Corrections Unit 5 Ip

8,947 views
8,862 views

Published on

This Outline is about Working in the office of a state senator as a staffer and there have been charges of abuse at the local jail which has caught the attention of the senator. The Senator who is focusing on the state correctional system which is a constant target of criticism for an increasingly vocal number of civil libertarian groups is speaking before the state bar association with intentions on addressing ways that the correctional system might be improved. A detailed outline on correctional theory along with suggestions on ways to implement some non-traditional theories of corrections will be evident in this correctional theory outline. In reviewing Mass Incarceration there is often criticism of simple warehousing of human beings who are convicted of crimes. If it is a violent criminal there is a need to safeguard society from future criminal acts of a person who is convicted of the most heinous offenses. This outline will describe what the competing theories of corrections are and if they are prevalent in today’s system or not. A review of how the goals of punishment and rehabilitative strategies differ will also be shown. This outline will also show whether or not there is specific data to support one particular approach over another and go over two non-traditional correctional approaches while addressing the goals of each. My own personal opinion will be given on whether I feel the approach is effective, if they are more cost effective than conventional incarceration, and why I believe so with support for my answers. There will also be data on rates of recidivism and a completion of academic and vocational programs within the prison system. The thesis for this outline is “Correctional Theory is no longer a Theory” (AIU Online, 2009)

Published in: Business, News & Politics
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,947
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
202
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Corrections Unit 5 Ip

  1. 1. Running Head: CORRECTIONAL THEORY OUTLINE<br />Corrections<br />Carla J. McCoy<br />Unit 5 Individual Projects – CRJ101<br />March 14th, 2009<br />American InterContinental University<br />Abstract<br />This Outline is about Working in the office of a state senator as a staffer and there have been charges of abuse at the local jail which has caught the attention of the senator. The Senator who is focusing on the state correctional system which is a constant target of criticism for an increasingly vocal number of civil libertarian groups is speaking before the state bar association with intentions on addressing ways that the correctional system might be improved. A detailed outline on correctional theory along with suggestions on ways to implement some non-traditional theories of corrections will be evident in this correctional theory outline. In reviewing Mass Incarceration there is often criticism of simple warehousing of human beings who are convicted of crimes. If it is a violent criminal there is a need to safeguard society from future criminal acts of a person who is convicted of the most heinous offenses. This outline will describe what the competing theories of corrections are and if they are prevalent in today’s system or not. A review of how the goals of punishment and rehabilitative strategies differ will also be shown. This outline will also show whether or not there is specific data to support one particular approach over another and go over two non-traditional correctional approaches while addressing the goals of each. My own personal opinion will be given on whether I feel the approach is effective, if they are more cost effective than conventional incarceration, and why I believe so with support for my answers. There will also be data on rates of recidivism and a completion of academic and vocational programs within the prison system. The thesis for this outline is “Correctional Theory is no longer a Theory” (AIU Online, 2009) <br />Introduction<br />We all know that life is difficult and can be unfair, but according to Dr. Viktor Frank (1997) that the meaning of life is not what happens to us but it is what we do with that which happens to us. Correctional Theory may no longer be a Theory because of one man’s credo. Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” has caused justice scholars and policy makers to debate the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation. Programs that are based around surveillance and punishment are embraced and evident in today’s society. Even though at a later date Martinson admitted he was wrong, justice scholars and policy makers have continued to debate on his original credo. However, it is evident that there are various successful programs that are available that will reduce future criminality not only from offenders but potential offenders as well. (Shrum, H., 2008)<br />Background<br /><ul><li>Competing Theories of Corrections that are Prevalent
  2. 2. Shock Probation
  3. 3. Split Sentencing
  4. 4. Shock Incarceration
  5. 5. Mixed Sentencing & Community Service
  6. 6. Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS)
  7. 7. Home Confinement & Electronic Monitoring
  8. 8. How Goals of these Punishment/Rehabilitative Strategies differ
  9. 9. Combined Brief Imprisonment & Probation
  10. 10. Time served in Custody yet released on Probation
  11. 11. Military style boot camp
  12. 12. Weekends in jail, community service, & probation supervision
  13. 13. Five face-to-face contacts, Mandatory curfew, required employment, weekly arrest check on records, alcohol and drug testing, community service, & Notification of probation officers when arrested
  14. 14. Remaining confined within residence
  15. 15. Supporting Data on Intensive Supervision Probation & House Arrest
  16. 16. Reduces Recidivism
  17. 17. Can benefit the seriously ill or handicapped
  18. 18. Two non-traditional correctional approaches and goals
  19. 19. Approaches:
  20. 20. Electronic Monitoring
  21. 21. Curfew
  22. 22. Approach is effective or not?
  23. 23. Is effective due to cost, lessens prison overcrowding
  24. 24. Lessens prison construction, and provides structure and organization for offenders
  25. 25. Approaches more cost-effective than Conventional Incarceration?
  26. 26. Rules and Organizational Means
  27. 27. Cost efficient for various areas
  28. 28. State why you believe so
  29. 29. rates of recidivism & completion of academic and vocational Programs (Stevens, D., 2008)</li></ul>Arguments<br />The Competing theories of corrections that are prevalent in today’s system include Split Sentencing, Shock Probation, Shock Incarceration, Mixed Sentencing & Community Service, Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS), and Home Confinement & Electronic Monitoring. Split Sentencing involves a short time of imprisonment along with probation and serving time in the local jail. (Schmalleger, 2005) Shock Probation involves the offender serving time in custody which is normally in prison but released through a court order to be put on probation. Probation has to be applied for by the offender though and is not a guarantee. (Schmalleger, 2005) Shock Incarceration provides regimented environments within a military style boot camp that involves hard labor, strict discipline, and physical training. This is normally for young youth offenders and the duration is very short. All offenders who complete the program will be released under supervision. (Schmalleger, 2005) Mixed Sentencing can involve weekends in jail and received probation supervision. Offenders are required to get either treatment or be involved in community service programs while being on probation. (Schmalleger, 2005) Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) involves five face-to-face contacts between the offender and supervisor during each business week, required employment, a weekly check of arrest records, mandatory curfew, routine alcohol & drug testing, automatic notification of probation officers if offender is arrested, and so many hours of community service. (Schmalleger, 2005) And lastly we have Home Confinement also known as House Arrest which involves the offender being legally ordered to be confined to his own residence. Exceptions for leaving are employment, household essentials, and medical emergencies. (Schmalleger, 2005)<br />Goals of these Punishment/Rehabilitative Strategies differ<br />The Goals of these Punishment/Rehabilitative Strategies differ because if you take Rehabilitation programs for instance they have a significant impact on reducing recidivism rates. Most of them result in fewer broken families; however prison overcrowding is lessened which would mean fewer new prison facilities would need to be constructed. Educational programs provide education that leads to obtaining GED’s or Vocational Training. All of the goals of Punishment and Rehabilitation differ here because they require different steps to take in order to effectively help each offender according to his or her criminal act, past behavior problems, and family and community ties. However, the one thing that all of these goals have in common is that they are ultimately safer for communities. (Stevens, D., 2008)<br />Supportive Data from one approach over another<br />Some good supportive data from one approach to another would be to review two different types of punishment such as Intensive Supervision Probation and House Arrest. For Intensive Supervision Probation this can be used in order to obtain control among a community setting. This can be effective at reducing recidivism providing there are clear and specific goals. On the other hand when it comes to House Arrest this would be best used for people who have special handicaps, mentally retarded people can be better supervised and seriously or terminally ill offenders. It must be evident that the desire of rehabilitating offenders is that the rationale behind rehabilitation is viewed as a judicially administered punishment. (Stevens, D., 2008)<br />Two non-traditional correctional approaches addressing goals<br />One non-traditional correctional approach is House Arrest also known as Electronic Monitoring. This is a home confinement program among the federal court system. Home Incarceration, Home Detention, and or Curfew are the three components or levels of restriction the federal court system has. A curfew will require offenders to remain at home every single day during certain hours of the day where Home Detention requires offenders to remain at home at all times with the exception of preapproved and scheduled absences. The advantages of this are that it helps reduce prison populations and is cost efficient, brings the offender closer to family life, and provides them an opportunity to obtain a work environment. When reviewing costs of all three, you can see that House Arrest costs approximately $1,130 per year per supervised probationer. Incarceration costs run around $18,100 per year per inmate. (Stevens, D., 2008) <br />Effective Approach<br />I do feel this approach is effective when it comes to House Arrest because it lowers costs, lessens prison overcrowding and construction, and can benefit to people who would specifically benefit from being on house arrest. When it comes to Incarceration, there are actually people who do need to be Incarcerated because they just can’t seem to be punished properly through alternative programs and do not want to help themselves. Having a Curfew is also an effective approach because it puts rules and organizational means on offenders where they have the right to choose in being responsible or not. <br />Approaches more cost effective than conventional incarceration<br />These approaches are indeed more cost effective than conventional incarceration because they require less money to correct offenders and prevent future criminal activity. It can cost thousands in double digits to incarcerate an offender and even though there are some offenders that are bound for prison life there are others who are non-violent that want help in other ways and do not want to face prison sentencing. It can still cost thousands of dollars for using House Arrest as an example but only in one digit form. Example: it can cost around $20,000 to incarcerate an offender where House arrest would only cost $1,000 or $2,000 for parolees. <br />Data on Rates of Recidivism<br />Here is a chart on the Rates of Recidivism that I’ve found: <br />The Percentage of Released prisoners rearrested within three years by offense for 1984 and 1994 are as follows: <br />1983: <br />All released prisoners 62.5%, Violent 59.6%, Property 68.1%, Drug 50.4%, and Public-Order 54.6%<br />1984:<br />All released prisoners 67.5, Violent 61.7, Property 73.8, Drug 66.7, and Public Order 62.2<br />Reconviction within 3 years didn’t change much from 1983 to 1994 so they remained stable for released. Here is the data on that: <br />-violent offenders (41.9% and 39.9%, respectively)<br />-property offenders (53.0% and 53.4%)<br />-public order offenders (41.5% and 42.0%)<br />(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002)<br />Recidivism are readily reducible and even more so with a broader use of rehabilitation programs such as substance abuse treatment centers, academic and vocational education, intermediate sanctions, post-secondary education, and other alternatives to incarceration. (Shrum, H., 2004) Sometimes recidivism is as low as 5-15% because these programs work so well. (Manitonquat, 1996)<br />Conclusion<br />Debates, Criticism, Warehousing of human beings who care convicted of crimes, it’s all part of the circle of life among criminal activity but there is no longer a Theory when it comes to Correctional Theory. There are to many debatable arguments, and Criticisms that will show it’s better to have alternative punishments and rehabilitations for offenders rather than strictly incarcerating them. In the words of Nietzsche: “When we treat a man as he is, he only becomes worse. But, when we treat a man as he can be, he will be that which he can be.” These are some good words to go by when it comes to prevention alternatives to incarceration, words that will be emphasized in a much broader and greater degree in the future. (Stevens, D., 2008) <br />References<br />AIU Online:<br />AIU Online, (2009) Corrections American InterContinental University CRJ101 Unit 5 <br />Individual Assignment retrieved on March 14th, 2009 at https://mycampus.aiu-online.com <br />Online Journal:<br />Shrum, Harvey (2008).No Longer Theory: Correctional Practices That Work. Journal of <br />Correctional Education. Retrieved on March 14th, 2009 at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200409/ai_n9454365?tag=content;col1<br />Online Intel Reference:<br />Schmalleger, F., (2005) Criminal Justice Today Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.<br /> Retrieved on March 14th, 2009 at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200409/ai_n9454365?tag=content;col1<br />Stevens, D., (2008) Identifying Competing Theories of Corrections Prevalent In Today’s Justice<br /> System Qassia Intel Retrieved on March 15th, 2009 at http://www.qassia.com/identifying-competing-theories-of-corrections-prevalent-in-todays-justice-system<br />Web Page Reference & In Text Citation: <br />Manitonquat (1996) Ending Violent Crime A Vision of a Society Free of Violence. Publisher<br /> Retrieved on March 14th, 2009 at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4111/is_200409/ai_n9454365/pg_8?tag=content;col1<br />Statistics Online:<br />Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2002) In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners<br /> Were rearrested within three years Reentry Trends in the U.S. Recidivism Retrieved on March 15th, 2009 at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm<br />

×