Community Supervision of Law Violators vs. Incarceration Essay

Unlike jail or prisons, which create an expensive cycle of violence and crime, these alternatives actually prevent violence and strengthen communities. Community corrections programs provide

Response to “Bring Back Flogging” 1. Jeff Jacoby is a writer for The Boston Globe and was first to receive the Breindal Prize in 1999. However, I agree that we should bring back flogging for only the misdemeanor cases and cutting down cost in prisons. Summary

In the fourth and final article I read is titled “Community Correction Punishment an Alternative to Incarceration for Non Violent Offender” written by Marcus Nieto. During the first part of the writing he wrote about the community correction programs. It states that there are five major goals that the community corrections seek to achieve. Those five goals are as followed the offender is punished and held accountable, public safety is protected, victims and local communities receive restitution from felons who work in their present jobs and/or in restitution programs, community service work increase and the collection of court cost and fee’s increase due to contractual agreements with offenders who remain in their present jobs. Another thing

Since jails can take on much more offenders that may have taken up space in prisons, this frees up space for more dangerous criminals. This reduces the issue of overcrowding for prisons, which will lead them to reducing the amount of inmates they send to be held in jails. The second pro I would see with holding offenders in jails for long term is producing more jobs. Because there will be a need for more staff to work within jails because of more offenders and longer sentences, this produces more jobs within the county. The third pro would be instead of sending non-dangerous criminals to prison; like drug offenders, non-violent offenders, etc.; they can now be given a longer sentence to a jail facility instead of a sentence to a prison.

In my opinion about which one is more beneficial to society between community corrections and prison, I will say are the two of them because in one side of we have community corrections that help and gave public safety. For example it provide probation, parole and pretrial supervision, and these three provide protection and control all the people that are release from prison or jail and help those people so they can change for god and can be back to society and into our community. In the other hand we can see prison in here we can see all the retention of all criminals that we don’t want to be out in our community, one of the reasons why I can say prison it help to our society to control and stop crimes. for this reason I can say these two

From the article titled “The Punishment Imperative : The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America” by Todd Clear, and Natasha Frost, it goes into full detail on why the incarceration rate is failing. America incarcerates way more people that far exceeds the rate of our top allies. “With just under ten million people incarcerated in prisons and jails worldwide, America incarcerated more than one-fifth of the world’s total prison population.” (The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America, Page 17) The United States now is in the lead in the world of incarceration, that beats countries like Russia, Rwanda, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Cuba, and the country has four times the rate of European nations. Maintaining the prisons came with a staggering price. In 2006, jurisdictions would spend around $68 billion on correctional supervision. They went from spending from $9 billion in 1982 to an 660 percent increase of $68 billion in 2006. Around the same time period, direct judicial expenditures has increased by 503 percent and the policing expenditures increased by 420 percent. The huge majority of the correctional dollars, with was around 90 percent, went to stabilize mass incarceration. “With a national average annual price tag of almost $29,000 per person per year of incarceration, it cost taxpayers at least ten times more to incarcerate a person than it would have cost to maintain him or her under supervision in the community.” (The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America, Page 21) In general, this is an issue because the taxpayers are forced to pay a lot of money to maintain a person in prison. Locking up a serious violent offender is justified, however, for thousands of lower-level inmates, it costs taxpayers more than preventing

Incarceration in my opinion is not a deterrent to recidivism. When someone is placed into an environment that is surrounded by those who have committed crimes ranging from selling marijuana to first degree murder, there is a bad recipe for change. People adapt to their surrounds and someone for example that is in prison or jail for a minor offense may room with someone who murdered a family. The mindset of someone selling marijuana isn’t usually as immoral as someone who murdered. If you placed a person with a little bit of morals left into an environment which none are really to be found they will slowly lose those morals. The person adapts and beings to feel as though it is normal to think and feel a specific way. A study done by the Department

There are evidence-based programs outside of incarceration that has proven a reduced recidivism rate. The costs associated with probation and parole are pennies on the dollar compared to incarceration costs Latessa & Smith, 2011). Additionally, the alternative supervised community release programs have the ability to provide offenders with treatment programs that otherwise would not be available to them while

Punishments are no longer as cruel, the death penalty has been lifted in multiple states, and prisoners are being treated in a more equal manner, but the system should continue to be improved even more to accomplish what needs to be done in order to make the streets safer. Crime has changed from what it once was in the past. Rates have gone up and people appear to be behaving in a more difficult manner. The government cannot afford to continue treating prisoners the way they once did in the past. Reform is not just for the prisoners. Reform is for the people in the communities of America. But there appears to be a few setbacks when it comes to reform, and one of those setbacks is cost. Though according to Gary C. Mohr, “Criminal justice systems can be people-oriented, evidence-based and cost-effective while remaining focused on the safety and well-being of those living in the different communities.” Therefore, cost should not be an excuse as to why the system cannot be reformed, especially when it comes to public safety. In fact, there should be no excuses when it comes to public safety. Prisons should do what must be

Hey Andrew, I agree with your pros and cons in reference to reducing expenditures in criminal corrections and diverting the corrections’ funds. The pros you mentioned pinpointed children being more educated, feeling more supported by their state and their country, and ultimately living a good life because of the extra funds invested in them. I would also like to add that with the extra funds, being invested into education, it would keep the incarceration rate down as children will be more focused on getting an education and living a good life. I find this to be more detrimental for the high poverty communities because they already struggle with attaining necessities to live live a good life, which is sometimes why they result to crime. As for

Nationally, every 7 minutes, another person enters prison. And every 14 minutes, someone returns to the streets, beaten down and, more often than not, having suffered a great amount of violence during his or her incarceration. Professionals will tell you that incarceration really does very little to stop crime, but we go on spending billions of dollars in order to lock up more and more people. We have become the country with the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world. (National Criminal Justice Commission)

Community service was recommended because it is the best technique to provide rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. Since all categories of prisoners are mixed, first time offenders learn

Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means

Incarceration is thought of as a positive form of punishment, and negative form of punishment. The opinion varies with the type of person, and their experience from jail if they have gone. Most inmates while in prison will tell you it is a horrible place that should be gone. That would allow criminals to be free and that would let them cause harm to others or other illegal activities. Incarceration was not designed to be a paradise, it is a detention center for the bad, and meant for them to be punished. Without jails the world would be filled with even more evil, and would leave people in more danger than they already are.

The court system, the corrections system and law enforcement authorities have to work as partners to make this a reality. Time in jail is appropriate for violent offenders; however, less serious offenders who commit non-violent crimes are better served by community based corrections program such as parole and probation. Money needs to be redirected as an investment into public safety by allocating enough dollars for both the prison system and the community-based corrections system. Community-corrections is guided by the viewpoint that it is a partnership between social services and law enforcement (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009). The “1 in 31” report by The Pew Charitable Trust set up this framework for an effective corrections system in the 21st century: 1) sort offenders by risk to public safety, 2) base intervention programs on science, 3) harness technology, 4) impose swift and certain sanctions, 5) create incentives for success and, 6) measure progress. States that have implemented policies that reflect these guidelines include Arizona, Kansas, Hawaii, Florida and many