Simulation Strategies For Reducing Recidivism Risk

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

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.

Prominent among them is the reduction of the prison sentences for nonviolent and low-level drug crimes. However, this is not enough. “Even if we released everyone imprisoned for drugs tomorrow, the united states would still have 1.7 million people behind bars.” That massive statistic comes as a great shock to readers, as they only now realize the true urgency of the issue. The authors acknowledge that “half the people in state prisons are there for a violent crime.” However, “not all individuals convicted for a violent crime are alike.” They are convicted for different levels of violence: some are mass murderers or serial killers, while others are “battered spouses who struck back at their abusers.” Mauer and Cole also refer to studies that found that longer sentences are not better deterrents, as most serious offenses were committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The authors call for acknowledgement that excessively long sentences are merely a waste of money and totally

Incapacitation, the removal of the offender from society to prevent them from harming society further, has been in use since ancient times. The incapacitation may be in the form of exile, penal colonies, prison, or placement in a mental institution. Regardless of the form, incapacitation places its focus on the future behavior of the offender and on the characteristics of the offender. It assumes that since that majority of crime is committed by a small number of criminals, removing them from society will reduce crime. What this theory does not take in to

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

Sentencing is when a criminal is sanctioned by a judicial authority to serve time; incarcerated (Schmalleger, 2016). Today the United States leads the rest of the world in incarceration rates. With 2.2 million people in prisons and jails and a 500% increase in the last 40 years (The Sentencing Project, 2016). The three types of sentencing; indeterminate, determinate, and mandatory, are different sentencing models which are used in incarceration. This essay examines the reasons for why determinate sentencing serves as the best rehabilitative purpose in the criminal justice system while also balancing public safety.

Retribution has been associated with increased punishment, decreased treatment, but not with reduced recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). Not only has there been no reduction in recidivism, there has also been no increase in deterrence through the use of punitive measures (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Deterrence-oriented interventions have actually been shown to increase recidivism by 12%, as demonstrated by Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis (as referenced by Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

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 current crime and incarceration trends have declined since early 1990s, which in part is due to the current reforms that takes place within the criminal justice system, such as early release dates for drug charges and non-violent crimes (Mauer, 2011). The incarceration rates in the United States are “three to four times that of other industrialized nations,” and the punishment scale is viewed as “out of proportion to that of other industrialized nation” (Mauer, 2011).

If mass incarceration is a cancer of society, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are the tumors that exacerbate society’s condition. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws require a certain length of prison time if

Mass incarceration has been a huge social problem since the 1980s; it came hand in hand with the war on drugs. Elliott Currie, a professor of criminology and law, suggests that building more prisons, imposing longer sentences, and applying harsh punishments will not lower the incarceration rate. In his chapter on “Assessing the Prison Experiment,” he explained that the increase of crime rate is not the sole reason that mass incarceration occurs, and it was also because courts

The United States of America is phrased by many, as being “the land of the free.” Yet, the Unites States currently has the highest per capita prison population than any other country. The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population and of that 5%, 25% of our overall nation’s population is currently incarcerated. A few factors that attribute to our high rates of incarceration include, sentencing laws: such as mandatory- minimum sentencing, lack of initial deterrence from crime, the war on drugs and the presence of recidivism. With our ever growing incarceration rates and the cost of housing individual offenders averaging $22,000 a criminal justice agenda. Recidivism refers to a person 's relapse into criminal behavior resulting in rearrests, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner 's release (National Institute of Justice.) Many programs have been implemented in our prison system to help reduce the recidivism rates. Programs such as educational/ vocational programming, reentry programs, substance abuse programs and subsidized employment are among many programs in which have been proven effective. Yet, due to costs deficits, the clock is ticking to find evidence based programs to invest in. So, the question currently being sought after is, which method is most effective in reducing recidivism rates?

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 corrections system has gone through the medical model, the community model, and the crime control model over the last century. In the late eighteen hundreds, the belief that incarceration itself did not reduce crime was emerging. Community based sanctions, like probation and parole, were thought to be great additions and that they would work well in conjunction with incarceration. (Wodahl, 8) Between

The type of punishment that deters crime most effectively is hard to determine. Each punishment is geared at preventing the offender from additional criminal activity, but is not necessarily effective in reducing the amount of crime in the United States. Most victims, and families of victims, are more concerned with seeking retribution. As with most issues of grave concern, the need to find a solution to the problem is a problem in itself. Prisons are violent places where criminals with a violent behavior or non-conforming attitude