More handpicked essays just for you.
How incarceration affects a family as a whole
How incarceration affects a family as a whole
Recidivism and its effects conclusion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How incarceration affects a family as a whole
Sam said, “He's taken my dignity and everything away from me .” He now lives only one kilometre from a primary school and the community is now living in fear that he will reoffend. “It's terrible, our kids can't walk around the streets,” Grandmother Trudy Maynard said.
Moreover, 82% of people said that they are afraid that the court system isn’t working and that too many people are reoffending. Astoundingly, exactly 23 268 prisoners had reoffended in 2017. The Government of South Australia suggests, “we need to adopt the ‘Risk, Need, Responsivity’ program as it has been shown to reduce offender recidivism by up to 35%. “During a 2008-2009 trial of the ‘Risk, Need, Responsivity’ program in Western Australia there was a 43% reduction of recidivism for those charged with sex offences.” Consequently, the Criminal Code Act 1899 (QLD) must be amended to include the ‘Risk, Need, Responsivity’ program to decrease recidivism to relieve pressure from the legal system, the courts, and to protect society. Therefore, to protect society and reduce recidivism rates, we must adopt the Western Australian approach to crime.
…show more content…
According to Kevin Foley, “the way to address jail reform is to ‘rack ‘em, pack ‘em and stack ‘em in prison.” However, the publics support for this approach is rapidly decreasing and 88% of Australians have little to no confidence in the prison system to rehabilitate prisoners. “The criminal justice system of ‘catch and release’ is expensive and ineffective .” Contrastingly, according to a Birmingham University study, “prison was particularly effective in reducing property crime when targeted at serious and repeat offenders
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).
This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on
The current criminal justice system is expensive to maintain. In North America the cost to house one prisoner is upwards of eighty to two hundred dollars a day (Morris, 2000). The bulk of this is devoted to paying guards and security (Morris, 2000). In contrast with this, community oriented programming as halfway houses cost less than the prison alternative. Community programming costs five to twenty five dollars a day, and halfway houses although more expensive than community programs still remain cheaper than prison (Morris, 2000). Tabibi (2015c) states that approximately ninety percent of those housed in prison are non-violent offenders. The treatment of offenders in the current system is understood to be unjust. By this, Morris (2000) explains that we consistently see an overrepresentation of indigenous and black people in the penal system. Corporate crimes are largely omitted, while street crimes are emphasized (Morris, 2000). This disproportionately targets marginalized populations (homeless, drug addicted and the poor) (Tabibi, 2015c). The current system is immoral in that the caging of people is highly depersonalized and troubling (Tabibi, 2015c). This is considered to be a barbaric practice of the past, however it is still frequently used in North America (Morris, 2000). Another moral consideration is with the labelling of youth as offenders in the criminal justice system (Morris, 2000). Morris (2000) argues that we should see youth crimes as a social failure, not as an individual level failure. Next, Morris (2000) classifies prisons as a failure. Recidivism rates are consistently higher for prisons than for other alternatives (Morris, 2000). The reason for this is that prisons breed crime. A school for crime is created when a person is removed from society and labeled; they become isolated, angry
But as will be discussed, there are major flaws in the Australian criminal justice system with issues focussing on three main concerns: (i) lenient sentencing in the criminal justice system particularly with white-collar and blue-collar crimes (i) recidivism and lack of support for offenders (iii) public safety concerns. This essay will examine issues with the Australian prison system, and explore the punishment of shaming and if it is an effective method in preventing general and specific deterrence using sociological frameworks and theories.
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
...ystem and are seen as a credible sentencing option because of the restorative and rehabilitative effect it has on offenders by allowing them the opportunity to give something back to the community and providing them with education and work experience. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that rehabilitation is neither an effective or non-effective sanction. The use of probation as a stand-alone sanction has decreased over the years with probation now being combined with more severe sentences. When combined with rehabilitative programs probation reduced crime outcomes by 16.7%. The common perception of the general public is that increasing the severity of sentencing will reduce crime, however empirical evidence suggest that this is not the appropriate response. Public dissatisfaction with sentencing in Tasmania is often due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
Over the past couple of decades the UK’s prison population has exploded, causing an overcrowding crisis. Statistics show that intake has doubled since 1993 and the UK now has the largest population of prison inmates in Western Europe at 85,108. The Certified Normal Accommodation (CAN) for UK prisons is 75,440, so ‘the prison estate is currently holding just under 10,000 more people than it was designed to’ as reported by the Prison Reform Trust. Their research shows that ‘the 30 most overcrowded prisons in England and Wales are twice as likely to be rated as failing by the prison service’. Overcrowding is having a negative impact on the effectiveness and safety of the prisons which has been amplified by ‘cuts of more than 20% to the prison budget’ and ‘reformers argue that the best way to improve the system is to reduce both the number of people sent to prison and the amount of time they spend there’. According to The Howard League for Penal Reform, imposing community sentences on offenders rather than prison sentences, immediately diverts them away from ‘rivers of crime’, where ‘prisons are sinking under a tide of violence and rampant drug abuse’ and they argue that by simply putting people in prison they can be swept ‘deeper and
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
The “Tough on Crime” and “War on Drugs” policies of the 1970s – 1980s have caused an over populated prison system where incarceration is policy and assistance for prevention was placed on the back burner. As of 2005, a little fewer than 2,000 prisoners are being released every day. These individuals have not gone through treatment or been properly assisted in reentering society. This has caused individuals to reenter the prison system after only a year of being release and this problem will not go away, but will get worst if current thinking does not change. This change must be bigger than putting in place some under funded programs that do not provide support. As the current cost of incarceration is around $30,000 a year per inmate, change to the system/procedure must prevent recidivism and the current problem of over-crowed prisons.
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
Verkaik, R. (2006) The Big Question: What are the alternatives to prison, and do they work? The Independent [online] 10 October. Available from:
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
In recent years, the Queensland Government along with other states in Australia have discarded the idea of using court-referred conferencing, instead choosing to follow other avenues for the rehabilitation of youth offenders. One of these avenues is the controversial use of boot camps. Within Queensland specifically, there has been a strong wave of both media and public support for the use of these camps, with much research being conducted to examine whether they are a useful avenue to follow. The use of boot camps has been controversial in many countries around the world, such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom and this paper will examine whether these controversial camps would be a good way to deter youth offenders within Queensland. With the introduction of the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) 2012 Amendment bill it was hoped that the youth would have a real chance at rehabilitation and develop the skills to make good life choices (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson & Richards, 2012). By using social control theory, it can be seen that if a youth offender is released from a boot camp, they will have to be entering back into a society where they will have four specific social bonds, attachment, commitment, involvement and belief that will keep them from reoffending (Agnew, 1985).