Rehabilitation Programs vs. Incarceration

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)

The criminal justice system has a branch for juvenile offenders. Established in the early twentieth century; it is the responsibility of this division to decide the fates of youthful offenders. This is administered by family court with support of social workers and family. With the increased number of youthful, violent offenders, many are being processed and sentenced as adults. Important issues such as culpability, severity of the crime, accountability, constitutional rights of the offenders and victims, and probability of rehabilitation,

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.

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

The purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

According to (Juvenile Offender) young people today are more malleable and can be easily influenced. It is mainly believed that the criminal actions by young offenders might be influenced by such external forces such as parental neglect, and inappropriate living conditions or with relations within their family. It is important to note that instead of seeing a rehab program as a form of punishment. Young people who are undergoing such a program should understand they are voluntary and should consider the program as a positive opportunity to change their lives for the better.

The definition of rehabilitation according to professor Mona Lynch, is “any discourse or practices that speak transforming or normalizing the criminal into a socially defined non-deviant citizen, including psychological programs, drug treatment programs, educational and work-training programs, work and housing placement assistance, and halfway houses.” This definition of rehabilitation is unique because it focuses on outcomes, encompasses an array of inmate services, and is more multidimensional than any of the preceding works. I believe that prisoners should be treated with exactly the same degree of respect and kindness as we would hope they would show to others after they return to society. People learn by example. The Timelist program showed that offenders hearing from ex-offenders who are on the outside and are doing well is very powerful. These rehabilitation programs; The Timelist, Edovo, and the GreenHouse Program all provide evidence to support the Prison Rehabilitation Act of 1965, which devoted full attention exclusively to the crime problem in the U.S. and the high numbers of population in our prisons, by providing more flexible rehabilitation programs. It would be beneficial to every man, women, and child in America, if we were to continue providing resources for existing rehabilitation

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Lee Tergeson, actor from the television show OZ said, “I know what it is like to be ignored, and I think that is the big problem about the prison system: These people are being thrown away. There is no sense of rehabilitation. In some places, they are trying to do things. But, in most cases, it is a holding cell.” (Tergeson, 2002) He speaks the truth.

Society holds expectations for its citizens, and non-citizens at a very high level. They expect everyone to abide by the law, and give back to the community. In a perfect world all citizens and non-citizens would be good Samaritans, sadly it is far from that in today’s society. Many individuals are deviant and stray from society’s expectations of them. We know them as criminals. Indeed some of them may be hardened criminals, yet some of them commit petty crimes that are still a burden on society. Whether, their crime is petty or severe, society expects them to pay for their actions. Most criminals at one time or another will spend time in prison or jail.

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

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?

With regard to juvenile offenders, what should the overall goal of imprisonment be? For adult offenders, prison has always been, in this country, a matter of protecting society and deterring potential offenders; however, juvenile offenders present the greatest opportunity for rehabilitation. It seems plausible for the justice system to pursue education and cognitive restructuring for these offenders. Young offenders, particularly adolescents, may engage in “reckless behaviors,” but they “may be caused, in part, by age-related physicological changes in brain development” (Hansen). Strangers and peers, especially those within the school system or neighborhood, seem to have the greatest impact on the developing mind. Perhaps the best example of society perpetuating delinquency is the crack epidemic of the late-1980s to mid 1990s. Levitt and Murphy, researchers from the University of Chicago, studied the effects of crack cocaine on society and found that “most social ills resulting from the crack epidemic were caused by drug gangs fighting for territory and killing each other, not from the ill effects of the drug, as lawmakers had long claimed” (Kingsbury). Adolescents, growing up in