The Pros And Cons Of Recidivism

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)

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

The data from the study demonstrated that therapeutic community theory substance abuse treatment in a correctional facility was, “Effective in reducing the recidivism and that the time spent in treatment was positively related to greater periods between re-arrest and to a greater probability of positive outcomes. (Wexler, and Williams, 1986, Wexler, Falkin, and Lipton, 1990)

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 of the end of 2015, there were 1,526,800 prisoners in the United States being held in state or federal correctional facilities. Every year, thousands of people are released from jail or prison. Most people who are incarcerated today will eventually be released. Most of these individuals return to a life of freedom without the skills they need to survive. Recidivism rates suggest that many of these individuals will re-offend within six months of release, and most will reoffend within three years. This is not because they’re bad people; it’s because they are trying to thrive in a system that sets them up to fail.

Moreover, the studies had also been conducted to evaluate correctional programs’ effects on recidivism. All studies point to one conclusion; offenders who participate in correctional education programs are less likely to return to prison after being released. For example, researchers at the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) evaluated correctional education’s effect on inmates who participated in the programs offered in IDOC and compared their results with a group that had not

Also, we need data and additional detailed information on the participants who were not satisfied. As stated in the article, “What Works in Reducing Recidivism”, the “Treatment Principle”, states “the most effective programs are behavioral in nature” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, p523, University of St. Thomas Law Journal). The report provided by staff does not clearly identify how many participants in each program and which program had the lower success rate and least

Parole is a huge problem in america as of current. This is because the odds of the offender staying out of prison are very low. This happen because the offender does not respect the privilege of parole, to them it is just an excuse to get out of jail.

Incarceration strives to isolate offenders from society but does not provide adequate therapy to change the mental states and behaviors of criminals. The recidivism rate, the rate of known and recorded relapse into criminal behavior after release from jail, proves that offenders need more than just isolation to change their behavior and eliminate their dangers to society. Communities need not only to provide help and pay attention to offenders with short sentences because of their earlier release than others. In California, an increase in parole grants in 2014 has resulted in 2,000 murderers, classified as the “highest Criminal History Category, VI,” returning to society with no therapy or assistance from reentry programs. 80% of offenders in the most serious criminal history category, the criminal group with the highest recidivism rate, relapsed and returned to prison within five years of release, and 60% of offenders returned to prison within three years of release (Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry, 2007; Sanchez, 2014; Sipes, 2017; St John, 2014). Overall, police officers arrest ex-offenders up to forty-five times more than they arrest members of the non-criminal population (Przybylski, 2012). Criminals need specialized psychological treatment to change their behaviors and make them safe to return to their communities. As recidivism becomes increasingly more problematic in today's society, criminal psychologists analyze the motives, incarceration experiences, and mental

In conclusion Many things need to change to lower America's recidivism rate, like budget readjustments, education programs, and improved psychiatric health care. Without many reforms in these critical areas and better distribution of true information to our free citizens who actually have a voice on this controversy America will never see a lower recidivism rate or a low prison population. For the sake of safety for our citizens and improving the quality of life for those offenders who want change within, America must get rid of the nothing work doctrine, and open their minds to second chances and the idea that people can change.

Abstract: This research proposals seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of Maryland’s Correctional Education program, by examining Maryland’s Criminal Justice Reinvestment program. The goal of the reinvestment program is to reinvest freed funds from closing select prisons back into the criminal justice system and use them to improve correctional education and rehabilitation programs. The end goal is to have an ex-offender that is able to provide for themselves without returning back to crime. Studies have shown that those who complete a correctional educational or rehabilitative program are less likely to recidivise than inmates that do not. The focus of the study will be to examine the implementation of the program, and to track inmates during the first three to five years after their release. From previous research we have learned the most likely causes of recidivism, yet with this study we will be able to examine the potential of decreasing recidivism to acceptable rates below 10%.

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

Kroner, D. G., & Yessine, A. K. (2013). Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: In search of mechanisms of change. Law And Human Behavior, 37(5), 321-336. doi:10.1037/lhb0000022

As you can see, these countries prisons are very diffrent, but these are not the only differnces. First difference, the recidivism rate. Norway's recidivism rate is the lowest in the world at 20%, whlile America has one of the highest with a 77% rate. The second deference, prison cells. Norway prison cells are set up like an normal room with a T.V, decent bed, and windows with no bars, also with a door, trying to create a room just like the outside world, while American prison cells are built with no doors, no windows and if any,barred windows, bad beds and no T.Vs. Last diffrence, treatment of the prisoners. Prisons in Norway are said to treat their prisoners as people, Norway works on getting their prisoners used to regular life, While American

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