Rehabilitation and Recidivism

Restorative Justice will not make the basic prejudices on our society worse than what they are, however restorative justice should restore synchronization within the community or society as a whole through based on discussion of the offender’s underlying problems and not to reoffend against the victim in particular nor any member of society, and what charges the offender may face if he re-offends “Restorative justice is deliberative justice; it is about people deliberating over the consequences of crimes, and how to deal with them and prevent their recurrence” (Braithwaite, 1998, p. 438).

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)

While many conservatives oppose the rehabilitative measures restorative justice offers offenders and demand more prisons and penalties, advocates for restorative justice counter this demand with research. Restorative justice advocates call for restitution rather than retribution. According to promoters for restorative justice, imposing harsh penalties on offenders and lengthening prison sentences is futile. “Critical theorists argue that the ‘old methods’ of punishment are a failure and that upwards of two-thirds of all prison inmates recidivate soon after their release” (Siegel, 2008, p. 188). While conservatives want to build more prisons and lock away more offenders for longer terms, supporters of restorative justice believe that a more rehabilitative approach is beneficial for not only the offender, but also the community. “The offender is asked to recognize that he or she caused injury to personal and social relations along with a determination and acceptance of responsibility. Only then can the offender be restored as a productive member of society” (Siegel, 2008, p. 190). Placing an offender in prison for any amount of time is shown to be harmful to the offender, their victim, and society. “Rather than reduce recidivism, harsher punishments may increase the likelihood of reoffending” (Siegel, 2008, p. 86). A conservative asking for more prisons would likely be met with a barrage of evidence explaining why restorative justice will and

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

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.

There is a great debate throughout our country, and in individual states, over how long criminals should be incarcerated for various crimes. The relationship between the length of prison terms and recidivism is one of the central points of the debate in sentencing and corrections policy. Many people assert that longer prison terms are more effective at deterring future crimes because they set higher price for criminal behavior and because they hold offenders until they are more likely to “age out” of a criminal life style. However, others argue just the opposite and that is more time behind bars increases the chances that inmates will reoffend later because it breaks their supportive bonds in the community and hardens their associations with other criminals. According to Oliver (2011), both of these arguments are accurate because the strongest research finds that these two theories cancel each other out. Several studies, looking at different populations and using varied methodologies, have attempted to find a relationship between the length of prison terms and recidivism but have failed to find a consistent impact, either positive or negative. There is one thing for sure and that is incarceration and recidivism is a very active cycle which affects the lives of many

The United States justice system can be described as a cycle, where people enter the prison system, are released, and upon failure to integrate into society soon find themselves back behind bars. Although the means in which the cycle is perpetuated can be argued, the rate of re-offenders is constantly trying to be reduced. One term used to define this type of convict is recidivism, which is the repeat criminal action of a convicted inmate. Recidivism is fastly becoming a issue in the United States as it has been shown that 70% of convicted offenders have been reconvicted within three years of release (Esperian, 2010, p. 322). As crime of any background can be detrimental to society, this high rate of reentry into the justice system has stimulated

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

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.

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

A methodological approach should encourage other researchers to question on the other factors that would cause recidivism to occur. There should be more specific numbers on who exactly is involved in recidivism. Research may state statistics only on regarding a generalization of inmates, what about the inmates’ ethnicity, different crimes committed, geographical area, their income class, the different type living conditions, and other countries other than America. Do these factors effect recidivism in an individual life? Do these factors increase or decrease the chance of recidivism? The existing research excels in explaining why there is a problem occurring within the recidivism prone individuals, but there should also be specific reasons of what might cause the issues.

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?

In this effort, I will offer an empirically supported approach by communicating with post-release recidivists about compliance and behavior change. I will argue that the sole focus on punishment actually makes recidivism worse and to implement programs and policies that actually work to reduce crime and mass incarceration.

The area of rehabilitation has undergone controversial scrutiny of its effectiveness (Wilson 2013). An analysis of many rehabilitation projects by Wilson (2013) concluded that many attempts to rehabilitate youths, such as the Community Treatment Program (CTP) were ineffective. Wilson (2013) stated that the capacity for rehabilitation differs greatly between individuals, and only certain amenable individuals were responsive to rehabilitation attempts. There were often “nonamenable” individuals who would actually commit more crime as a result of rehabilitative attempts (Wilson, 2013). Wilson (2013) also discusses the findings from the Murray-Cox Study, which looked at the rehabilitative response of serious offender, “somewhat” serious offenders, and the non-serious offenders. The researchers in this study came to the conclusion

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