Restorative Justice And Reducing Prison Population

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 &

From 1973 to 2000 the imprisonment rate in the U.S has increased by a multiple of four, while the actual crime rate saw no such increase over that period. (Visher and Travis, 2003, p. 89-90) Historically, the prison system in America had always been marred with inadequacies and failures, specifically in rehabilitating prisoners. The significant increase in incarceration rates have put an even greater burden on the already inefficient prison system. In reality, the prison system does not actually function as a means of rehabilitating prisoners, and real purpose of the institute is to basically keep the “deplorables” of society away from the public eye. It serves as a tool to degrade members of society to the bottom of the social ladder and strip them of their most basic rights. For many prisoners, rehabilitation comes in the form of “corrections” which is largely characterized by the humiliation, abuse, and subjugation of inmates by correction officers. This form of rehabilitation is largely malicious and ineffective in its procedures and outcomes. Often times inmates, leave prison more emotionally and physically damaged that they were upon entrance as a consequence of the dismal conditions they were subjugated to. The current high rates of recidivism have testified to the fact that our prisons have failed as a deterrent. As a result, it must be

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

In the last few decades, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who have been incarcerated in both federal and state prisons. Indeed, research has shown that harsher sentencing policies and more punitive laws have resulted in the incarceration of more than 2.3 million people in the varied jails and prisons; thereby making the United States the leader as far as incarceration is concerned. Incarceration and sentencing systems have conventionally been aimed at having varying goals including rehabilitation, incapacitation, punishment and deterrence. Recent decades have seen the enactment of sentencing policy initiatives with the aim of enhancing the criminal justice systems deterrent effect.

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

(Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). Determinate prison sentences or mandatory-minimum sentencing seems like it would discourage criminals from committing crimes because one would think that with harsher sentences would be likely to deter criminals from breaking the law. In the 1970s, indeterminate sentencing was used frequently, in most states judges and parole boards used wide discretion in sentencing offenders. (Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Vaughn, M. (2009). As it stands, the number of prisoners in the US in 2017 is ten times as much when compared to pre -1971, while the overall population rates have increased only by a third. Half of these prisoners (51%) are jailed for non-violent offenses (World Prison Brief, 2015). The existing number of prisons is not enough to hold and adequately maintain its numerous populations. Many of them are

The United States prison system incarcerates more people per capita than nearly all European countries, and roughly two-thirds of those inmates that are released will be arrested again within three years (Ward et al, 2015). Some facilities have relatively successful programs that cut down on the recidivism numbers. However, the majority of prisons are focused on punishment and make no efforts at rehabilitation. Something in the American justice systems needs to change so that the cycle can be broken. To accomplish this, we can look at the justice system of other countries and try to determine whether such systems would work in the United States.

This proposal focuses on the issue of youth incarceration and how restorative justice methods can be substituted for incarceration to yield better and more effective results. Restorative justice holds the belief that “criminal punishments are more effective when they cause the offender to make amends with their victims as well as their communities. By using a phenomenological approach the study seeks to discover the essence of experiences of multiple individuals who have experienced restorative justice approaches. Data will be collected through the use of face-to-face interviews, focus groups, as well as transcripts from restorative justice circles. The study will be approached from a critical theory lens and thus it aims to create change to flawed societal systems. This information is a key component to increasing the likelihood of success for juvenile criminals and it will also assist tax payers by saving their money rather.

Recidivism is defined as the measurement of criminal actions which subsequently result in a new arrest, a conviction, or otherwise returning to prison within the time frame of three years after being previously released (http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx). Reducing recidivism rates would be an action which ideally would produce a situation of great good for not only the offender, but for the immediate community. This fulfills the basic principle of general utilitarianism, which is to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. As successful rehabilitative practices during incarceration would theoretically return a former offender to society as a productive, law abiding citizens, it would produce an outcome which would contributes to the overall common good, and therefore would be considered an effective method of utilitarian punishment. As punishment is only justified if the harm it consequentially prevents is greater than the harm it inflicts upon the offender, such practices are shown in even greater light as being an ethical and moral choice (citation). This is especially relevant when viewing other methods – such as deterrence – in a utilitarian light. Though the justification of deterrence in particular is largely prevalent within utilitarianism, by the philosophy of harm being justified only if it prevents greater harm than is inflicted, it is not an ethical or moral choice of action in every given situation (citation). If deterrence does not work, then the punishment intended for deterrence is not morally acceptable. If the criminal reoffends, then no harm is prevented – only

Restorative justice programs utilize a method that involves bringing together all the individuals affected by the offender’s deviant behavior such as victims, the offender, their loved ones, and representatives of their state and community. The purpose of these types of programs is to come to a resolution on what actions should be taken based on the crime committed by the offender, and helping the offender make amends with not only the individuals who were affected by the crime but also with themselves. It also assists the offender in taking responsibility and showing remorse for their deviant behavior. Braithwaite believed that communities in which families were closely bonded would be more responsive in engaging in reintegrative shaming

With the rise of Civil Rights Movement in western countries, the circumstances of the criminal victims are getting more attention gradually. Due to this emphasis, it directly led to a first revolution in the criminal justice, the revival Restorative justice. For a criminal justice system, victim support and healing is a priority which might seem an obvious aim. "Restorative Justice" was first introduced by an American professor, Randy Barnett in 1977. Nowadays, restorative justice systems have been applied to criminal justice system in many countries (Tai Wan, Australia, the US and the UK etc). In spite of many researches of restorative justice composed by western scholars, however it has not yet been defined properly and cover over the cons of this system. Restorative Justice repairs the harm that caused by crime and reducing the future harm on victims, there are advantages yet there are also bad. In this essay, I will use the application of the principles of sociology, literature, ethics knowledge to demonstrate argumentation to restorative justice and to reflect the pros and cons. (160words)

Warren, R.K. (2007). Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries. Retrieved at https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023358.pdf

How many inmates were isolated from their communities when they had committed a crime or when they got released from the prisons? And how many effective programs can be helpful for them?Many posts-release prisoners have experienced recidivism and social stigmas due to lack of programs. In fact, restorative justice for people in prison has played a big role in our correctional systems in many different ways.Restorative justice in prison shapes our prisoner 's morals and abilities by providing a suitable technique. Although punishment may play a part in restorative justice techniques, the central focus remains on relationships between the affected parties, and healing reached through a deliberative process guided by those affected parties.( Tsui,2014). For instance, many inmates have attended into reentry programs and educational orientations when they finished their time in prison. These programs cost less money for the government, and inmates can be reintegrated into societies easily. Many post-release prisoners have avoided recidivism after these effective programs taught them the value of lives. This study will examine the importance of restorative justice in prison, which is essential for our correctional facilities. Numerous studies have been done recently which focused on this restorative justice.For example, restorative justice answers the justice question in a different way.(Toews,p.5,2006).

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.