It is often difficult for offenders to adjust after incarceration. The Second Chance Act rejects the notion that recidivism reduction is best achieved through deterrent threats alone. Explain the Second Chance Act, and defend your views on how recidivism reduction can best be achieved.
The Second Chance Act (SCA) focuses on individuals who have been released from prisons and jails with the sole function of reducing and entirely preventing their recidivism rates. It was signed into law in 2008 and provides necessary financial support to organizations that deal with reintegrating previous offenders into society ( D'Amico, Geckeler & Kim, 2016) . The act authorizes the issuance of federal grants to various government agencies and other non-profit organizations who provide former offenders with social opportunities that will help improve their reintegration process while working to reduce their recidivism. Some of the opportunities offered by these organizations for previous offenders include mentoring, housing, assistance in employment, support groups and substance abuse treatment ( D'Amico, Geckeler & Kim, 2016) . The act focuses on providing a cushion for former offenders to ensure that they reintegrate smoothly back into society to help reduce their chances of reoffending and to a great extent, segregation from the rest of society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Second Chance Act provides former offenders with crucial services that reduce their chances of reoffending significantly. It further refutes the idea that the recidivism can be reduced solely through deterrent threats. Even when these threats will work through instilling fear in former inmates, they may not entirely prevent them from reoffending. Recidivism reduction would only be possible through the absence of social segregation, helping offenders lay an economic foundation and providing them with the opportunity for support groups that will help make their reintegration easier. When these individuals feel accepted by society and especially their families, they would be ready to focus on making their lives better. When they are provided with economic opportunities to improve their lives, the likelihood of them engaging in crime reduces significantly. It would therefore be wise for the criminal justice system to incorporate the services sponsored by the SCA with minimal deterrent threats, specifically when necessary. This would ensure that these individuals do not develop fear but that they can find their perfect fit in society even after being released.
As a prison administrator (warden/superintendent), what would your recommendation be for HIV testing within the prison system? Why or why not? If so, when should it take place (e.g. during admission, anytime during incarceration, just prior to release)? Should the offenders who are HIV/AIDS positive be segregated? Would it be a violation of the offender’s rights to be segregated from the general population?
As a prison administrator, I would recommend for HIV testing among prisoners to be mandatory. The basis for such a decision would be to help curb the spread of the disease among inmates and further provide the necessary treatment for those found to be positive ( Rosen et al., 2015) . I would recommend that the testing be carried out upon admission to ensure that when the inmate is positive, he or she can be given the best form of care while serving their time. Inmates would be initially informed why the testing is mandatory including informing them on how beneficial the process would be for them and other prisoners. HIV counseling would be mandatory before inmates are subjected to the testing to help prepare them for whatever outcome ( Grodensky et al., 2016) . When found positive, inmates would be subjected to Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) and provided with the appropriate diet to help manage their condition. Segregation would be nonexistent for these patients. Their HIV status would be treated with the highest level of confidentiality such that only the inmate and prison doctor would be aware. I would ensure that their medication is only given by the doctors and they would not need to carry it to their cells. Such efforts would be geared towards protecting their status from the rest of the prisoners and ensuring to help bring their viral load to undetectable levels. It would further ensure that the disease is kept in check within the prison through preventing its spread.
References
D'Amico, R., Geckeler, C., & Kim, H. (2016). An evaluation of seven second chance act adult demonstration programs: impact findings at 18 months . SPR, Social Policy Research Associates.
Grodensky, C. A., Rosen, D. L., Hino, S., Golin, C. E., & Wohl, D. A. (2016). Opt-out HIV testing of inmates in North Carolina prisons: factors associated with not wanting a test and not knowing they were tested. AIDS and Behavior , 20 (4), 859-869.
Rosen, D. L., Golin, C. E., Grodensky, C. A., May, J., Bowling, J. M., DeVellis, R. F., ... & Wohl, D. A. (2015). Opt-out HIV testing in prison: informed and voluntary?. AIDS care , 27 (5), 545-554.
