Restitution Vs Rehabilitation

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

Restitution as a means of rehabilitating offenders tries to give the offenders a better understanding of what they have done, and the effects they have caused due to their actions. Punishing them with jail time does not seem to be enough to get offenders to understand the magnitude of their crime. If they have the ability to pay back the victims it will give them a sense of accomplishment and will allow them to feel as if they are doing good and correcting their mistakes. Restitution as a means of reconciling offender and their victims give the ideology that if they fully paid the person they hurt that they can both put their anger behind them and move on from what had happened.

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

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.

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.

The United States have moved away from rehabilitating offenders. Incarcerating offenders without trying to rehabilitate them only increases the chances of them returning back to jail or prison. The correctional system should focus their attention on rehabilitating offenders and looking at alternatives to

An open dialogue would be required between the legislature, department of correction personnel and the public. This dialogue would provide policy changes to the early release credit programs that focused on the reduction in prison population of non-violent offenders, establish rehabilitative programs to provide re-entry guidance and most importantly, always keep public safety at the forefront of the discussions. “The earned credits are viewed as incentivizing inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs that, in turn, should reduce recidivism after release from prison” (Turner, 2011). The prison system should not be viewed as a warehouse for humans but rather as a much needed form of justice that provides public safety by removing violent offenders and rehabilitating those that are deemed non-violent. All parties involved should take note that the major flaws in credit programs are not the programs themselves but rather the lack of accountability and

California has one of the nation’s highest recidivism rates, which has been a well-known problem for many years. The rate has been steadily dropping. However it is still about 15% higher than the national average of 43.3% (McDonald, “California’s Recidivism Problem”). The recidivism problem in California is caused by rehabilitation programs not being effective enough to keep ex-convicts out of prison. Keeping prisoners in the California prison system is an enormous waste of taxpayer money. Instead of spending more and more on prisons, the money could be used elsewhere such as lowering college tuition for students. The government could easily save money for other purposes such as this by changing rehabilitation to make it more effective. In order to reduce spending on prisons and recidivism, prisons need to have better rehabilitation programs to make ex-convicts into productive members of society.

The United States is the world’s leader in incarceration. It spends more resources on its prison system than any other nation and has the largest prison population in the world. Between 1980 and 2016, the number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons increased from 320,000 to more than 1.5 million. This corresponds to a change in the incarceration rate from 139 to 450 prisoners per 100,000 residents. Most lawmakers tend to believe that incarceration is a necessary construct needed to reform criminals to properly incorporate them into society. They insist imprisonment reduces crime rates through incapacitation and deterrence. Thus, it is not surprising that expenditures on corrections increased as states built new prisons,

A large number of incarcerated people leave the state and federal prisons every year. It becomes a major concern for federal, local, and state government when they reenter into the community. Most of these individuals do not fit into the community and after a short period of time, some of them would have committed new crimes or have violated terms in which they were released and thus re-incarcerated. This issue brings about many

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.

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].

It may be easy to find it unnecessary to address the needs of reforming the use of solitary confinement, but in the end this reform may reduce the amount of detainees suffering any psychological or physiological damage from the use of confinement. Prison was originally developed to punish and rehabilitate inmates so they can later be a productive member of society. Once rehabilitate has stop being the ultimate goal of the department of justice the care of the inmate changed and along with that the growth of recidivism. A society that locks away its people, then entrenches them into prison and within that prison they secure them into a smaller cell for 23 out of 24 hours a day for an extended period of time is complicit in the violation of the

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

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?