The document discusses the need for a redefined and collaborative approach within the criminal justice system to enhance public safety and address the needs of both offenders and victims. It outlines strategies such as information sharing, legislative reforms, and the establishment of reentry courts and probation officers to facilitate successful reintegration of ex-offenders into society. Furthermore, it advocates for shifting from punitive measures to restorative justice practices that prioritize rehabilitation and community involvement.

1. REDEFINING THE
Criminal
Justic
S Y S T E M
PHYLLIS BACK, C J
Historically, the judicial system,
law enforcement, and corrections
have each had separate goals and visions
for achieving the united mission of safety and
justice within the criminal justice commtinity. Today,
it appears that these goals have hindered the original
intent or purpose of those goals. Progressing into the second
decade of the 21st century, the criminal justice system has
realized
that to achieve its ultimate mission—public safety—for its
citizens, it must
be united in redefining its goals and visions. This approach
requires a profound
across-the-board collaboration in a manner that thus far has not
been broached.

2. JANUARY i FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANjails
The contemporary criminal justice system must
respond in a proactive rather than a reactive man-
ner to provide both the necessary and immediate
sanctions for the convicted, and at the same
time ensure that victims' needs are addressed
respectfully. One way to achieve this is
to implement a program tor the sole
purpose ot sharing information about
all new arrests. This information
includes:
• Family history and
background.
• Delinquent offenses.
• Previous encoun-
ters with the
law.
• Prior
convictions.
• Probation or
parole mandates.

3. • Work history
• Education
Stable living condifions.
The strategy is to share this
information during an inmate's entire
involvement with the criminal justice
system. For the data program assessment,
an offender would be evaluated annually and
i continuum ot care established and shared with
' every participating agency—^beginning at pretrial,
following through to the completion ot any mandated
requirements of post-release sentencing. All informa-
tion pertaining to treatment interventions, including an
offender's progress and failure with his or her treatment
plans, is entered into the data program. It an offender
relapses or reotfends, the data are updated and the con-
tinuum is reestablished to help redirect as needed.
Legislative Approaches
The criminal justice system needs legislative support
tor sentencing practices such as habilitation, rehabilita-
tion, restoration, and réintégration. Criminal sanctions
that lack intervention and prevention strategies are not
a deterrent trom future criminal activity. Creating laws
that mark people as criminals tor the remainder of their
lives denies former imnates the opporttinities available
to other citizens.
To address these issues, legislators and officials estab-

4. lished the Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP) in
2006. The tocus of PSPP is not only to allow ex-oftenders
to return to the community as productive members of
society, but also to improve public safety. (See "Public
Safety Performance Project.")
It laws continue to limit ottenders' opportunities tor
employment (including selt-employment), education,
and housing, the criminal justice system is only fostering
further criminal behavior. As mentioned, laws should
not be dehilitative; otherwise, the interests of public
safety are ultimately defeated. Policymakers of the 21st
century must re-examine the purpose and outcomes of
such laws. Possible affirmative actions include:
• Providing restricted driver's licenses to ex-offenders.
Relying on a triend or family member or even public
transportation is not always an ettective option. Aside
from the fact that public transportation is limited in
many areas, it is unavailable in most rural regions.
An ex-offender's probation or parole is violated when
he or she tails to appear on time tor a meeting, and
many employers require that employees have reliable
transportation.
• Allow criminal justice agencies access to the juve-
nile records (treatment) ot adult ottenders. Although
expunging a juvenile's record once a teenager reaches
legal adulthood is currently part ot the justice system,
it is detrimental to the intervention and rehabilitation
methods of the now-young adult who is still involved
with the adult criminal justice system.
• Establish local reentry courts in every local jurisdic-
tion. Reentry courts prevent a probation violator's
case trom becoming backlogged in the court system

5. hy providing swift and immediate sanctions for
technical violations. Reentry courts also provide an
alternative to jail while inmates await a preliminary
hearing. Such alternatives allow ex-offenders to
remain at home, stay employed, and continue to pro-
vide income to support their families.
• Establish reentry probation officers (RPOs) in every
local jurisdiction. RPOs provide stringent but realistic
requirements tor ex-ottenders as part of a pre-release
transition plan tailored to individual needs. RPOs
collect information ahout an offender's specific needs
(such as medical, mental, and disability services)
and help direct that individual to the appropriate
resources. In addition, RPOs work with employers,
educational institutions, and public housing authori-
ties, therehy helping ex-ottenders ohtain employment,
work to achieve a high school or general education
diploma, and secure stable living conditions. RPOs
also engage family members in an ex-ottenders' reen-
try plans before release.
AMERICANJails JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013
• Remove criminal convictions from any records visible
to employers and financial and educational institu-
tions if an ex-offender has successfully completed
reentry probation; been established in the commu-
nity (i.e., obtained housing and employment); paid
all debts to the courts, community, and victims;
and not lapsed into criminal behavior for six years.
This enables former inmates to seek employment
that increases financial stability. Ex-offenders could
perform tasks currently prohibited by law, and apply

6. for credit to buy a home, receive a personal loan, or
become self-employed. In addition, they could apply
for Federal grants to pursue a college education.
• Change current stipulations that legally prohibit
ex-offenders from securing a home in public hous-
ing. Public housing (Section 8) regulations are cur-
rently too stringent, and in many cases are the only
affordable housing option available to ex-offenders.
Many ex-offenders' families also live in public hous-
ing developments, and for some it is the only viable
option after losing their primary financial contribu-
tor because of incarceration. Future public housing
options should distinguish between violent and
nonviolent ex-offenders.
• Review policies and procedures that determine
whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor, and
which degree. The classification process for felony
and misdemeanor crimes should be given in-depth
consideration and review because many nonviolent
crimes are considered felonies on the first or second
offense.
Some States are now proactively working to correct
legislative decisions to enable ex-offenders opportuni-
ties that were previously unachievable. New Hampshire,
a State commonly known for having a low crime rate
in comparison with other States, enacted Senate Bill
500 (SB 500) on June 30, 2010. The goal of this bill is to
reduce recidivism among probation violators and reduce
taxpayer spending on correctional costs. "SB 500 will
accomplish the following:
• Focus supervision on high-risk offenders by reducing
the length of supervision for low-risk offenders.

7. • Enable probation officers to employ short, swift jail
sanctions for minor probation violations, when per-
mitted by judges at sentencing.
• Establish a seven-day residential intermediate sanc-
tion for minor parole violators and a designated
90-day parole revocation facility to re-engage parole
violators in treatment and with supervision.
• Ensure that everyone leaving prison receives at least
nine months of supervision.
• Require nonviolent offenders to serve no more than
120 percent of their minimum sentence.
• Furthermore, New Hampshire's policy changes are
projected to generate savings that could be reinvested
in drug treatment, mental health services, and rapid
drug testing—three areas to which the State currently
allocates no State funding to the community through
the Department of Corrections. The majority of indi-
viduals in prison and jail have either mental health or
addiction disorders (or both), which has been asso-
ciated with homelessness, joblessness, family dys-
function, crime, and recidivism" (Justice Center, The
Council of State Governments [CSG], 2010).
Chief Justice John Broderick further states.
Without available State funds for drug tests,
intermediate sanctions to quickly respond to minor
violations, or contracted drug treatment in the
community, probation and parole officers have few
tools beyond revocation. This law will make a dif-

8. ference not only in terms of public safety outcomes,
but also in families restored and lives saved.
(Justice Center, CSG, 2010)
SB 500 is a landmark bill that comes to the forefront
not because of the need to find ways to reduce correc-
tional populations, but as a byproduct of serious Federal,
State, and local budget cuts that have produced a ripple
effect across the Nation. Nonetheless, other States
(including those with a much higher crime rate, such as
California and Florida) might consider following New
Hampshire's proactive lead in response to a national
concern.
Law Enforcement
Following the events of the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, every level of law enforcement
realized how extremely detrimental it was not to share
information with other agencies. Today, law enforcement
has made great strides not only in ensuring that current
data are shared interdepartmentally, but also that they
are collaborating on new information-sharing strategies.
The accomplishments of multijurisdictional agencies
have created an awareness of how the incorporation of
community-oriented policing (COP) programs is not
only necessary but extremely effective. COP programs
have successfully brought members of a community
together in a united mission for public safety.
Community-oriented policing is defined as col-
laboration between the police and the community
that identifies and solves community problems.
Ideally, such collaboration helps develop better

9. relationships and mutual understanding between
police officers and community members, which in
turn helps in solving community problems. (RAND
Organization, 2003, p. vii)
COP programs create an awareness of the diverse
needs within a community, thus enabling law enforce-
ment to better understand and respond to individual
and group needs of the citizens by using a proactive
approach. These programs actively engage citizens and
create relationships with sectors of the community, such
10 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANJails
as minorities and
juveniles, who may
have an inaccurate
perception of police
officers. Erom their earliest
origin in the early 1960s, COP
programs have made great strides
in building relationships between law
enforcement and the communities they
serve. The creation of these relationships has:
• Communicated a department's goals and interest in
its citizens.
• Broken down barriers such as racial disparity.
• Protected property.
• Provided a broader understanding to meet the needs
of victims.
• Reduced the number of violent crimes.

10. • Improved public safety overall through problem
solving.
In addition, partnering with other groups or individu-
als in the private sector is a contemporary and proactive
method of crime prevention that has true potential for
improvements and continues to provide public safety.
This method has also proven to be a successful business
venture because it allows law enforcement executives,
command staff, and departmental managers to redirect
the resources that would otherwise be consumed by
these logistical tasks.
There also are positive consequences for the courts.
Eor example, the backlog of court dockets would be
reduced, thus giving prosecutors, district attorneys, and
courts the opportunity to focus more on criminal cases
and better meet victims' needs. It would also ensure that
sentencing goals are imposed to meet both traditional
and contemporary theories of jurisprudence. Ultimately,
the greater the success of crime prevention and interven-
tion programs like COP programs, the greater the public
safety will become for an entire community.
Criminal Sentencing
Although violent crime rates have decreased over
the past two decades, the public's view is seriously
distorted, largely because of the media perspective that
criminal justice is too lenient and stiffer sentences should
be imposed.
The criminal justice system needs to revise its meth-
odology of retribution to improve public safety and
the outcomes of the criminal justice system. No longer

11. can warehousing inmates be considered an appropriate
and stand-alone resolution through retribution. Eor the
21st century, rehabilitation, restoration, and réintégra-
tion must replace the criminal justice theory of retribu-
tion. Euture forms of retribution must be derived from
research that holistically evaluates the short- and long-
term outcomes of the goals and mission of the criminal
...restorative justice continues
to gain support as a
realistic and rational
intervention.
justice system. The
results of such research,
new approaches, and
insights, will be based on
broad evidence-based deci-
sion making, beginning with
law enforcement and permeating
the judicial system and correc-
tional facilities, and extending into
the post-release support systems for
offenders (Schmalleger, 2012).
Euture restorative justice practices will require
politicians to educate their constituents about how
current sentencing practices have failed and how an
over-inflated issue can be corrected. Among a growing
number of correctional policymakers and practitioners,

12. victim advocates, court officials, and law enforcement
officials, restorative justice continues to gain support as a
realistic and rational intervention.
At its best, restorative justice truly represents a
unique way of responding to crime through more
active involvement of crime victims and the com-
munity. It goes far beyond the traditional liberal
and conservative positions of the past by identify-
ing underlying truths and joint interests of all of
those concerned about crime policy in a democratic
society. (Umbreit, n.d)
Although a relatively new concept for sentencing
goals, restorative justice equally advances the contem-
porary and future criminal justice goals of merit as they
apply to evolving values in the crinriinal justice system.
Corrections
Although violent crime rates have decreased, incar-
ceration rates have tripled over the last 30 years. Because
of this, an extraordinary amount of tax revenue is
consumed by the criminal justice system. Public agen-
cies and political entities are only now recognizing the
necessity of increasing public awareness. To successfully
accomplish this, it has become necessary to collaborate
with the media. This may be done by:
• Creating a variety of public service announcements
to educate the community about the criminal justice
system and its struggles to provide successful long-
term results for public safety. Information on the
action recourse plan of the criminal system should be
included.

13. • Covering nonprofit, for-profit, local, and State meet-
ings that discuss sentencing alternatives and their
success rate compared with current practices.
• Interviewing criminal justice officials from all levels
about their goals for improved public safety, how they
plan to improve tax revenue expenditures, and how
ineffective traditional sentencing practices will be
upgraded. In addition, officials can discuss changes
to their goals and mission, what approaches need to
12 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANjails
be taken, why the success of offender réintégration
programs is so vitally important to future generations,
and overall anticipated results for public safety.
It may come as no surprise that the general public has
no comprehension of corrections and how it correlates
with the goals and mission statements of most correc-
tional facilities. The characteristics of corrections are
defined as:
• Something that is substituted or proposed for what is
wrong or inaccurate; emendation.
• The act of correcting.
• Punishment intended to reform, improve, or rehabili-
tate; chastisement; reproof.
• Usually, corrections. The various methods, as incar-
ceration, parole, and probation, by which society
deals with convicted offenders.

14. • A quantity applied or other adjustment made in order
to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or
the solution of a problem. {Dictionary.com, 2011)
Commonly, the terminology in almost any correc-
tional facility's mission statement discusses the respon-
sibility to:
• Confine an awaiting or convicted offender.
• Ensure public safety.
• Provide adequate access to medical and mental health
services.
• Provide treatment through habüitafion, rehabilitation,
education, and job training.
• Provide réintégration programming to return an
offender to the community having gained new skill
sets, and assistance with having identified appropri-
ate support systems in the community to facilitate the
transition from incarceration and the ability to live as
a productive citizen.
All of these goals exemplify the actual definition of
corrections and incorporate the purposes of sentencing.
However, the way correctional agencies translate and
carry out these goals can be as varied as the levels of
jails and prisons within the criminal justice system. In
the 21st century, the ultimate goal of law enforcement,
courts, and corrections should be the successful réinté-
gration of offenders into the community.
To realize the maximum potential of réintégration,
reentry programming must be incorporated into the
final phase of the sentence of every offender sentenced

15. to a term of no less than six months of confinement,
because removal from society for this amount of time
significantly breaks down or destroys any pro-social
relationships in the community that the former offender
had. Studies have shown that criminal sentences of
more than two years of incarceration have a negative
impact on prisoners when they are released and return
home. Consequently, the incapacitation sanction without
réintégration services inadvertently increases the risk of
recidivism or the likelihood of ex-offenders committing
a new crime.
It is important for both the public and the criminal
justice system to acknowledge that few if any people
choose to live a life of crime. In most cases, engaging
in crime is the consequence of an offender's environ-
ment. A large percentage of offenders live in lower
socioeconomic conditions. Also, it is no surprise that for
these offenders to survive or compete with peers, they
engage in criminal behavior. Once incarcerated, offend-
ers become even more disadvantaged because they are
further denied socially acceptable options to establish
prosocial relationships, gain employment that provides
income above the living wage, and assist with familial
responsibilities. Reintegration through reentry program-
ming during incarceration not only provides an opportu-
nity for offenders to reconnect with these aspects of life,
but it can also introduce positive resources and tools to
which an offender has not previously been exposed.
Reentry and the benefits of offender réintégration were
introduced and defined by President Bush in his 2004
State of the Union Address: "If prisoners released back
into society can't find work, or a home, or help, they are
much more likely to commit crime" (Bush, 2004).

16. Continuing to support offender reentry programs, the
Obama administration has appropriated Federal funding
for réintégration initiatives for State and local govern-
ments. These initiatives will develop strategies instru-
mental to creating partnerships with a variety of other
social service agencies. Reentry programming strives to
provide the education and training that society has thus
far failed to provide. As reentry programming is further
researched and improved, revised versions will incor-
porate essentially every sector of society associated with
effectively reintegrating an ex-offender into his or her
community.
Understanding that successful reentry programs can-
not be achieved solely by experts in the criminal justice
field, a massive collaboration of social welfare agencies
and community officials across the United States must
continue to provide effective reentry programming to
inmates both pre- and post-release from jails and pris-
ons. These programs are research based and validated
by theory. Because the long-term goal of inmate reentry
programs is their continuation beyond release, they will
continue to be integral to improving public safety that is
both cost effective and reduces tax expenditures.
As previously noted, crime prevention through
offender reentry programming must be research-based
and community-specific. Thus, it should be understood
that not all communities have the same resources or
need to fight crime and reduce recidivism rates. Various
types of crime affect communities with different demo-
graphic variables to different degrees. To create success-
ful programs for offenders, all of these variables should
be considered.

17. AMERICANJaUs JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 13
Programs are typically developed on the basis of
the current understanding of the dynamic risk fac-
tors associated with recidivism, the typical needs
of offenders, and the challenges they encounter
upon their release from prison. Programs vary
according to the recidivism risk factors and the
type of social integration challenges they are
designed to address. Many programs focus on
specific challenges confronting offenders, such as
the correction of cognitive thinking errors, addic-
tion, drug abuse, codependency, or unemployment.
Likewise, many offender réintégration programs
have been designed to deal with specific catego-
ries of offenders, such as chronic offenders, drug
addicted offenders, young offenders, mentally ill
offenders, or dangerous sexual offenders. (Griffiths,
Dandurand, & Murdoch, 2010, p. 6)
Reentry programming is prevention through inten-
sive intervention. Therefore, the possibility of future
success for reentry programs to accomplish their goals
of réintégration and productive citizenship must rely on
supporting partnerships between:
• The entire criminal justice community.
• Legislative bodies at the local level.
• State and Federal governments.
Public Safety Performance Project
PSPP helps States advance fiscally sound,
research-based policies and practices in sentenc-
ing and corrections that protect public safety, hold

18. offenders accountable and control corrections costs.
The project carries out these objectives by:
• helping States collect and analyze data—who is
admitted to their prisons, how long they stay,
who returns—and the implications of cor-
rections practices for public safety and State
budgets.
• improving States' understanding of how their
existing policies, practices, and outcomes for
dealing with criminal offenders compare to
those of other States; and encouraging States
to use the best research available to advance
reforms that will reduce crime and recidi-
vism, and deliver a solid return on taxpayers'
investments.
PSPP also helps State officials and others share
state-of-the-art knowledge and ideas through
policy forums; public opinion surveys; multi-State
meetings; national, regional and State-level meet-
ings; and online information.
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts Organization.
Sentencing and corrections. Retrieved from www.
pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=356
• Social welfare agencies.
• The community workforce.
• Educational institutions.
• An offender's family (familial or extended), friends,
and religious organizations.
• The community at large.

19. Conclusion
Public safety is a concern for every citizen in the
United States. It is, however, the responsibility of our
government to establish laws, statues, and ordinances
that respond to such concerns and provide appropri-
ate safety nets via our Nation's criminal justice system.
Legislation proposed to improve public safety in the 21st
century should be responsive to research that supports
long-term success, and consideration must be given to all
productive and/or consequential outcomes that would
either promote or diminish the effects on society. Once
such laws are codified, established courts, law ertforce-
ment, and corrections agencies at all levels should work to
enforce them. These branches of the criminal justice sys-
tem must actively engage the collaborative involvement
of all sectors of society associated with the public welfare
(public and private) and the community at large. Once
these partnerships have joined forces, the entire criminal
justice system will see improvements in crime reduc-
tion through intervention and prevention and realize a
significant cost savings that would otherwise be spent on
a stumbling criminal justice system that mirrors today's
faltering situational status. •
References
Bush, G. W. (2004, January 20). 2004 State of the Union
Address
(White Paper). Retrieved from http://www.americanrheto-
ric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2004.htm
Griffiths, C. T, Dandurand, Y, & Murdoch, D. (2010,
September 13). The social réintégration of offenders and crime
prevention (Research Report). Retrieved from www.public-
safety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/soc-reint-eng.aspx#s2

20. Justice Center, The Council of State Goverrunents. (2010). New
Hampshire enacts law to reduce recidivism and generate
savings.
Retrieved from www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/
arvnouncements/new-hampshire-enacts-law-to-reduce-
recidivism-and-generate-savings
RAND Organization. (2003). The police responsibility to
commu-
nity-oriented policing in a diverse society (Policy Brief). Los
Angeles, CA: RAND.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal justice today: An introductory
text for the 21st century (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY:
Pearson Education.
Umbreit, M. (n.d). Restorative justice. Retrieved from http://
law.jrarik.org/pages/1954/Restorative-Justice.html
Phyllis Back, CJM, is Programs Director at the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Jail in Charlottesville, Virginia. She can be
reached [email protected]
14 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANJaUs
Copyright of American Jails is the property of American Jails
Association and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.