every individual confined in jails and prisons still need to be there or is there a better way to deal with certain special prison populations? Due to the large number of prisoners within the correctional system, certain special populations of inmates do not receive the rehabilitation or care needed to successfully reintegrate back into society. Additionally, these special populations create an undue burden on the correctional system in terms of financial costs associated with their confinement. There are changes that can be made to the criminal justice system to accommodate special populations of inmates. This paper will explore the alternative

In the 1970s and 1980s, a massive amount of inmates began fillin up the United States prison systems. This huge rate of growth in this short amount of time, has greatly contributed to the prison overcrowding that the United States faces today. In fact, the prisons are still filled to the seams. This enormous flood of inmates has made it practically impossible for prison officials to keep up with their facilities and supervise their inmates. One of the main reasons why many prisons have become overcrowded is because of states’ harsh criminal laws and parole practices (Cohen). “One in every 100 American adults is behind bars, the highest incarceration rate in the world” (Cohen). The amount of inmates in corrections systems, throughout the

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

Therefore, if we reduce the overcrowding rate, what are we going to do with all the criminals not headed to jail or prison? Well, that brings us to step four: realizing the benefits of the alternatives to incarceration. Because building prisons puts a terrible strain on most state’s budgets, taxpayers have been more willing to consider programs that might cost less- as long as they also control and punish crimes appropriately. Alternatives saves the taxpayers money along with strengthening families and communities by keeping them together and allowing criminals to contribute to the community like paying taxes and getting a job.(Alternatives, 2) 77% of adults believe alternatives are the best way to deal with non-violent and non-serious offenders. Alternative promote good behavior by advertising the possibility of “good-time credits” which allow prisoners to reduce their sentence with good behavior. (Overcrowding, 1) These types of benefits will surely make an impact on our society for the better.

Due to budget crises in states across the United States of America, state governments must cut funding to their punishment facilities causing overcrowding in prisons to increase every day. Overcrowded prisons pose a potential breeding ground for crime as hundreds of inmates are squeezed into small accommodations. Thousands of low-level offenders receive jail sentences each day, these criminals make up about a third of the inmates in the United States. In the words of Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of India, in the conservative National Review magazine, “We are imprisoning, in our most expensive spaces, more people for relatively minor, nonviolent offenses, like low-level property and drug violations. Some of our guests are not with the state corrections system long enough for any rehabilitation, substance-abuse counseling or job training to take place” (Katel). Evidently attention and change to this neglected criminal punishment system need to be addressed. This issue remains a troubling problem in our country, state governments offer the best possible solutions to prison overcrowding such as directing local officials to perform and improve prison construction, rethinking criminal law and responding to budgetary concerns.

never implemented as intended. Although the contours of the correctional system changed—the juvenile court, indeterminate sentencing, probation, parole, and discretion became integral features of this system—the resources and knowledge needed to provide effective treatment to offenders were in short supply. Cullen and Gendreau (2000).

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

Convicting, sentencing, and imprisoning are just the first few steps of reducing crime. All the effort, time, and money that go into keeping criminals locked up and off the streets are really for nothing in the end if he or she commits the same crime again after release. James Haley, who is the book editor of “Prisons” points out, “Every year, close to six hundred thousand inmates are released from state and federal prisons around the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, two-thirds of former convicts commit new crimes and one-half are re-incarcerated within three years of being released from prison” (138). Are US prisons truly effective when so many prisoners are committing new crimes upon release? It is for the better interests of American safety that some prisoners are locked up for life, but this should not include the constant return of re-offenders. The life of most convicts involves committing a crime and being sentenced to jail only to repeat the same process again. Many re-offenders see incarceration as a ticket to a place to sleep and food to eat.

The court system, the corrections system and law enforcement authorities have to work as partners to make this a reality. Time in jail is appropriate for violent offenders; however, less serious offenders who commit non-violent crimes are better served by community based corrections program such as parole and probation. Money needs to be redirected as an investment into public safety by allocating enough dollars for both the prison system and the community-based corrections system. Community-corrections is guided by the viewpoint that it is a partnership between social services and law enforcement (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009). The “1 in 31” report by The Pew Charitable Trust set up this framework for an effective corrections system in the 21st century: 1) sort offenders by risk to public safety, 2) base intervention programs on science, 3) harness technology, 4) impose swift and certain sanctions, 5) create incentives for success and, 6) measure progress. States that have implemented policies that reflect these guidelines include Arizona, Kansas, Hawaii, Florida and many