Rehabilitation Vs Rehabilitation

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

The revolving door on American prisons is as bad for the communities across the nation as it is for the people being cycled through the system. In “Offender Reentry”, David Allender, delves into how recidivism affects both the criminals and the community. Americans are starting to realize that the current prison system is not designed to reform, only to punish criminals. Because of this many ex-convicts are released from sentencing and allowed back into the real world without the necessary social skills to properly reintegrate. The problem became obvous with sex offenders, followed by minor drug crime. Allender points out that “The limited funding for treatment programs, which occurs because no one can prove that criminal activity did not happen

America sends more of its citizens to prison than any other country in the world. The United States, though only five percent of the world’s population, incarcerate 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the incarcerated. About 6,937,600 offenders were under the supervision of adult correctional systems at year end 2012. Around two-thirds of the prison population which is released annually (637,400) will recidivate within the first three years of release (Glaze, 2013). The prisoner re-entry programs that are currently in place are clearly ineffective and insufficient. A reallocation of the budget is the first step towards fixing our re-entry programs. Once the budget is under control, the government needs to have a complete overhaul of system. There are many prisoner re-entry programs that have shown promise which means there is already a blueprint to success available.

In considering the effectiveness of prisons as total institutions, it is critical to examine the degree to which they successfully rehabilitate those who spend time within their walls. While prisons most certainly protect citizens from the most dangerous members of society, notably murderers, rapists and other individuals who present a threat to the public, they tend to fail abysmally in terms of reforming criminals who are imprisoned for lesser offenses. With the success of prisons measured in terms of the rates of recidivism versus rehabilitation that they succeed in bringing about, America’s prisons currently create a context in which approximately 50% of those who are sentenced to prison will commit another crime, and re-enter the prison, upon their release. Moreover, the current prison system is tinted by racial and economic bias, especially since the advent of the “War on Drugs,” because of the fact that poor minority group members are disproportionately represented in the context of this high recidivism. Finally, a significant degree of moral hazard is present in the contemporary prison system inasmuch as ongoing dynamics of prison privatization are encouraging the incarceration of larger numbers of

Lurigio and Olson (2014) noted prison-based treatment starts the recovery process, but a continuum of care is a necessity to maximize the effectiveness of treatment. Their research found offenders who participated in prison-based treatment and community aftercare were less likely to re-offend compared to those who only participated in prison-based treatment. Hall et al. (2012) found higher success rates among offenders who participated in prison-based treatment and continued to engage in treatment once released from custody. A lack of education is another factor that plays in the role of recidivism. Dirks-Linhorst et al. (2012) highlighted the importance of community aftercare and the role of education because those who lacked a high-school diploma or GED were more likely to re-offend. Many offenders have poor work histories and Dickson, Leukefeld, Stanton-Tindall, Webster, and Wilson (2014) noted employment is a critical key to the continued success of an offender and their treatment. Dickson (2014) suggest offenders who obtain employment once released from custody will be more successful in the reentry process.

The United States criminal justice system has failed to rehabilitate criminals. Even after being punished for their crimes, convicts continue their wrongdoings without having gained valuable lessons from being incarcerated and are sent back to prison. Jails are supposed to aid those imprisoned by helping them gain skills that will reduce future occurrences and enable them to act morally in society. Punishing criminals is not as productive as it is thought to be, shown by the increased incarceration rate from 250,000 in 1976 to almost 2 million by 2003 (Lynch 26, 49). Instead of learning how to work towards managing their problems, prisoners are expected to learn from their mistakes by being

Since 2002, The United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world, and many of those imprisoned within the U.S. will be released and rearrested within three years (Langan & Levin, 2002). Unfortunately, research has been mixed shown that the time spent in prison does not successfully rehabilitate most inmates, and the majority of criminals return to a life of crime almost immediately. Most experts believe that many prisoners will learn more and better ways to commit crimes while they are locked up with fellow convicts. There is a combination of programs and environmental conditions that impact the recidivism rates. The majority of prisons exist to protect the public and punish the offender (French & Gendreau, 2006; Langan &

The United States prison population has expanded at an increasingly rapid rate over that past several decades. Each day, more and more criminal offenders are sent to prisons; most of which were designed to house fewer inmates but are now packed to their limits. This “mass- incarceration era” as many scholars and commentators of the Criminal Justice System call it, is a result of several key issues that have created an environment within the correctional system that forces many inmates to serve longer prison sentences while increasing recidivism rates. Current federal and state sentencing policies have resulted in historically high rates of offender recidivism and the highest incarceration rates in the world (Warren, 2007). As a result, prison population and overcrowding has rapidly increased and has become a serious issue across the country however, a reform in sentencing policies, more early-release incentives, and reintegration back into society through rehabilitation will help reduce recidivism and prevent the continuing rise of prison populations. (change once paper is complete)

A 2007 report on recidivism released by the US Department of Justice found that strict incarceration actually increases offender recidivism, while facilities that incorporate “cognitive-behavioral programs rooted in social learning theory” are the most effective at keeping ex-cons out of jail. (Sterbenz, 2014

In assignment one, I stated that substance abuse disorders can cause barriers for ex-prisoners reentering back into the community because research shows that “individuals who are released from prison are more likely to encounter difficulties with substance abuse, as 73.6% individuals in the criminal justice system have drug and alcohol involved with their criminal behavior. “Researchers found that 80% of individuals incarcerated in state prison have serious substance abuse problems. Substance abuse has a significant role in recidivism upon release from prison and desire to use substances or craving of substance was the most common barrier to reentry” (Phillips and Spencer 127-128). In order to decrease substance abuse in prison reentry and create defensible solutions for ex-offenders, the criminal justice must create incarceration-based therapeutic programs for adults that will use an in-depth drug treatment program model for treating ex-offenders who are addicted to drugs, and change the ex-offender’s attitude, perception, and behavior linked to substance abuse. The program will aim to stop the ex-offender from using drugs and create will power inside the ex-offender not to back track into a life of drug

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.