Criminal Rehabilitation free essay sample

Prison is just a place where criminals get a good spanking and endless lectures on behavior until they can learn how to be righteous. In colonial America, criminals were treated in much the same way as they were in England at that time, with punishments ranging from lashings, confinement in stocks, and public brandings for minor offenses to hanging for more serious crimes-including theft (Wright, 2007). Many people are surprised to learn that the use of prisons as a form of punishment and rehabilitation was an American innovation (Farabee, 2005). On average, incarceration costs about $22,000 per year: to lock someone away for ten years costs, on average, about $220, 000; a shorter sentence with emphasis on re-education and rehabilitation would be cheaper and more effective (Fauteck, 2006). Rehabilitation seems like a good method that can help inmates get a new lease on life, and become good productive citizens. Criminal rehabilitation works to reduce criminal recidivism, and it’s a cost-efficient form of crime prevention (Fauteck, 2006). Rehabilitation is often theorized as an approach distinct from reform: that is, as a particular style of correctional intervention and a product or correlate of a particular historical context (Raynor Robinson, 2005). American prisons have been charged with the responsibility of accomplishing a nearly impossible task: the transformation of convicted felons, including society’s most violent and recalcitrant criminals, into law-abiding citizens (Wright, 2007). Isolation from social connections with economic value further embeds offenders within a criminal social world (in prison and again on the street), which has long-term effects on inmates’ ability to integrate into mainstream communities; no matter how progressive prison-based vocational training courses seem to be, the American system of correctional â€Å"isolation† cannot accomplish, to a significant degree, its goal of offender rehabilitation and community integration (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). Rehabilitation also ensures that inmates are socially well adjusted (Wright, 2007). Prisons are exceedingly difficult places in which to provide treatment (Farabee, 2005). Under rehabilitation, incapacitation effects also would occur (as well as general deterrent effects because offender would receive a state sanction) (Fauteck, 2006). There is growing evidence that imprisonment is related to higher levels of recidivism (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). Set of studies demonstrates that control-oriented intensive supervision, scared straight, and boot camp programs have no overall impact on recidivism (Fauteck, 2006). One of the reasons why these interventions fail, it’s because they are based on a limited theory of crime (rational choice) and do not target the known proximate risk factors for re-offending (Andrews and Bonta, 2006). Scholars has been working to document that rehabilitation programs can be effective (Wright, 2007). Through the use of meta-analyses that survey the studies in this area, they show that rehabilitation programs achieve meaningful reductions in recidivism (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). Rehabilitation for the benefit of potential victims Current models of rehabilitation, those based on social learning theory and often delivered through ‘programmes’, aim to empower offenders to take more control of their lives and behavior and to make more pro-social choices by helping them to learn necessary skills such as listening and communication, crucial and creative thinking, problem-solving, self-management and self-control (Fauteck, 2006). Rehabilitation is advocated on the grounds that it is better for both the offenders and society because it can reduce further offending and victimizations (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). This primacy accorded to public safety is described by Garland as a shift in the justification of rehabilitation: the emphasis, he argues, has moved from the benefit to the offender towards the benefit to potential future victims-it is for their sake that rehabilitation is attempted (Garland, 2001). Rehabilitation for the benefit of communities Rehabilitation is often characterized as a â€Å"liberal idea† because it endorses â€Å"going easy† on offenders, and yet the public supports it; Americans favor a balanced approach, one that exacts a measure of justice, protects the public against serious offenders, and makes every effort to change offenders while they are within the grasp of the state (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). State-obligated rehabilitation is based on the rights that offenders share with other citizens even after they have offended; communitarian approaches to rehabilitation recognize that offenders mostly belong to communities, and that their memberships and affiliations need to continue, or to be repaired, if they are to be reintegrated into normal membership of communities Garland, 2001). Such approaches are associated particularly with advocates of restorative justice who believe that re-integrative processes can help offenders to atone for or make reparation for their offenses at the same time as helping offenders and victims to acknowledge the wrong and to learn something of each other (Braithwaite, 1989). A related approach to rehabilitation is also emerging, known as a ‘strengths-based’ approach which justifies rehabilitation on the basis of the contribution the rehabilitated offender can make to the community, and the community’s need for this contribution; ‘strengths-based and restorative approaches ask not what a person’s deficits are, but rather what positive contribution the person can make (Andrews Bonta, 1994). REHABILITATION PROGRAMS Basic criminal rehabilitation programs ensure that there is a standard level of literacy amongst the inmates. We know that treatment can be successful in reducing criminal behavior, but we have to have better knowledge as to what are the effective treatment ingredients. No matter how well a program is designed, its effectiveness ultimately depends on how well it is implemented (Farabee, 2005). The alchemy between the perceived urgency of reversing existing crime trends and the promise of effective rehabilitation programs has fueled the public’s desire for non-punitive, rehabilitative responses to crime (Farabee, 2005). In order to analyze the effectiveness of criminal rehabilitation programs, we have to define and understand the meaning of programs in terms of rehabilitating offenders. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines program as â€Å"a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal† (Merrian-Webster Dictionary, 2002). If the term program is put into context with criminal rehabilitation, it is treatment designed for the specific goal of reducing recidivism. Not all offender programs are ineffective; some have positive results (Farabee, 2005). An effective treatment program must be able to differentiate offenders in their risk to re-offend and then match their risk to level of service (Andrews Bonta, 1994). Higher risk offenders require more intensive services while the lower risk offenders require very little or no services (Fleisher, 1995; Irwin, 1970). Criminogenic needs are the offender needs that when changed, are associated with changes in recidivism, for example, substance abuse and employment problems are riminogenic needs that relate to anxiety and self-esteem; decreasing anxiety or increasing self-esteem is likely to impact future criminal behavior (Andrews Bonta, 1994). Rehabilitation programs that target characteristics that do not cause crime and operate at low intensity with poorly trained staff cannot be expected to have a lasting, positive impact on the offenders who pass through them (Farabee, 2005). In recent years, researchers have largely agreed that rehabilitation could work and identified an array o f effective treatment practices and strategies (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). One major concern among most correctional agencies and policymakers is whether program outcomes can be translated into monetary savings to justify the investment already made and additional spending in the future (Lipton, 1998). Many researchers operated on the assumption that effective correctional programs should improve the social functioning of participating offenders; thus the focus of most studies was to assess whether the anticipated effects existed; and if so, in what form (Andrews Bonta, 1994). Prison-Based vs Community-Based Treatment From 1995 to 2002 the nation’s state prisons population increased by 27%, and the nation’s federal prison population increased by 71% (Ashley, Marsden, Brady, 2003). The growth in the nation’s prison population largely has been due to the increased use of incarceration for drug-related offenses, which also has created an increased demand for appropriate drug treatment programs for men and women within prison settings (Ashley, Marsden, Brady, 2003). Inmate programs have a very positive impact on a correctional facility as well as the individual offenders; learning to read and write, completing a high school equivalency degree, becoming involved in a trade course, and participating in a comprehensive drug program are all important opportunities to offer a convicted offender (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). The therapeutic community (TC) treatment model has been shown to be an effective method of substance abuse treatment, as well as many other TC programs that have been incorporated into American prisons over the past two decades (Bloom, Owen, Covington, 2003). Fairly consistent findings from prison-based treatment evaluations for men have been reported: treatment reduces post-treatment recidivism and drug use; men who continue treatment in the community after release from prison do better than men who do not continue treatment; and length of time in treatment is positively correlated with greater success on parole (Deleon, 2000). Two studies found that women in prison-based treatment had more success on parole compared with a no-treatment group of female inmates (Harrison Beck, 2003). There is substantial evidence empirical evidence that institution programs reduce recidivism (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). Prison-based criminal rehabilitation programs have been found out to be effective in reducing violence and drug use inside the prison Farabee, 2005 A study found that men and women who completed residential treatment followed by outpatient treatment had substantial reductions in drug use and arrests and increased employment, but had a particularly beneficial impact on women (Peters, Strozier, Murrin Kearns, 1997). Numerous intervening issues (racial isolation, low level of education or valuable job skills, positive or negative experiences with the job market, low-risk alternatives to low-paying employment) confuse the unemployment-crime relationship, especially at the individual level of decision making (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). Swelling prison populations and high rates of re-incarceration among parolees stimulated many questions about the potential benefits of committing more public resources to community-based rehabilitation programs (Lipton, 1998). Over the past several years, some states began to commit more resources to community-based correctional services-a movement that stimulated and reinforced interest in program evaluations (Bernfeld, Farrington, Leschied, 2001). Community-based corrections, such as community-based probation centers, offer treatment, and try to create positive changes in offenders’ lives through family and community intervention (Strickland, 2004). Substance Abuse Treatment Chronic drug abusers comprise a large proportion of the inmate population, thus, high rates of recidivism have been linked to continued drug use upon release to the community (Bernfeld, Farrington, Leschied, 2001). Approximately 80% of offenders have used drugs prior to incarceration, and by the time most offenders in the US reach prison, they have been detoxed (Second Chance Program). Many correctional facilities offer alcohol and drug treatment programs for prisoners with histories of addiction; participation in such programs generally requires offenders to identify, hallenge, and attempt to change their frame of mind and behavioral patterns that have led them to their addictive lifestyle (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). A new study finds that providing treatment for substance use disorders to incarcerated individuals reduces the likelihood that they will commit a crime after their release and can be a cost-effective benefit to society (jointogether. org). Research has shown that combi ning criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be effective in decreasing drug use and related crime (National Institute on Drug Abuse). National figures indicate that while 80 percent of prison inmates have serious alcohol or drug problems, only 15 percent receive treatment for their substance abuse problems (jointogether. org). Researchers said the findings demonstrate a need to invest in prison-based treatment programs, which showed that untreated drug dependent offenders are likely to return to criminal behavior following release from prison and are responsible for an excessive amount of violent and property crime (jointogether. org). The criminal justice refers drug offenders into treatment through a variety of mechanisms, such as diverting nonviolent offenders to treatment, stipulating treatment as a condition of probation or pretrial release, and convening specialized courts that handle cases for offenses involving drugs (Bernfeld, Farrington, Leschied, 2001). Combining prison-and community-based treatment for drug-addicted offenders reduces the risk of both recidivism to drug-related criminal behavior and relapse to drug use (Deleon, 2000). For those with known drug problems, drug addiction treatment may be recommended or mandated as a condition of probation (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Offenders with drug disorders may encounter a number of treatment options while incarcerated, including didactic drug education classes, self-help programs, and treatment based on therapeutic community or residential milieu therapy models (Farabee, 2005). Among prison-based substance abuse treatment programs, the most commonly evaluated is the therapeutic community (TC). The goal of a TC is to â€Å"habilitate† clients in a holistic fashion, emphasizing personal responsibility; rather than attempting to change offenders through counselor-led, didactic presentations; TC’s rely primarily on the residents themselves to effect change on the individual (Bloom, Owen, Covington, 2003). The TC model has been studied extensively and can be quite effective in reducing drug use and recidivism to criminal behavior (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Research shows that relapse to drug use and recidivism to crime are significantly lower if the drug offender continues treatment after returning to the community (Deleon, 2000). Treatment for incarcerated drug abusers must include continuing care, monitoring, and supervision after release and ruing parole (Bloom, Owen, Covington, 2003). Mental Health Treatment Today society continues to face the challenge of providing proper care for offenders with mental disorders within the growing population of persons under the jurisdiction of the correctional system in the United States (Harris, Trupin, Wood, 1998). Between 1980 and 1995, the number of people incarcerated in jails and prisons more than tripled, increasing from 501,886 to 1,577,845; the incarceration rate also nearly tripled during that time, from about 150 per 100,000 persons in 1980 to more than 400 per 100,000 in 1995 (Farabee, 2005). The rate of mental illness is two to three times higher among those incarcerated in jails and in prisons, than within the general population; a disproportionate number of persons with mental illness are arrested, compared with the general population (Lamb Weinberger, 1998). A recent study found that the offenders with mental illness had a rate of recidivism equivalent to that of a matched control group of non-mentally-ill offenders (Fauteck, 2006). Another study recently reported that the introduction of case management services led to a significant decrease in the recidivism rate of offenders with mental illness, yet another demonstrated that judicially monitored treatment resulted in good outcomes during a one-year follow-up phase (Lamb Weinberger, 1998). Offenders with mental illness are highly likely to have ongoing contact with the criminal justice and correctional systems and that clinical intervention may affect their recidivism rate (Farabee, 2005). To effectively serve this population of mentally ill offenders, a collaborative and proactive approach involving mental health care providers and corrections personnel are clearly needed (Wright, 2007). Community-Based Sexual-Offender Treatment Community-based sexual-offender treatment is a relatively recent innovation largely prompted by recommendations made in response to tragic re-offenses in the community in the last ten years (Bernfeld, Farrington Leschied, 2001). Almost all offenders designated as dangerous offenders are sexual offenders, most of whom have histories of multiple sexual offenses (US Department of Justice, 1998). Within the criminal justice system particularly, high-risk sex offenders are unlikely to achieve conditional release (i. e. , community supervision prior to the end of their sentence) due to the influence of a number of processes (Farabee, 2005). Education Education is one of the ways that can help inmates spent their time in incarceration productively, changing some of their critical aspect of personality. Education is one of the way s in which positive change can be affected among these inmates. Since state prison inmates have an average of eleven years of education, it seems reasonable to assume that providing them with adult basic education will increase their chances of finding employment upon release and, in turn, reduce their likelihood of returning to crime; it also ensures that there is propensity for ex-convicts to return to a life of crime is less, as they are able to secure jobs after their release (Wright, 2007). The NDRI meta-analysis examined the effects of college coursework on recidivism (Farabee, 2005). Education allows offenders to improve and stay relevant to the changing society outside the prison walls. A number of criminal justice alternatives to incarceration have been tried with offenders who have drug disorders, including limited diversion programs, pretrial release conditional on entry into treatment, and conditional probation with sanctions (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Drug courts mandate and arrange for drug addiction treatment, actively monitor progress in treatment, and arrange for other services to drug-involved offenders (Raynor Robinson, 2005). The Treatment Accountability and Safer Communities (TASC) program provides an alternative to incarceration by addressing the multiple needs of drug-addicted offenders in a community-based setting; TASC programs typically include counseling, medical care, parenting instruction, family counseling, school and job training and legal and employment services (Farabee, 2005). Employment While few of us would support a policy that gives offenders jobs, most would agree that providing inmates with the skills and experience they need to ind a job upon release makes sense. Based on a study by Lattimore, Witte, and Baker, inmates assigned to a vocational program were less likely (36 percent) than those in the control group (46 percent) to be re-arrested within two years of release, but by and large most of the more rigorous studies produced mixed results, showing either no significant difference between groups or in at least two studies, slightly higher recidivism among those who received vocati onal education (Garland, 2001). Even though correctional agencies assert that inmate employment is critical to their mission, seventeen state correctional agencies do not maintain employment data on inmates, and forty state agencies have no data on offender income (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). In American culture, employment is conceptualized as a form of â€Å"treatment† intended to prevent an individual disorder known as â€Å"crime† or to cure it once it afflicts us (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). Researchers using aggregate data have been unable to prove a consistent link between employment and crime, and this is due to the fact that crime and recidivism rates, at the aggregate level, have failed to consistently show dramatic declines in times of prosperity (Krienert Fleisher, 2004). Sometimes the inability of inmates to find jobs can be a cause of crime.   Rehabilitation and the role of treatment programs in the correctional system continue to be controversial. Those who have been personally affected by a crime would rather have criminals mutilated, but for them criminal rehabilitation is more effective if we do away with criminals rather than letting them live inside the cages at the taxpayer’s expense. The criminal justice system in the United States has not produced any measurable reductions in recidivism, and to have an impact on this venerable problem requires a dramatic rethinking of what rehabilitation really means. Criminal rehabilitation has many positive benefits that can impact the lives of many inmates as well as their families, as they reintegrate into society.