The Recidivism Reduction And Public Safety Act

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

1,346 less inmates are not receiving substance abuse while incarcerated due to the budget cuts we are receiving. 1.9 % of $7.2 billion is spent on preventing or decreasing substance abuse as well as programming, according to Promises Treatment Centers (2011).

Central Idea: To rework the legal and economic infrastructure of the currently broken U.S prison system by providing appropriate justice and funding to programs that actually work. In doing so we will be able to pursue justice, protect our communities, properly rehabilitate prisoners, mend broken families and save the state money all at the same time.

Many would say that offenders are hopeless and if one looks at the rate of recidivism, one would definitely think that our nation’s offenders are indeed hopeless. However, what if there was a way to reduce the rate of recidivism and at the same time rehabilitate offenders in order to make them functioning members of the community? Reentry programs that are implemented correctly cannot only reduce the rate of recidivism but at the same time help to rehabilitate an offender through education, treatment, and therapy. The Second Chance At is a law that went into effect April 29, 2008 (P.L. 110-199) and it allows government agencies to provide services to offenders that will help to reduce the rate of recidivism as well as improve the

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 problem with prison reentry has been going on for many years in the United States, as I discussed in assignments one and two. Recidivism issues can often be linked with reentry issues because when offenders are returning to society, they need to be prepared, which is something that our current criminal justice system is not trying to achieve. In order to create some defensible solutions for prison reentry and the recidivism issues linked to prison reentry, the criminal justice system has to realize that there is no one overall solution because every offender have different offenses, different stories, different outcomes, and different prison sentences. Because of this, each offender's return to society will be different, and the reentry

In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).

Congress would also like to strengthen the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) core protection by requiring States to take concrete steps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system and provide safe and humane conditions of confinement for youth in State or local custody by prohibiting use of JJDPA funds for dangerous practices and encouraging States to adopt best practices and standards to eliminate dangerous practices and unnecessary isolation. Not to mention, provide a research‐based continuum of mental health and substance abuse services to meet unmet needs of court‐involved youth and their families, including diversion and re‐entry services and assist States in compliance with the JJDPA by establishing incentive grants to encourage States to adopt evidence‐based and/or promising practices that improve outcomes for youth and their communities. For States that are deemed to be out of compliance with any of the core protections, Congress should require any JJDPA funds withheld for non‐compliance to be set aside and made available to those States as improvement grants to help them with those particular protections.

less than one year ago Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of legislative bills that will be used as a means to help the California correctional department. The faculty within his offices have described this as a legislative push used to lower recidivism through rehabilitation in both the adult and juvenile systems of corrections. According to Governor Jerry Brown, one of the biggest issues that the state of California has struggled with for years is the harsh prison sentences that have driven high cost and increased recidivism. One of the primary focuses of this bill is to lower the prison sentences for convicted offenders. Two other bills that were recently signed will be used to provide an earlier parole for both young and elderly prisoners.

The SAFE Justice Act implements sentencing reforms by creating secondary alternatives and exceptions to mandatory federal minimums. This protects low-level or nonviolent offenders with limited criminal history and provides new eligibility for future resentencing. There are legal provisions designed to minimize repeat offender rates by requiring the creation of official risk reduction programs. These could be education work training, drug counseling and mental health treatment programs. The SAFE Justice Act mandates risk assessments of eligible offenders after their sentencing to allow them to earn credits for completion of assigned risk reduction

The main purpose of this act was to ensure that the juvenile and adult offenders and their families are facilitated to reenter the society. The main motive was to increase and improve public safety and at the same time make sure that the increasing population of prison inmates getting reintroduced into society is taken care of (Freudenberg, Daniels, Crum, Perkins, & Richie, 2005). Post the passing of legislation, there were a number of issues that were brought up by the opposition.

The United States justice system can be described as a cycle, where people enter the prison system, are released, and upon failure to integrate into society soon find themselves back behind bars. Although the means in which the cycle is perpetuated can be argued, the rate of re-offenders is constantly trying to be reduced. One term used to define this type of convict is recidivism, which is the repeat criminal action of a convicted inmate. Recidivism is fastly becoming a issue in the United States as it has been shown that 70% of convicted offenders have been reconvicted within three years of release (Esperian, 2010, p. 322). As crime of any background can be detrimental to society, this high rate of reentry into the justice system has stimulated

These rates guide spending and funding decisions aimed to effectively combat crime. While there is no standard rate that is aimed for, the idea is to try to reduce the recidivism rate or even keep it the same opposed to raising it. When the recidivism rates are not progressing in the manner expected, these agencies must try to find other avenues and strategies that will make a positive impact on the recidivism rates, and in the long run, these juvenile’s lives. (CJCA, 2011)

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

Recidivism is the result of a former prisoner relapsing into criminal activity and returning to prison for a new offense. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of