Improving Community Corrections

Over the past years, community corrections cases have grown rapidly. The number has doubled and is currently exceeding that of those who are already incarcerated within the prison system in America. As a result of this, the criminal justice policy has been faced with multiple challenges of having to improve the crime reduction efforts as they also maintain public confidence. These challenges are made worse by the fact that some of the popularly trusted criminal reduction approaches are counterproductive to the overall community crime reduction. Arguments on the use of incarceration as an approach to respond to crime have risen over the years. This is an expensive strategy that in frequent times has underperformed on the credible measures of its effectiveness. The reality is that in numerous instances, those returning to the community are often worse off after the period of sentencing than the way they were before the confinement. Cost and recidivism problems in county jails are intensified by the budgetary limitations and some of the state mandate. This has in return affected public trust as their investment in incarceration has a low yield to the expected return most especially to their safety. Following the great inability of the incarceration approach to satisfy long-term criminal justice goals, and the high cost linked to sanction, policy makers at different levels have sought after identification of suitable alternatives for criminals within the community. These approaches are far much better and are also able to address criminal challenges in a more cost-effective way. This paper will therefore focus on some of the alternative approaches to incarceration with an intention of improving the community correction.

Deterrence alternative approach is used by the criminal justice to prevent future crime by provoking fear onto the defendant and the general public. There are two types of deterrence that policy makers may decide to use. This includes specific and general deterrence approach. Specific deterrence often applies to an individual defendant. In this case, when the government punishes the defendant in a severe way, he or she is supposedly less likely to commit another crime for fear of being inflicted to a similar punishment or even worse punishment. General deterrence o the other hand is applied to the larger community where the public learn about the punishment given to the individual defendant. Once the public are aware of the experience of the punished individual such as by being sentenced to a life imprisonment or death penalty, this insight often inspires great public fear of criminal prosecution (Patchin & keveles, 2004).

Rehabilitation approach is another alternative to incarceration. This approach prevents future crimes by changing a defendant’s conduct. Through some of the measures such as educational, vocational programs, rehabilitative treatment facilities and counseling centers. The defendants enrolled in these rehabilitative centers are often supervised and numerous services are offered to the enrolled criminals. Typically, the offenders coordinate their daily activities with their supervisors and they have to report to them. They must participate in a prescribed treatment plan. The offenders enrolled in these centre are expected to adhere to a given curfew and they have to submit a random drug test. They have to also submit their progress in delivering community service. According to Frana & Schroeder, (2008), Community service is one of the strategies used by rehabilitative officers to help in improving the offender’s service to others hence adding them value. This helps in lightening the burden of incarceration thus lowering recidivism. The approach has been effective in offloading the burden placed on prison systems following the incarceration approach. According to some of the findings, this approach has greatly improved court appearances amongst offenders, reduced their participation in drug abuse following the correction measures given at the rehabilitation centers. This has thus led to a low re-arrest rate on community offenders on new charges. It has also improved on the offenders’ willingness to participate in other correctional and treatment services thus improving on the community correction based program.

Restitution approach is one of the punishment methods used as alternatives to community incarceration. This is used by the community policy makers to punish defendants financially. The court in this case orders the criminal defendant to forcefully pay the victim for any form of harm. This bears a resemblance to civil litigation harm rewards (Frana & Schroeder, 2008). This can be basically for physical injuries, money loss emotional distress or even property destruction. This approach is thus inclusive of a fine that is intended to cover the costs of the criminal prosecution as well as punishment.

Frana & Schroeder, (2008) asserts that restorative justice system is a new community approach that has been widely implemented to replace incarceration approach. This approach seeks to incorporate offenders, the victims as well as the community representatives during the reimbursement process. Community justice is a broad concept that refers to the locals who employ a justice model that incorporates community members at various levels. A restorative approach therefore focuses on a specific incident where the offenders are often held accountable to the victims of the crime and also to the community members. As they all work together in amending the case, an agreement is established which remodel the harm inflicted. Some of the strategies involved in this approach include, mediation-dialog between victim and the offender, community reparative committees, community conferencing and community sentencing.

In US, the sentencing Commission has attempted to define recidivism as any event of re-conviction or re-arrest within a two years period after an offenders into the society.  Halbesma, (2014,) argues that, with the level of such recidivism, even a minimal reduction to such scenario in its rate will be required so as to reduce any significant prosecution and incarceration expenditure savings. Some forms of offenses and wrongdoers may qualify for programs that lead to having the charges dismissed if only the defendant successfully completes specified conditions. These approaches often take the defendant individual out of the normal prosecution process so as to allow them complete the specified conditions. Once they are done with this condition, the prosecutors or rather the court dismisses the charges. The core goal of pre-trial diversion approach is to create time for the defendant to demonstrate that they have the capacity to act in a more responsible way. The offenders are allowed time to rethink of their lives without being worried about having a criminal record. They are not only implemented to reduce the burden within the justice system, the approach greatly helps to reduce recidivism through referring to the individuals who have been charged for the first time. Recidivism is also reduced following the ability to address reasons for arrest. In this case, offenders on diversion approach are able to find gainful employment as they do not have criminal records despite their crimes. They also have less time being incarcerated. Instead they have so much time to themselves thus are able to think about more important things about their lives (Halbesma, 2014). The offenders’ are also able to reduce their misconduct and substance abuse as they fear that they would be convicted. Diversions help to reduce labeling amongst individual offenders. As a result, the offenders are able to live within the community without having to live in shame. They are thus able to rectify their mistakes for a better life far away from that of the criminal justice system. Thus they have improved substance use and mental health results. There should be an expansion of the pre-trial diversion approaches beyond individuals who are only first timers or those with low level of criminal records (Entry, 2013). However, the judiciary ought to adopt strategies and develop interventions that majorly focus on community individuals who are most likely to recidivate. The court system should also focus on considering all factors other than the present charges and history criminal approaches in determining and coming up with intervention programs. The use of diversion programs in the next generation should be in a position to determine and offer the suitable level of services as well as justice supervision most especially the pre-trial diversion for all of the criminals within a community.

Probation has been a significant part of the US correctional system over the years. It is among the most used correctional option with a high number of individuals in the community being in probation than being within the prison confinement. This approach in America is intended as substitutes to incarceration for eligible defendants who are not deemed as threat to the community’s safety. The approach allows the offenders to maintain their ties with relatives, employment as well as with the community while they are still in correctional control. Community administration regulates an offender’s freedom and monitors the individual’s activities. The probationer is expected to answer to a probation officer during his probation period. They must also adhere to the conditions that the court places before them so as to avoid any revocation of probation and any imposition of severe punishments (Patchin & keveles, 2004). Probation approach is used extensively by the probation officers in creating time for them to carry out an investigation on the offenders’ background and needs. They are also able to prepare a report which they are supposed to present to the court so as to aid in the decision making during trial. Probation helps in maintaining an administrative relationship that is built between trust and discipline between the probationer and the probation officers. The approach often strikes a balance between giving out a fair punishment and public safety. However, it considers limiting the use of expensive prison system confinements. It helps lawbreakers to avoid having future system involvement hence reducing recidivating. The approach offers a wide selection of options that helps the judges to customize the consequences for the offenders. There is however a good rationale behind increasing the study for probation. Beyond punishment and rehabilitation, this approach is meant to meet other valuable goals. This helps to conserve some of the public resources and minimizes on the negative impacts of prison confinement on offenders, the family and the community in general. Probation is partly founded on the notion that rehabilitative plans such as anger management and drug treatment programs has a greater possibility of success especially when administered within the community settings rather than in the prison setting. Some of the treatment programs such as drug treatment are often effective when they are linked with probation sentencing rather than when they are offered freely by the community. It is postulated that long treatments during probation enhances greater reduction in criminal engagement (Patchin & keveles, 2004).

Using the halfway houses often known as the community corrections centers, probation officers utilize them for rehabilitating offenders who are on probation. These communities residential have a more structured setting that is often advocated for by probationers. These facilities are used to host custody prisoners who are on prerelease but are anticipating to be given a parole within the next month. It is also used to host prisoners who have already acquired parole but are in more need for more assistance and supervision with readmission.  In most cases, the offenders on probation are often within the community setting and thus most of the resources that they use are from the community (Patchin & keveles, 2004). The community funds some of the community services. However probation officers often use these opportunities to make the offenders on probation to participate in as a correctional measure.

Frana & Schroeder, (2008) recommends that there is need for a policy initiative to convincingly establish rehabilitative measures will be of significance in the criminal system in U.S. this will help the policy administrators to explore more humane ways to correct the misconduct of those who do not abide by law. Rehabilitation is therefore the step towards strengthening the offender’s stake in the community through self-respect, social links, and education as well as employment strategies designed to desistance criminals from activities that are harmful to safety of society. On the other hand, community resources should be allocated to those correction approaches that demonstrate a high level capacity to reduce recidivism, protect public safety while also lessening the need for costly justice supervision (Entry, 2013). These determinations will be most effective if the alternative programs take formal steps to establish standardized outcome measures. There is also a great need for precision and transparency around the description of alternative correction programs and models. This will increase importance in the developing exchange of ideas, innovations and suitable practices.

As a society, U.S should incorporate rehabilitation approach within their correctional system and should consider having incarceration as the last option and rather not a solution to all sorts of crimes. Doing time within the prison confinement disrupts every sector of a prisoner’s life and at the end of the sentencing; the society offers virtually minimal assistance to these offenders who are released. This makes it hard for the prisoners to make a re-entry back into the community as good citizens. It is therefore evident that the American society has lost sight of the importance of differentiating between a violent offender who must be incarcerated for the public safety and a non-violent lawbreaker who might be required by the society to make in other different ways. However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of these alternative approaches to incarceration is subject to so much inquiry. At the very least, there is need for a serious exploration of these alternative approaches. This will be inclusive of a shift in resource allocation away from incarceration. This will therefore give the new alternatives approaches and programs a greater opportunity to succeed.

References

Patchin, j., & keveles, G. (2004, November). Alternatives to incarceration an evidence-based research review. In Northwest Wisconsin Criminal Justice Management Conference. Cable, WI.

Frana, J. F., & Schroeder, R. D. (2008). Alternatives to incarceration. Justice Policy Journal, 5(2), 1-32.

Entry, N. (2013). A National Survey of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs and Initiatives. Center for Health and Justice Alternatives at TASC, December.

Halbesma, M. K. (2014). Diversion Programs: Are We Reaching Desired Effects? (Doctoral dissertation, Aurora University).