Essay On Unconditional Diversion

According to Schmalleger and Smykla, “Diversion has been defined as “the halting or suspension, before conviction, of formal criminal proceedings against a person, [often] conditioned on some form of counterperformance by the defendant” (pp. 90, 2015). Also, the requirement of a counterperformance is the distinction between the two types of diversion: unconditional and conditional. While unconditional diversion terminates the prosecutorial process without any stipulations, conditional diversion is granted based on “the defendant’s participation… in a treatment, counseling, or educational program aimed at changing his or her behavior” (Schmalleger & Smykla, pp. 90, 2015). To summarize, unconditional diversion is essentially a “get out of jail free card” offered to avoid further exposure to a criminal environment, thus, affording the offender an opportunity to circumvent a lifestyle that would result in additional criminal activity. Conversely, conditional

First, as previously mentioned, diversion can be a beneficial disposition in the matter of first-time offenders. This is especially true regarding juvenile offenders based on a study conducted by McAra and McVie in 2007 which concluded that “Recidivism rates were significantly higher over the following year for the sample of youth drawn furthest into the justice system” (Wilson & Hoge, pp. 499, 2013). Diversion cannot be expected to act as a fix all solution in every situation. For example, while diversion is effective in preventing long sentences for offenders that are mentally ill, “there is as yet no evidence to suggest that this diversion model serves to reduce the incidence or prevalence of recidivism in this group” (Sirotich, 2009). In conclusion, the efficacy of diversion regarding recidivism is determined by the circumstance under which it is used and if it is utilized in an appropriate