Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rehabilitation vs. recidivism
Rehabilitation vs. recidivism
Rehabilitation vs. recidivism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rehabilitation vs. recidivism
In todays time we have different forms of corrections. We have the rehabilitation for of corrections. There is also the form of punishing offenders. To me there should be and equal balance between the two forms of corrections. Too much punishment and you get sued now an days. Too little punishment you get repeat offenders. Too little rehabilitation your drug crimes relapse.
In my opinion the corrections system around our era does not punish strict enough. We have crimes like dog fighting, not that dog fighting is right, getting hire sentences than some who commented man slaughter. For example Mike Vick got 7 years for dog fighting but a guy in my home town got drunk drove and killed 5 innocent people walking , this was his second DUI and only got 3 years. Please tell me how this adds up? Plecxico Buris shoots himself in the leg and gets jail time but illegal drugs such as marijuana is a misdemeanor. Our corrections system is messed up and needs to be rebuilt on the foundation on witch it was found. People that go to prison should never want to go back. Punishments should be way ...
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
Community corrections have more advantages over incarceration and fewer disadvantages. Incarcerating people isn’t working that well and the biggest reason is the overcrowding of prisons. According to a chart in Schmalleger’s book, “prisoners compared vs. capacity” there has been overcrowding of prisons since 1980. We are putting more people in prisons than how much capacity they can actually hold. Not only has the prison population skyrocketed but it also costs a lot of money to house all of those people. Why should we send people to jail if they are convicted of a nonviolent crime when we could put them on probation so we don’t overfill prisons? 49% of convicted inmates committed a nonviolent crime. (Class 12/7/09) If we were to put nonviolent offenders on probation then that would make a lot of room for violent offenders.
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
There has always been an opinion on the correct way to deal with criminals. This will be yet another, but by me. The ways of dealing with criminals is not easy, and there is technically not a definite way to do so. But in my opinion, among the many goals of corrections, the ways I can agree on are a combination of rehabilitation and deterrence. These two things are completely opposite of one another, but used at the appropriate times, to the appropriate inmates, it could work in a positive way.
Community-based corrections offer a viable alternative to imprisonment. As an alternative, a community-based correction save on cost, reduces prison populations, is an effective form of rehabilitation, is humane, and supported by public opinion. However, despite the potential for community-based correction for reducing prison population, this has not been the case. Judges are reluctant to hand community sanctions, and sentencing philosophy does not support it as an alternative mechanism for punishing offenders (Mackenzie, 2001).
The problem is that the people who are being incarcerated don’t need to be incarcerated. Instead of trying to do what is best for the offenders and help them we are just throwing them in prisons for so many years and hoping it will help. Yes, this idea is working in some cases, but in other cases throwing the person in for many years is actually making it worse. They are not getting the help or treatment they need. I spoke with a man who was in prison for many years and he said getting drugs in prison is so much easier than getting them outside of prison. He also said that most drug offenders go back to prison, because they do not get help with their addictions. They are being put into a place that is just making their addictions worse.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Although it has varied in its forms, punishment is largely influenced by the theories and socially constructed views of criminal activity. It is important to acknowledge how the forms of punishment have progressed from public humiliation and executions to solitary confinement and into today, with forced labor and firmly established routines. Even how the structures have changed with the number of those incarcerated. From initially only being two-story houses to being massive communities hidden behind penitentiary walls, it becomes important to question what their true purpose really is. Although it can be argued that prisons are still a form of rehabilitation for offenders, when you examine what it is that the inmates are actually doing, they are benefitting the economy more than they are benefitting themselves. Making budget cuts towards education and counseling services, which are necessary to reform offenders, is only going to continue to increase rates of incarceration. Instead, that money is currently being invested in ways to further expand the prison enterprise and displace those who are marginalized. Racism and economic greed has been embedded into prison functioning. In order to reduce recidivism rates there needs to be more of a focus on decreasing crime and the rates of incarceration by focusing more heavily on resources and
The Criminal Justice system was established to achieve justice. Incarceration and rehabilitation are two operations our government practices to achieve justice over criminal behavior. Incarceration is the punishment for infraction of the law and in result being confined in prison. It is more popular than rehabilitation because it associates with a desire for retribution. However, retribution is different than punishment. Rehabilitation, on the other hand is the act of restoring the destruction caused by a crime rather than simply punishing offenders. This may be the least popular out of the two and seen as “soft on crime” however it is the only way to heal ruptured communities and obtain justice instead of punishing and dispatching criminals
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
The correctional system is not a perfect system as it does not address the key issues that cause offenders to continue to be imprisoned after only one year of release. The system has been evolving from a punishment base system from the 1970s to a complex system designed to beyond the punishment to deal with the rehabilitation of the criminal mind. This allows the individual offender to recognize their faults, receive treatment and be released from the correctional system as a productive member lacking terminal deviant behavior.
Part of the punishment is the elements prisoners must endure while imprisonment. The conditions in prisons can be characterized as harsh and unbearable at times. Cold daunting cells and prison overcrowding evoke mediocracy living conditions (Herzing 2015). Yes, payment for crimes should match the crimes committed. Murders, rapes, and all other odious crimes should evoke a place of lack luster conditions to those of such criminal background (Washington 2016). The amenities once enjoyed by an individual in society should be taken away, if convicted of a crime. The freewill to go to the store, or a movie, to live in certain neighborhoods, should be entities lost due to criminal behavior. Besides the loss of freedoms, how should the prison system effect prisoners?
Both the medical model and the community model were great attempts to better our system of corrections. There major problems were that they did not consider all of the options and the problems that may occur. Combing these three systems seems like it would work because it gives people the opportunities they need while still satisfying the public’s safety in incarcerating them to pay for their crime. Crime will never be completely abolished because people have a free will to act as they wish and some people are just evil. Even though crime will probably never be fully ended, we should may every attempt possible to rehabilitate those who have previously offended to prevent them from re-offending.
The study found that combined punishment and rehabilitation worked by increasing one effort decreased the other. Therefore, the approach to decrease crime is to give resources, so that after being punished, criminals complete impactful intervention programs during their first stage of returning to society because excessively harsh or lenient punishments are less effective (Berenji, 2014). Which makes one think the mixture of both would be more effective in today’s correction because holding accountability is