Recidivism is a key concept in criminal justice given that rates have been escalating over the last few years. For the longest period of time, the centerpiece for criminal just has remained to be incarceration. Having crime offenders in prison has previously been seen as the only way that the public can remain safe (Taxman & Mun, 2018). However, recidivism has led to the change of that mindset. Statistics show that recidivism rates worldwide stand at 30.2%. Recidivism is a situation whereby ex-convicts tend to fall back (relapse) into criminal activity after their release from prison for previous crimes. Reasons for this phenomenon vary among individuals (Renshaw & Suarez, 2009). According to the United States Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Fitch & Normore, 2012), there are three purposes for punishing offenders. These are; specific deterrence (negative motivational influence), incapacitation and rehabilitation. These three purposes have the aim of preventing offenders from committing future crimes via correctional interventions. Moreover, prisons serve as a way of keeping the general public from committing crimes. As early as in the 1970’s, prisons have remained to be the weapon used un America to fight against crime. America recorded a 705% growth of the nation’s prison population between 1973 and 2003. This definitely came at a cost and thereby burdening the taxpayer. An ex-convict can go back to prison after release for two reasons; after committing a new crime and supervision or parole violation (Taxman & Mun, 2018).
The rate of recidivism can be estimated by measuring the rate in which ex-convicts return into prison for committing a new offense. Recidivism rate is also used by nations to determine the effectiveness of prisons as behavior changers. Low recidivism rates indicate that the prison system has been successful in rehabilitating prisoners. High recidivism rates indicate that the prison system has failed to rehabilitate prisoners. The impacts of this are huge especially on the government in terms of the budget required to maintain prisoners as well as the public in terms of their safety (Martinson, 2004). Therefore, recidivism measures are essential for the policy makers as the information they provide establish the effectiveness of policies in place for rehabilitation or incapacitation of offenders. Additionally, these measures can establish how effective public safety initiatives are. Public safety agencies also use recidivism measures for measurement of performance and thereby informing policy decisions and practices regarding issues such as offender supervision while in the community, prisoner classification and programming and pretrial detention (Taxman & Mun, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Measurement of recidivism is through determination of criminal acts as a result of rearrests, reconviction and reincarceration by the offender over a specific period of time. When an ex-convict is arrested for committing a new crime after being released into the community on probationary terms or after being released from prison, then this individual is classified as a recidivist and the measure used for this classification is rearrests (Martinson, 2004). Reconviction measures recidivism by establishing the subsequent court convictions after the arrest of an individual. Reincarceration on the other hand classifies an individual as a recidivism if conviction leads to a jail sentence. It’s important to note that a ton of arrests do not necessarily lead to reconviction or reincarceration. Therefore, using rearrests as a measure of recidivism is its underestimation. Hence, for an accurate report on recidivism, it’s important to use several measures (Fitch & Normore, 2012).
Stakeholders that bare interest in recidivism include the government, private as well as non-profit organizations. All of these organizations have in place programs that are aimed at addressing recidivism. However budgetary concerns have led to discontinuation of most of these programs. This has tremendous effects on the rate of recidivism. Even a minute reduction of recidivism is essential because the costs associated with incarceration are greatly reduce by this small reduction. Solving this kind of a problem therefore requires that stakeholders be involved at all levels. For instance, educating the government/policy makers that the role of prisons should not only be for punishment of offenders but also be rehabilitative. Private and Non-Profit organizations should also be motivated by the fact that offenders are also members of the society just like any other individual and hence with the right rehabilitative programs they can as well be productive to the society (Telidevara, 2012).
The first recidivism study was carried out in 1994, and the study’s results revealed that 63% of ex-convicts were rearrested within three years of their release. Out of these. 47% were reconvicted while 41% were re-incarcerated. Another recidivism study was conducted in 2002 and the rates were higher, i.e. at 68%. This indicates a 5% increase in recidivism rates between 1994 and 2002. The 2002 study established that recidivism rates were higher among the African Americans and the Hispanics (Wehrman, 2011). the issue of recidivism is due to the fact that most of the released ex-convicts lack skills necessary to gain employment.
In the United States recidivism has been an issue for a long period of time. The countries population is about 5% of the worlds, but 25% of the world prisoners are from United States. According to Hughes (2016), the country incarcerates more citizens than any other country with estimations falling at 716 people out of every 100,000 people. This interprets to one in every 100 American adults are imprisoned. Approximately 7.6 million Americans are either incarcerated, on probation or out on parole. In recent study, it was established that out of 404,638 prisoners released from prisons in 30 states in 2005, 67.8% were rearrested within three years while 76.6% were rearrested within five years of release (Hughes, 2016). In general, over 50% of ex-convicts in the United States go back to prison within 3 years of release. In the United States, prisoners are usually incarcerated for longer periods of time as compared to other countries. For instance, the prison stay for a burglar in the United States is 16 months while in Canada it is 5 months and 7 months in England. Incarceration in the United States is majorly aimed at punishment rather than rehabilitation, and therefore when the prisoners are released they have no skills to enable them cope in the society and. Moreover, the released prisoners are offered little or no support and this is what increases their chances of reoffending and going back to prison (Telidevara).
The 21 st century has been particularly characterized by improved technological advancements. These advancements are what cause most of the inmates to lack jobs when released since during their prison stay they did not acquire any technological skills. However, technology can be used to decrease recidivism rates most especially through the use of smartphones which can particularly be used to minimize relapse to drug and substance abuse. Smartphones can be used to communicate with peer support groups, access internet resources, set reminders and alerts to ensure adherence of therapeutic goals and to monitor patients for the risk of a relapse. Therefore, use of technology to educate prisoners can mainly equip them for survival in the modernized society after release (Telidevara, 2012).
Recidivism is expensive both financially and socially. For instance, it is estimated that in 2010 the cumulative cost for prisons was $39 billion, translating to $31,286 per inmate. The families of the prisoners also undergo great suffering economically, psychologically, socially and emotionally (Langelid, 2017). Surviving in prison is not easy and imprisonment can in most cases cause depression and anxiety hence leaving the patient worse than they were when they arrived and this can be detrimental to the society. Recidivism therefore is a phenomenon that greatly affects the whole society since public safety is affected as well. For this reason, it is necessary that programs that can reduce recidivism be put in place, since they can be moderately cost effective as compared to incarceration costs.
A study conducted by Center for Impact Research, which basically reviewed published data regarding convicts and ex-convicts, was aimed at identifying programs used by different American States that had been successful in reducing recidivism (Loza, 2017). The study identified three main components of prison programs important to reduction of recidivism. These are; substance abuse treatment, employment services and education. Prison population are prone to substance abuse. Ex-convicts are more likely to fall into re-addiction after release and this in most cases leads to recidivism. Substance abuse also prevents an ex-convict from obtaining stable and decent employment. According to Hughes (2016), educational programs, equips an ex-convict with skills to find employment upon release.
There are policies and practices in place in different American states that have greatly impacted recidivism. Sentencing policies for example greatly affects recidivism. Have a huge number of serious offenders in prisons leads to an increased rate of recidivism. In states where a large number of prisoners are low-risk offenders such as Oklahoma whose recidivism rate in 2004 was 26.4%, there is a decreased rate of recidivism as such individuals are less likely to return to prison (Hughes, 2016). Community corrections policies also impact recidivism rates. For instance, imprisoning ex-convicts every time they violate their release conditions leads to high prison population. This policy has remained in practice in California. Using prison as a response to violations is a policy that in no doubt has led to increased recidivism rates. Other states have policies in place where prison is usually the last resort. An example is the state of Oregon, where jail time is usually as a result of technical violations. Criminal offenders serve a short period in jail time while the rest of the punishment involving community service (Loza, 2017). Violators therefore face tougher consequences. In 2004, Oregon recorded a recidivism rate of 22.4%. in Oregon, risk assessments are performed on the prisoners and a transition plan is usually placed in place six months before an inmate is released from prison. Therefore, strict rules upon violators ensure that ex-convicts are rarely incarcerated. Another policy that has been used by states such as Michigan is the introduction of Prisoner Reentry Initiative. This is a program that ensures every ex-convict is supported through provision of tools that can help them reintegrate and survive in the community upon release. This in turn makes transition from prison life to the society easier and successful (Telidevara, 2012). Participation in the reentry program led to a decrease in recidivism rates since the reentry facilities provides support systems such as employment, housing and counselling. The Arizona’s Tent city jail, where prisoners are treated not so humanely is a perfect example that shows that getting tough on prisoners cannot reduce recidivism rates (Hughes, 2016).
To reduce recidivism, policy makers should consider the use of different approaches to sentencing and incarceration ((Telidevara, 2012). In countries with low recidivism rates such as Germany and Netherlands, rather than just punishment, major emphasis is on rehabilitation and resocialization. The use of incarceration is less frequent and for shorter period of times. For non-violent crimes for instance, sanctions such as community service and fines are used where possible. Incarceration in this countries has one major goal; To ensure ex-convicts are better citizens after release from prisons, which in turn increases public safety. The rate of recidivism in Norway is 20%. In such a country, releasing of prisoners who are less likely to reoffend is the best way to serve justice to the community. The Norwegian Penal Philosophy emphasizes that it’s important to treat prisoners humanely as this enables them reintegrate in the society upon release (Langelid, 2017). This therefore means that prison life and life on the outside should not have any differences except for the freedom of movement. Prisoners are also supported after release by the government where they are offered benefits such as education, housing and employment. Interestingly, in Norway, conviction for murder can be as low as 8 years. Therefore, with regards to how Scandinavian countries treat prisoners, it is evident that normalizing prison lives can reduce the rate of recidivism (Langelid, 2017). While this prisoner treatment may seem unrealistic, it has proven to be successful in ensuring that ex-convicts do not go back to prison for new or parole/supervision violations. Showing prisoners that they are still important members of the community can help reduce recidivism rates.
One of the most effective method that can be used to reduce recidivism rate is correctional education. A meta-analysis conducted by RAND established that ex-convicts who took part in educational programs while in still in prison had a 43% less likelihood of going back to jail and a 13% likelihood of getting employed upon release. According to The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, there is a net return of $13 per $1 spent to taxpayers and the society as a result of correctional educational programs. Hence this is a cost effective method (Hughes, 2016). Prisoners are prepared for reentry by these programs. Studies have established that individuals who receive vocational training while in prison are more like to have a productive life once released and are less likely to return back to prison after release (Finn, 2009). According to Martinson (2004), a prisoner who has values for education, has a developed guilt conscience and being in prison changes their behavior hence their chances of getting re-incarcerated becomes lower. This therefore is an indication that education has a huge impact on individuals and can affect the rate of recidivism.
Another way that recidivism can be reduced is by reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. Research studies have found out that in countries where distribution of wealth is even, there are lower rates of recidivism. Countries such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are examples of nations with a small gap between the rich and the poor. According to John Pratt, a criminology professor and Scandinavian prisons’ expert, key drivers of criminality are poverty and inequality. Therefore, having strong welfare systems that can reduce poverty and criminality can effectively combat recidivism (Telidevara, 2012).
To reduce recidivism therefore, the criminal justice system of the United States should shift its focus to rehabilitation rather that punishment, most especially for the non-violent offenders. Normalization of prison life can especially have a great impact. The goal should be to make prisoners better citizens (Martinson, 2004). To achieve these correctional facilities should have their policies reviewed where they can incorporate in their systems activities such as education on life skills and treatment of mental illnesses. To reduce the cycle of recidivism, reintegration programs whose aim is to extend support and treatment after release should be introduced.
According to Tartaro & levy (2017), there have been arguments that prison visitation programs area effective way of reducing recidivism. These arguments claim that visitation can improve reentry and transition back to the society. However, there are limited studies to back up these claims. Despite the fact that there is limited evidence backing these claims up, it’s important for policy makers to focus on visitation as a tool that can help reduce recidivism rates. The idea that visitation ensures that an inmate remains connected to the outside world even while in prison is to be considered by policy makers. These visitations enable prisoners to restore or preserve the relationships that they had before imprisonment. Moreover, inmates that are frequently visited while in prison rarely have a problem with a place to live after release as compared to prisoners who are not visited. Hence, it is easy for them to secure a job and rebuild their life after release (Tartaro & Levy, 2017). Therefore, if increased visitation can reduce recidivism rates through strengthening of social bonds, stakeholders and policy makers have the responsibility of reviewing and improving visitation programs.
According to Loza (2017), risk and need assessment of prisoners is an important tool that can be adopted by policy makers in order to reduce recidivism. Research studies have established that for positive outcomes, correctional programs should classify prisoners based on their reoffending risks (Loza, 2017). The essentiality of this tool arises from the fact that it examines an individual’s historic, demographic, dynamic and criminogenic needs, all of which are associated with criminal behavior, hence the likelihood of an individual to reoffend. This tool therefore sorts individuals based on their risk levels hence allowing tailored interventions that suits individuals. More resources can then be directed towards the high risk individuals. Community based policies can also lead to a reduced rate of recidivism. Community supervision should be based on an individual’s risk of reoffending (Loza, 2017).
It is evident that high recidivism rates threaten public safety and escalate the costs associated with law enforcement and criminal justice. Therefore, the impact of recidivism is costly at individual, social and economic levels. The role of prisons should therefore not only be to house offenders but also to change them into law-abiding citizens. This is a problem that needs to be critically addressed if, there is going to be any success. It’s important to note that reducing recidivism is technically about ensuring that past offenders have a change of behavior. It is also about a change in the business of those who handle convicts and ex-convicts upon release to the society ((Telidevara, 2012). It therefore in the light of this research that it has been established that how ex-convicts are prepared for and reintegrated back into the society after release affects their behavior and their tendency to recidivate. The initial step for the action plan for this is identification of key stakeholders. The stakeholders are then informed on the various reintegration strategies that need to be practiced. Once the strategies have been implemented, evaluation for outcomes is essential for measuring the impact of the strategy.
Tracking of recidivism rates is an important practice that can help a9 establish the rates at which offenders go back to prison within a short period of release. This is a valid method of assessment that can help show the effectiveness of the above mentioned recidivism rate reduction solutions (Loza, 2017). It can be achieved through collection and analysis of corrections, probation and parole data. Periodic collection and analysis of this data will provide relevant information, of whether the solutions to this practice are improving the situation or worsening it.
References
Finn, P. (2009). Job Placement for Offenders: A Promising Approach to Reducing Recidivism and Correctional Costs. National Institute of Justice Journal, 4(7), 2-11.
Fitch, B. D., & Normore, A. H. (2012). Education-based incarceration and recidivism: The ultimate social justice crime-fighting tool . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
Hughes, E. (2016). Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Programs in Prisons and Jails: Perspectives from England and the USA. The Voluntary Sector in Prisons , 21-51. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54215-1_2
Langelid, T. (2017). The Development of Education in Norwegian Prisons. Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice , 225-247. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-58529-5_10
Loza, W. (2017). Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ). Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools , 165-179. doi: 10.1002/9781119184256.ch8
Martinson, R. (2004). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest , 35(1), 22–54.
Renshaw, A., & Suarez, E. (2009). Violent crime and prisons: Population, health conditions and recidivism . New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Tartaro, C., & Levy, M. P. (2017). Visitation Modality Preferences for Adults Visiting Jails. The Prison Journal , 97 (5), 562-584. doi:10.1177/0032885517728871
Taxman, F. S., & Mun, M. (2018). Recidivism. Oxford Medicine Online . doi:10.1093/med/9780199374847.003.0013
Telidevara, S. (2012). Property Crime, Recidivism, and Household Behavior. Poverty & Public Policy , 4 (3), 99-130. doi:10.1002/pop4.8
Wehrman, M. M. (2011). Examining Race and Sex Inequality in Recidivism. Sociology Compass , 5 (3), 179-189. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011. 00362.x
