Literature Review On Recidivism

Community corrections is continually changing and has been for the past one hundred years. From the early to mid-twentieth century onward it has used three major models, the medical model, community model, and the crime control model. The major turning point for the American community corrections system that led to corrections as we know it today was in 1974 when What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform by Martinson was published. The system changed practically overnight across the nation. The notion of rehabilitating offenders was dismissed and a more punitive “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality took over. Presently the corrections system is still working in the crime control model, but professionals are trying to restructure how we deal with criminal offenders during and after incarceration. The difficulty in the restructuring is finding the balance between punishing criminal offenders proportionate to their crime, but also rehabilitating them to be productive members of society once they are released so that they do not recidivate.

The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the

The current prison and criminal justice system has not proven to be helpful in rehabilitating offenders and preventing recidivism. To successfully alter this situation it is important to understand what steps and measures are available to assist those who find themselves imprisoned. The techniques used in cognitive behavioral therapy have proven to be effective in treating depression, anxiety and drug addictions among other things. Analyzing the techniques developed in cognitive behavioral theory and applying them to psychotherapy in prison environments can assist in making improvements in the prevention of criminal activity, rates of incarceration and safety and security of the general population. The literature shows that the use of

With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

The mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes should be abolished. Treatment and rehabilitation efforts

There are currently over two million people in our nation 's state and federal prisons and jails. Nearly one and a half million of these offenders occupy state and federal prisons, serving over a year in detention for felonies.(1) The most alarming statistic is the fact that the United States houses twenty five percent of the world 's inmates. A good percentage of these convicts are serving time for drug crimes, most of which are first time,

In 1989, the first drug court came into existence in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They emerged in response to demands for change in the criminal justice system because of the War on Drug. (Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2003) By 2007, drug courts were established in all 50 states. Statistics show that the prison population of women increased because of the War on drug policies. (Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009) The drug court model became an alternative to sanctions given to drug offenders. Drug courts address addiction by merging treatment services, judicial monitoring, and probation supervision. (King & Pasquarella, 2009; NADCP, 2005; Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009)

Correctional treatment programs have long been thought not to be effective in lowering the recidivism among criminals; Martinson (1979). Researchers have done countless studies and surveys only to find out that many of these studies and programs work and nearly the same number of programs do not work, depending on what component was or was not a part of the studies. Knowing that all programs does not work for all criminals is a no brainer, however, finding a good mixture of what does work and for what percentage of criminals is a beginning to duplicate that program with a few minor adjustments in the programs.

Drug use and abuse is not a new problem for America’s prison system, and is one which speaks to the larger issue corrupting the judicial system as a whole. As of 2013, of those prisoners serving at least a year long sentence, 51 percent (98,200) of them were serving for drug offenses (Carson, 2014). To contrast the incarcerated with those on probation and parole, some 25 percent (977,662) of the 3.9 million people on probation were charged with drug

The drug court also provides powerful incentives and punishments for it participates. Some may be harsh and others are less harsh. At the state level the recidivism rate has lowered (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Rempel et. Al., 2003; Shaffer, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2003). This is due to the defendant’s participation rate. There was a national study done showing a two-year recidivism rate of 28% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

This implied that the incarceration was effective as presented in Figure 1; the offenders believed that the incarceration is the best way of correcting individual behaviors. This finding goes hand in hand with the study conducted by McCollister et al., stating that more than 80 percent of drug offenders were

of the time. They offer their insight on effective corrections and individualizing treatments based on predictors for crime and behavioral knowledge, as well as conclude that recidivism is reduced by rehabilitation.

Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in

Drug abuse and crime is not a new concept and the statistics around the problem have continued to rise. According to (Office of Justice Programs, 2011), there were an estimated 1,846,400 state and local arrests for drug abuse in the United States. Additionally, 17 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs (Office of Justice Programs, 2011). Based on this information, we can conclude that our criminal justice systems are saturated with drug abusers. The United States has the highest imprisonment rate and about 83 percent of arrests are for possession of illegal drugs (Prisons & Drug Offenders, 2011). Based on these figures, I can conclude that we should be more concerned about solving the drug abusers problems and showing them an alternative lifestyle rather than strict penalty of long term incarceration which will inevitably challenge their ability to be fully functioning citizens after release.