The Role Of Offenders In The Criminal Justice System

Whenever an inmate gets incarcerated or is found guilty for a conviction, many of their rights go away except for a select few. The few rights that prisoners get to keep are, but are not limited to, visitation rights, mail services, religious gatherings and studies, medical treatment and care, and access to courts and legal assistance. These services help inmates stay in touch with society and help inmates get treated fairly throughout the facility (Santillan, 2010). In 1969, there were approximately 300,000 people incarcerated in federal, state, and county jails or prisons. Today that number surpasses 2.4 million and to add to it, there are approximately 4 million under parole or probation (People’s Law Office).

Because the California prison system is severely overcrowded, it is unable to deliver adequate resources and services to its inmates. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the system—operating at 145% of its designed capacity—violates the 8th Amendment and mandated that the state significantly reduce its prison population by 2016 (Divito). Many of the state’s GOP legislators called for expansion of the state’s correctional facilities, claiming that criminals would be a threat to communities if the state relaxed enforcement or released some prisoners early (Wildermuth). While there is merit in this argument, spending money to expand jail capacities without reducing the number of people who are incarcerated only conceals the fundamental problem, rather than correcting it. Instead, a more effective alternative is to invest resources in “mental health courts, drug treatment, mental health treatment, vocational rehabilitation, evidence-based programs [in order to] reduce the population in a more sustained way” (Siders). Recently, in Los Angeles, community stakeholders have come to agree that many of the city’s offenders do not necessarily need incarceration, but instead education and outreach programs. As a result, the local justice system has begun to promote a system of restorative justice.

One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections by the PEW Center offers interesting insight into the system beyond the containment of offenders inside prison walls. For quite a long time, especially after reading Punished by Victor Rios in Professor Morton’s seminar course, my views on probation and parole systems were of a negative light. I read stories of the young boys constantly targeted by police, picked up for small offenses and then immediately on probation and looped directly into the cycle; there was also no respect for the authority, by the boys, of the probation or parole system because of it’s lack of timely response to offenses and control. As a fresh perspective, the article altered my point of a view – it cited specific examples of states that have launched programs to go with community corrections over prison as a first choice and the results are seemingly positive, both in terms of crime reduction and cost benefit. Overall, I really liked this article – and I agreed with the argument which they backed up with cost and population numbers displaying the benefits of community correction versus prison, if implemented correctly. With a focus on helping those on probation and parole, and doling out money for those branches and not just prisons we are putting ourselves on the path to success – one of safety and better budgets.

Today’s prisons do not effectively rehabilitate criminals, they are likely to reoffend and be incarcerated multiple times. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “At least 95% of inmates in the U.S. state prisons will return to their communities upon release, and more than 66% will be rearrested within three years.” (Beyer 2). The majority of prisoners who are in the same environment both before and after they were arrested continue to break the law. If jails and prisons focused more on rehabilitating criminals rather than only punishment, this number is likely to decrease. Prisons in the United states are overcrowded. This became a legal issue in 2011, when the Supreme Court required a reduction in California’s prison population by over 40,000 inmates. (Beyer 1). Cramming too many prisoners together does not benefit any party in the correctional system, and it is likely to cause more issues between prisoners. This also puts the safety of prison guards and correctional officers in jeopardy, because physical altercations between prisoners are more likely to occur. 676 per 100,000 people in the United States are imprisoned, which is the largest incarceration rate in the world. (Beyer 2). This number could decrease with a prison system that focused on a prisoner’s need as an individual. This includes education, job preparedness, and a plan for life

Community justice benefits over the state based justice system with respect to punishment. Specifically, community justice focuses on the restoration and rehabilitation (Taylor & Auerhahn, 2015, p. 303), rather than incarceration. Transgressions are given to the victims, offenders and community to resolve rather than letting the state impose arbitrary sanctions. Community justice allows for more direct solutions to solve crime through the collective agreement between all stakeholders (Wenzel et al., 2008, p. 376). This allows for restorative treatment which has higher levels of satisfaction than traditional forms of incarceration (Wenzel et al., 2008, p. 377).

When looking at the current situation in the United States concerning the number of people serving the balance of their sentence in the community of corrections one must understand that there are different parts that make up the multi areas of community of corrections. These areas are probation which are normally sentences for misdemeanor criminal offences. Parole is another area of community of corrections that deal with people convicted of felony offences. The current condition of parole as of 2016 showed approximately 4,537,100 were under supervised parole or probation, of that 3,789,800 were on probation and 870,500 were on parole. (Kaeble, 2018). This number was a decrease from the beginning of that same year. Another key factor of this

Most taxpayers and residents of communities aren’t aware of how beneficial it can be to lock up a reduced amount nonviolent criminals. The argument of incarcerating less nonviolent offenders originated in the 1970s, with increasing public concern about the threat of crime and many becoming skeptical about how effective rehabilitation is, Americans started focusing on some other goals of the prison system, such as retribution and public safety. They argue crime measures, such as mandatory minimum sentences and truth in sentencing laws, are keeping minor offenders in prison for too long and at great expense to the taxpayers. Advocates of harsh sentencing laws counter that they are necessary as a solution to lenient judges. David Masci, a CQ

The courts are reducing punishment for non-violent offenders by putting them in rehabilitation programs (Berenji, B., Chou, T., & D'Orsogna, 2014).The reintegration will help these offenders to become new are whole again. However, resources may be limited these offenders should be offered the chance to participate in these programs. There are lots people who have been locked upon returning back into society it is hard for them to get a job, therefore, they go back to their life of crime. The people that are not violent criminals should at least be given a second chance. The program recidivism constituted studies by researchers to see if it has helped habitual offenders in becoming complete again (Rice, & Harris, 2014). Nevertheless, some may fall back into the system simply these intervention programs will be a great success for the ones who truly want to change their lives. The implementing of these programs is no guarantee that the convicts will not continue to violate the law. The statistic shows that age and sexual violent is a predictor of recidivism. The three strike law is ridiculous because stealing can be an addiction just like drugs are (Bohm, R. M. & Haley, 2011). The cons to the three strike law are that lots children that will grow up without their parents. The non-violent offenders should have mentors to help them get a job and put them in rehabilitation programs to reach the core of their addiction. The pros to this three strike law are that it will help some people to

Kleiman and Hawken suggest that a reform of the parole system can lead to a more effective system overall. They draw attention to the fact that despite crime rates being on a continuous decline, incarceration rates continue to rise at an alarming rate. The identify that about 1% of adults in the United States is behind bars, and they argue that an effective parole system could counter this, allowing many of this immense prison population to be contributing members to society. They go on to discuss how prisoners are being rushed out of prison, because they need to make room for more prisoners to come in. As these prisoners are released, the integration process proves to be a complicated one, almost guaranteeing failure of these newly released prisoners. They point out

This type of structure is problematic because the accused rarely understand the sentencing process and the key court players’ show that they do not understand what is happening (Perren, 2010). Understanding that the accused do not understand how the sentencing process works and the judge, prosecutor, and counselor also act like they are not as knowledgeable in what is going on. The goal of this type of proposal gives the offender an equal opportunity to have an equal and flexible sentence, that is not only fair to the offender but also to the victim (Perren, 2010). This type of proposal can also incapacitate those that need to be imprisoned and it can reduce the cost of housing prisoners as well as increase safety in the public (Perren, 2010). This type of proposal can also bring back the reality of sentencing in the Criminal Justice system because currently the California sentencing structure presents the possibility that the federal government would mandate that some offenders would have to be released (Perren, 2010). The studies that have been looked at demonstrates that if individuals spend time in prison and then go on parole or into a treatment facility

Currently there are 2.4 million inmates in state and federal prisons across the United States. (Cullen, 2011) Each year, more than 700,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons. Statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested within three years of their release and half are reincarcerated. High rates of recidivism mean more crime, more victims and more pressure on an already overburdened criminal justice system. A topic of much discussion is what happens when the inmates are released back into society? Are they prepared for the “outside” world? Has the institution done enough to prevent recidivism? It can be said that prison based education is a means of rehabilitating and re-direction. If someone is released with only the same knowledge, skills, and abilities they entered prison with, then they are likely to become involved in the same activities as prior to being incarcerated. This action is known in the criminal justice community as recidivism. Recidivism is a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior. (Merriam-Webster, 2014) Recidivism is the largest concern for prison system professionals. The goal of most prisons is to rehabilitate the offender, not to punish per say. If the inmate is to return to free society, prison officials need to attempt to reduce or eliminate the possibility of committing criminal offenses upon release. Currently prisons provide various forms of education to

For the past weeks we have been focusing on punishment of the offenders of domestic violence, throughout the weeks I have to amit that I really did not think of rehabilitation. My mind has been on helping the victims in anyway possible and punish the offender. Buzawa, Buzawa, and Stark (2012) stated the goals of domestic violence courts which is "Punish past acts of physical abuse, protect victims from further abuse, and rehabilitate offenders" (p. 323). In the criminal domestic violence courts 27% of judges, court staff, prosectutors, and etc. see rehabilitating offenders as important. Many would say this is a waste of time and money, that a offender of domestic violence can not change. I came across this site that is called "ProChange" on domestic violence. It states,

Once youth is committed a crime he or she must face the criminal justice. Whether it is simple face to face contact with the police officer or trip to juvenile facility, juvenile is becoming part of the criminal justice system. For many youth it is their first contact with the justice system however for some others it is a very familiar process. So once juvenile is making face to face contact with the police officers, his life is in the hands of that officer who can make very important and sometime life changing decision for that youth. It is up to that officer to determine whether the youth will be headed to the juvenile facilities or straight home. The difference between youth and adults crimes, is that with adult crime, police officers don’t have much of discretion to whether arrest or not that offender. Majority of the time they follow certain guidelines and laws. With juvenile justice system, officers have more freedom to make that decision. However officers do not just have a discretion whether to arrest juvenile or let him go, they also can impact juvenile’s court decisions after he or she are arrested.

One may believe that the more offenders that are put in jail, the safer our country will be. This however, is not entirely true as there is little connection between improved public safety and an increase in incarceration (Vera Institute, pg. 9). We should consider those making up the population of our prisons. First there are those who are mentally ill, who are lacking proper treatment as they spend their time in prison. 72% of all mentally ill offenders in jail have a substance abuse disorder (Vera Institute, pg. 12). How can these individuals receive the help they need, if they are being locked away in facilities that won’t provide the appropriate assistance? Another portion of the jail population consists of those who are not actually guilty of committing a crime. Nevertheless, they sit in jail awaiting their trial date if not granted, or unable to afford, bail. This is spending funds on people who do not belong in jail, as there is not always an expedient way to prove their innocence. This also may lead to innocent people accepting plea bargains as they away their trial date, which leads to a whole separate set of problems. Beyond raising the jail population, holding innocent people in prison can have negative impacts on their family, and social bonds. Not being able to work while in prison hinders the financial flow to the family, and get put added stress on the remaining

One of the most interesting things I learned from doing my research on community corrections in my jurisdiction is how the criminal justice system is committed to being fair and balanced. I have observed in a court arraignment how a judge briefed everyone in the court about proper protocols during the hearings .The judge said he could not start court hearings unless a prosecutor was present, and that he cautions the inmate the right to remain silent, and also discussed to the inmate his rights. Community-based corrections developed as a result of dissatisfaction with institutional confinement and in recognition of the problems encountered by inmates reentering society after prolonged incarceration. Belinda R. McCarthy, Bernard J. McCarthy, Jr,& Matthew C. Leone (4th edu.). (2001) Community-Based Corrections. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. In writing this paper I will inform and discuss the various programs and rules applied to handle offenders who have violated state laws according to the criminal justice system in NC. I will write about the following subjects in the following order: 1) Parole and probation, 2) Community and drug courts, 3) Pretrial release, 4) Victim aid, and 5) Community service (as a function of service of sentence).