The Good Lives Model

Ex-offenders face many challenges after being released into society after prison. This prolonged issue has gone on for quite some time in the United States, and it has been since recent decade that the United States has discovered reentry for prisoners (Johnson & Cullen, 2015). In 2007, the Second Chance Act of 2007 was introduced to break the cycle of recidivism; to rebuild ties between offenders and their families before and after incarcerated to encourage and support offenders; to protect the public; to provide and promote law-abiding conduct; to assist offenders in establishing a self-sustaining and law-abiding life providing sufficient transition

“The Prison and Probation Service has two main goals: To contribute to the reduction of criminality, and to work to increase safety in society. To achieve these goals we work with sentenced persons in order to improve their possibilities of living a life without committing new crimes.” (Linstrom and Leijonram)

In our world, nobody is perfect. Some people have disorders; some people are not raised correctly; some people are in need of essentials. These conditions are usually the main causes of a crime. On the other hand, the good news is that most people can be rehabilitated. The only people who might not be able to be rehabilitated are people with major disorders. Even though some people can’t be rehabilitated, we still need to make a safe community, so we need to rehabilitate the people that can be rehabilitated. In order to do that “[w]e need to create prison conditions, both physical and psychological, that encourage cooperation on all sides and that support change as opposed to conflict and calcification of negative behavior” (Chura). The people that made mistakes that got them in prison need to know that what they did was wrong, and how to fix it. They also need to know to never do it again, and be aware of the differences between right and wrong. The people that can be identified as good candidates for rehabilitation need to go through reform programs in prison and learn how

However, research carried out in the 1990’s as part of ‘what works’ movement identified that the most successful sentences were those that attempted to change, not only the offender’s behaviour but also their attitude towards their offending (Hollin, 2007). This catalysed the push towards cognitive-behavioural approaches and by 1999 one especially important development was the establishment of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, which ‘quality assured’ probation and prison programmes for rehabilitating offending. This technique brought an emphasis of individual responsibility of an offender (Mair,2004). A criticism of this was the lack of attention of sociological factors that can influence criminal behaviour.

Conversely, rather than focusing on punishment such as long term Imprisonment in prison, the Australian prison system should focus more on the rehabilitation. Once again research have proven rehabilitation is really important according to Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad (Deadly C, 2014).The research indicates U.S prison population are rank number one along with the most reoffending rate in the world (Deadly C, 2014).Regarding to these statistics it can be seen that the U.S prison system emphasis more on punishment and don’t provide enough rehabilitation. As a result when the U.S. prisoners are released some ex-convicts have no skills or education to incorporate with the society. Since the prison didn’t offered enough support

The guidelines for repairing harm requires that, to the best extent attainable, offenders take responsibility and take action to make things right with those individuals who were harmed (Bazemore & Maruna, 2009). Reentry and recidivism is unmistakably a test for all involved. In the course of recent decades, the United States has encountered imprisonment rates that have almost quintupled, with 1,610,584 prisoners currently incarcerated in state and

The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the

Discuss how the Good Lives Model is used to treat youth offenders, discuss its strengths and weaknesses for this population, and include any supporting research where possible. The Good Lives Model (GLM) is an alternative framework to use when treating youth offenders (Wainwright and Nee, 2014)). Up until recently, youth have been treated the same as their adult counterparts in the criminal justice system, which ethically, is not an appropriate approach to treating youth offenders (Richards, 2011). Youth are at a vulnerable stage in life, they are still developing and have not attainted the same level of maturity, education or brain development as adult offenders.

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.

Lastly, but not least is CBT. It combines the elements of cognitive and behavioral treatments in addressing psychological problems and abnormal behavior, in this case sexual offenders. The Good Lives Model-Comprehensive (Ward & Gannon, 2006) is a good representitive for CBT, as it combines the original Good Lives Model of Offender rehabilitation and the Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending. Both of which have been the prior use to helping sexual offenders. However, not all of these treatments are effective and have limitations. (Maletzky & Steinhauser, 2002) conducted a 25 year follow up on 7275 sexual offenders who were in a CBT. The results show the treatment generated long-lasting, positive results by reducing recidivism and risk to the community. Now that the types of treatments have been explained, the next section goes into the existing literature of those treatments on sexual offenders and what’s the best/worst.

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

Community corrections are vital in ensuring and assuring the safety of the community by rehabilitating the low-risk offenders allowing cycle of re-offending to be broken and the rate of imprisonment to be lowered. Community corrections involve managing an offender’s life in the community through constant supervision and reporting to their corrections officer and, also court ordered unpaid community service and rehabilitation programs to divert their attention to re-offend, rather than throwing them into the prison system for a low-risk crime. The question however is whether the correction services are a success in minimising the re-offending and rehabilitating the offenders once let back into society. In the last 40 years or so, community corrections have become a substantial component of the correctional service system (White and Perrone, 2010). The movement towards community corrections advocates the decarceration of the prisoners and mental health patients and its was influenced by the reconceptualization of social control with the increasing development of community care and control. The main focus is to find a solution to minimise short-term imprisonment and whether alternate corrections have become a success.

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)

The concept of the good life is one that comes up frequently in the PULSE program because it centers on the core beliefs of the program itself; personal and social responsibility. To me, the nature of the good life entails of knowledge, happiness, justice, and introspection. Through my exploration of the good life, I hope to clarify how I view the good life in accordance to Aristotle and Plato, but also, how I perceive the good life in general. Service is an important portion of the PULSE program, which is why the good life has to be related to it. The belief that service can lead to the good life will allow me to explore the importance of service for the good life, thus, I will be able to explore how PULSE will affect my version of the good life. By connecting the good life to my own personal life, I can clarify how it differs and how it is similar to how Aristotle and Plato defined the good life. Through this, I will be able to connect the good life to my experiences and can investigate how my experiences have influenced my version of the good life. Through my examination of Plato’s and Aristotle’s work, I hope to explain what the good life means to me, and how I hope to achieve it, in and outside of my service placement.

The failure of imprisonment has been one of the most noticeable features of the current crisis in criminal justice systems. At best, prisons are able to provide a form of crude retribution to those unfortunate to be apprehended. At worst, prisons are brutalizing, cannot be shown to rehabilitate or deter offenders, and are detrimental to the re-entry of offenders into society. If anything, they do little else than confine most prisoners, and as a result lead to the imposition of certain undesirable learning habits and labels. Such habits include the learning of survival patterns of behavior, which do little to help the prisoner to be reintegrated as a useful and productive member of the community.