Experts in law enforcement and criminal justice system believe that the increased rates of incarceration in the country and the huge numbers of offenders in prisons and jails is a result of the policy makers deciding to increase the utilization and severity of prison sentences (Lopez, 2014). Further, successful crime prevention strategies need to focus on issues that contribute to the large number of crimes which individuals commit after serving their incarceration and fail to integrate in their communities as law abiding citizens (National Institute of Justice, 2018). As such, failure in the system occurs due to policy decisions that do not address recidivism and the need to reduce injustice associated with re-incarceration of offenders. Consequently, this paper proposes that effective strategies to maintain the rehabilitative goal of the correctional facilities and the justice system and mitigate injustice associated with re-incarceration of offenders.
In their study, Morenoff & Harding (2014) observe that from 1970s the U.S. continues to witness a huge increase in incarceration and returning offenders and those in after-release community correctional supervision. Further, correctional facilities are designed to offer rehabilitative services as a means of ensuring that offenders do not go back to their former states before incarceration. Most of the rehabilitative programs in both state and federal prisons aim at reducing recidivism or the number of individuals that reoffend upon their release from prisons and jails. Therefore, the high rate of recidivism that results in re-incarceration of offenders indicates that existing strategies are not working effectively to ensure that offenders integrate well in their communities. Recidivism is a social problem that continues to affect communities and families who see their members going back to prison where conditions may not be good for their health and well being. Gelb and Velazquez (2018) observe that the fewer people are going back to prison three years after their release has dropped in recent years. However, it remains high because the essence of correctional facilities is to rehabilitate an offender so that they do not go back to their previous criminal life. Due to the negative effects of recidivism to communities, individuals, and even the correctional facilities, this paper proposes a raft of strategies and measures within and outside prisons that can lead to communities, local, state, and federal authorities maintaining the focus of rehabilitation and reducing injustice associated with re-incarceration of offenders (Roodman, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Policy makers must review the existing classification system and solitary confinement of inmates when they are in jails. Effective rehabilitative services need to ensure that all prisoners are accommodated irrespective of their offenses (Eperson & Pettus-Davis, 2015). Prison administrators need to accommodate the wide range of offenders because segregationist policies like solitary confinement of violent offenders do not help them to change or be rehabilitated. While classification systems are administrative approaches in managing prisons, they may exacerbate the situation of a prisoner and lead to the development of other behavior that may pose danger not just to the inmate but also the community upon their release. Lengthy segregation should be minimized as one way of ensuring that the rehabilitative focus of the prison is maintained and injustice associated with re-incarceration is mitigated or addressed. Mentally ill inmates may suffer from depression and schizophrenia when segregated and thus reducing the ability to be rehabilitated when behind bars (Shukman & Wang, 2018). Solitary confinement exacerbates any preexisting conditions for offenders and upon release the probability of repeat offending is not only high but also a reality for the individual and even the supervisory authorities. Further, mentally ill inmates placed in solitary confinement may attempt suicide, cause harm to their bodies, and initiate strange practices that may not be noticed before their release. Therefore, one of the best strategies to maintain rehabilitative focus is ensuring that confinement is reduced and integration of prisoners encouraged under close supervision and monitoring.
Secondly, state and federal authorities need to enhance in-prison rehabilitation programs as one way of maintaining the rehabilitative focus. Peterson and Lee (2017) observe that a rehabilitation program is an effective tool of reducing recidivism if it has three essential elements. Firstly, the tool needs to be based on evidence in that it is designed after a program that reduced recidivism and functions in a similar way as the proven program. Secondly, the program should be assessed for its cost-effectiveness and lastly, it needs to focus on the high-risk and those inmates with the most urgent need. As such, it is essential for state and federal correctional facilities to use programs that are evidence based through effective research (Peterson & Lee, 2017). For instance, a state or federal facility can adopt a program that is already working in other parts of the country or world in reducing recidivism and ensuring that inmates are rehabilitated and do not violate parole or community supervision provisions or commit repeat offenses.
In addition, research-based programs must be executed with fidelity so as to enhance their effectiveness based on the adopted model or design. For example, a program must be implemented in a similar design and manner as the proven program. The implication is that when a proven program is not implemented as designed, it may fail to provide the expected results or outcomes and increase injustice to offenders (Butts & Schiraldi, 2018). Therefore, ascertaining that a program is executed with fidelity to the research-based model enhances its ability to reduce recidivism and injustice to the re-incarcerated offenders. Research-based programs are cost effective and have high rates of success when implemented in the best way by those in authority.
Thirdly, programs need to focus on inmates with the most needs and at high-risk of reoffending in their communities. Studies demonstrate that high-risk offenders that remain in correctional programs for over one year lowered their chanced of reoffending as compared to those not on such programs (Thomson et al., 2018). Imperatively, the provision of rehabilitation programs that target high-risk and those in the most need can reduce recidivism and ensure that facilities and state authorities lower injustice associated with re-incarceration of offenders. As such, and effective risk and needs assessment approach to classify inmates should be validated when a facility experiences a substantial alteration in its inmate population.
Fourthly, maintaining the rehabilitative focus requires having cost-effective programs that will ensure that states and federal authorities make necessary resource allocations to address the different needs of prisoners before, during and after their release from incarceration. State and federal authorities ensure that their programs are effective based on resource allocation so that inmates and offenders access essential services in efforts to rehabilitate them and increase their chances of not offending again in their communities (Cullen, Jonson & Mears, 2017). Further, cost-effective programs will ensure that state and federal authorities make proper resource allocations with minimal wastage. In addition, maintenance of rehabilitative focus implores on state and federal agencies in the criminal justice system to have effective reintegration programs based on the nature of offending among inmates; both in and out of prisons and jails. Further, effective rehabilitation require full collaboration and integration of community organizations and agencies and offender reintegration programs should focus on dynamic risk factors that encourage recidivism (Kim, 2016).
Conclusion
As demonstrated by the paper, effective rehabilitation and a reduction in injustice associated with re-incarceration requires the use of evidence-based programs, reviewing of the classification system and solitary confinement, and targeting inmates at the highest risk and those with the most needs. Further, state and federal agencies require cost-effective programs and enhanced integration and collaboration from community agencies and organizations to help inmates attain successful rehabilitation and integration into their communities and families.
References
Butts, J. A. & Schiraldi, V. (2018). Recidivism Reconsidered: Preserving the Community Justice Mission of Community Corrections. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School.
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L. & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing Community Corrections. Criminal and Justice , vol. 46, No.1.
Eperson, M. W. & Pettus-Davis, C. (2015). Smart Decarceration: Guiding Concepts for an Era of Criminal Justice Transformation. Center for Social Development-Working Papers No. 15-53. Retrieved from https://csd.wustl.edu/publications/documents/wp15-53.pdf
Gelb, A. & Velazquez, T. (2018 August 1). The Changing State of Recidivism: Fewer People Going Back to Prison. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/08/01/the-changing-state-of-recidivism-fewer-people-going-back-to-prison
Kim, K. (2016). Restoring Human Capabilities After Punishment: Our Political Responsibilities Toward Incarcerated Americans. Retrieved from http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Kim_berkeley_0028E_15944.pdf
Llamas, A. & Larson, J. (2016). Prioritizing restorative justice in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice and Legal Issues , vol. 3, pp.1-26. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/162504.pdf
Lopez, G. (2014, September 18). 3 reasons America still leads the world in imprisoning people. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2014/9/18/6259673/prisons-USA-mass-incarceration-solutions-facts-causes
Morenoff, J. & Harding, D. J. (2014) Incarceration, Prison Reentry, and Communities. Annual Review of Sociology , vol.40, pp. 411-429. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231529/
National Institute of Justice (2018). An Overview of Offender Reentry. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251554.pdf?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=hepeewjada-hebykysae
Peterson, J. & Lee, A. (2017). Improving In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs. Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3720
Roodman, D. (2017). The impacts of incarceration on crime. Open Philanthropy Project. Retrieved from https://blog.givewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-impacts-of-incarceration-on-crime-10.pdf
Thomson, C., Sakala, L., King, R., & Harvell, S. (2018). Research Report: Investing Justice Resources to Address Community Needs. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96341/investing_justice_resources_to_address_community_needs.pdf
Shukman, S. & Wang, C. (2018 April 28). Prison Reform in Utah: Setting a Reformative Model for the U.S. to follow. Retrieved from https://www.culawreview.org/single-post/2018/04/28/Prison-Reform-in-Utah-Setting-A-Reformative-Model-for-the-US-to-Follow
