Over the last few decades classification systems for offenders have been used for a variety of organizational purposes. Over time these classification systems have evolved, not only as a whole in the criminal justice system, but also varying between different organizations. Classification systems that create models based on the risks and needs of offenders are most popular. Throughout the years these models and the purposes for their use have been in a state of change, as well as the way their effectiveness is gaged. One of the most commonly used classification systems for offenders is the combination of risk assessment and need assessment. The combination of these two systems of classification is rather new. The earliest types of classification focused mainly on offender risks by using custody classification and separating prisoners into minimum, medium, and maximum security (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Early risks assessments appeared to only focus on historical factors that did not tend to change over time. A supplement of the classification was introduced with the original needs assessment system. The needs assessment was meant to offer information relevant to treatment (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the needs assessments were rarely used for the purposes of locating treatment. The introduction of models that combined the two assessments was paramount because it opened assessments up to the idea that factors change over time that influence offenders. The earliest risk assessment models that used actual scoring were created almost exclusively for use during offender incarceration. However, this is considered the second generation by Andrews and Bonta (2010). The first generation of risk assessment occurred at a tim... ... middle of paper ... ...sychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Lexis/Nexis, Ch 10 & 11. Bonta, J. (1996). Risk, Needs, Assessment and Treatment. In A. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goldstein, A., Glick, B., & Gibbs, J. (2011). Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth (rev.ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press. Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M. & Lester, D. (2009). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation, 7th ed., Cincinnati, OH: Lexis/Nexis. Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E., Wright, E., & Bauman, A. (2008). Achieving Accurate Pictures of Risk and Identifying Gender-Responsive Needs: Two New Assessments for Women Offenders. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice: National Institute of Corrections.
Van der Knaap, L., Alberda, D., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism.Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 413-422. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5dc33823-1541-4e10-9ac6-36b6fbb83bbf@sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4203
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
Managing case assignments allows for the offender to have the best opportunities for reintegration into the community as well as for the criminal justice system to successfully supervise the offender. There exist 4 different case assignment models that are used most frequently to provide the offender with his or her most basic needs and services. The first caseload assignment model is the conventional model. The conventional model uses an unsystematic method to assign offenders to community supervision officers. This random assignment of offenders leaves the officer with a variety of different types of offenders.
In the event that a prisoner (particularly a sex offender) does complete rehabilitation, he carries with him a stigma upon reentering society. People often fear living near a prior drug addict or convicted murderer and the sensational media hype surrounding released felons can ruin a newly released convict’s life before it beings. What with resident notifications, media scare tactics and general concern for safety, a sex offender’s ability to readapt into society is severely hindered (554). This warrants life-skills rehabilitation applied to him useless, as he will be unable to even attempt to make the right decision regarding further crime opportunities.
When an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, post sentencing considerations must be made based on an evaluation of the individual and this will determine the manner in which the prison sentence is served. Post sentencing considerations include security classifications, parole and continued detention orders. These offer different levels of incapacity, accessibility of rehabilitation programs and incentives for good behaviour, and are implicated in order to achieve justice through upholding the rights of the victim, the offender and the wider community.
This particular population of offenders are classified as people whose minds do not process in normal ways. Because of this, they have to be separated and be put into special facility centers or in a mental hospital.
Risk assessments are important for the police, courts, corrections, and the public when determining if an offender is a high or low risk. In the correctional aspect of the justice system, risk assessments are extremely important. This is because they aid in understanding which correctional institution being either minimum, medium, or maximum security. Risk assessments also help to understand the recidivism rates, if they are going to commit new offences, and lastly, if anything can help reduce the likelihood for the offenders. There are many risk assessments correctional staff use. When evaluating an offender, a qualified worker will combine their own discretion, as well as, research and data to back up their choices.
... middle of paper ... ... Understanding psychological theories helps criminologists to design appropriate correctional strategies to mitigate crime. Works Cited Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, G.H. d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a The causes and cures of criminality.
... offenders who were “worse off.” As a result, local criminal justice officials are encouraged to evaluate their current correctional situation in terms of organizational impetus (are key stakeholders behind the initiative?), political culture (will new programs be supported?), and prospective clientele (what type of offenders are being targeted?) to identify the most appropriate program or approach. A common approach being employed by law enforcement agencies around the country to address these questions and identify problems is the utilization of the SARA model. SARA involves:
There are several identifiable psychological factors that increase the likelihood an individual will demonstrate deviant sexual behavior. One of the most important contributing factors is physical or sexual abuse endured as a child. According to Becerra-García, García-León and Egan (2012), sex offenders are twice as likely to report being sexually, emotionally, or physically abused as a child in comparison to other offenders. There are also other factors besides abuse that must be taken into consideration. A recent study on female sex offenders by Roe-Sepowitz and Krysik (2008) states, “the data reveal that many of the 118 female juvenile sex offenders came from chaotic and disorganized families and had poor parental supervision and serious school and mental health problems”. As Becerra-García, García-León and Egan (2012) discuss further, there are also personality traits that sex offenders are likely to possess, which makes it possible for psychologists to distinguish general characteristics of sex offenders. These personality traits can be identified using the Five Factor Model, which scales an individual’s level of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
This model of corrections main purpose was to reintroducing the offenders in to the community. This Program was invented to help offenders in the transition from jail to the community, aid in the processes of finding jobs and stay connected to their families and the community. The needs of these individuals are difficult: the frequency of substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness is elevated among the jail population.
As the current prison structures and sentencing process continues to neglect the issues that current offenders have no change will accrue to prevent recidivism. The issue with the current structure of the prison sentencing process is it does not deal with the “why” the individual is an social deviant but only looks at the punishment process to remove the deviant from society. This method does not allow an offender to return back to society without continuing where they left off. As an offender is punished they are sentenced (removal from society) they continue in an isolated environment (prison) after their punishment time is completed and are released back to society they are now an outsider to the rapidly changing social environment. These individuals are returned to society without any coping skills, job training, or transitional training which will prevent them from continuing down th...
There are a number of different factors that increases the risk of recidivism for both sexual and non-sexual offenders. For instance, some of the more common predictors of recidivism for non-sexual offenders comprises of being of a young age at the time of arrest or conviction, the offender’s prior criminal history and the age in which the offender began to perpetrate their crimes, if the offender is of a minority race, the offender’s current relationship status, and whether or not the offender demonstrates any psychopathic tendencies and/or has a clinical diagnosis or any symptoms of antisocial personality disorder (APD). The risk factors of recidivism in sexual offenders, on the other hand, typically involve the number of sexual crimes the
Classification can be based on psychology, education vocational, health and other needs. It can be determined by prison site, housing assignment, working assignments and availably of treatment programs. Classification has its advantages. On page 160 chapter three it states that classification has dangerous and aggressive inmate that are placed on a high security level. Misclassification avoids most inmates. A staff member can classify a prisoner to higher custody if it is necessary.