Letter And Probation Violations : Are Jail Sanctions More Effective Than Community Based Graduated Sanctions? Journal Of Criminal Essay

An open dialogue would be required between the legislature, department of correction personnel and the public. This dialogue would provide policy changes to the early release credit programs that focused on the reduction in prison population of non-violent offenders, establish rehabilitative programs to provide re-entry guidance and most importantly, always keep public safety at the forefront of the discussions. “The earned credits are viewed as incentivizing inmates to participate in rehabilitative programs that, in turn, should reduce recidivism after release from prison” (Turner, 2011). The prison system should not be viewed as a warehouse for humans but rather as a much needed form of justice that provides public safety by removing violent offenders and rehabilitating those that are deemed non-violent. All parties involved should take note that the major flaws in credit programs are not the programs themselves but rather the lack of accountability and

Electronic monitoring and intensive supervision are among the most commonly used forms of intermediate sanctions today. Intermediate sanctions are delivered through a variety of programs such as, fines, intensive supervision, restitution, substance abuse treatment, electronic monitoring, boot camps and halfway houses. Different types of sanctions may be coupled, such as restitution with intensive supervision or substance abuse treatment, or use in sequence, such as boot camp followed by intensive supervision. Furthermore, intermediate sanctions are different from traditional forms of sentencing in the fact that they are oriented less toward rehabilitation and more toward retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. They are more punitive and more restrictive. The recent popularity of intermediate sanctions is attributable largely to the record high levels of prison crowding that plaque many jurisdictions and a corresponding need to devise acceptable alternatives to

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

Introduction The current trends in the criminal justice system for the past few years demonstrates a significant need for some criminal sanctions between probation and the incarceration. However, there has been an emergence of a new sentencing to fill the gap known as intermediate sanctions. According to Neubauer & Fradella (2015), intermediate sanctions are the alternative punishment used by the criminal justice system to monitor the offenders who are neither incarcerated nor under the usual restrictions of probation. The intermediate sanctions are also a form of punishment; however, the severity and the risk can be questionable depending on the criminal offense the offender has committed.

It is thought that punishment prevents an individual from committing a future crime, or reoffending. Despite this belief, research examining the effects of incarceration and prison conditions has demonstrated

Over the years, many theorists have been considering alternative type sanctions for offenders, because of the ever growing issue of prison overcrowding of our jails at state, local and federal level. The use of alternative type sanctions seem to be growing, and is getting a second look from many prisons, and jails as an option for some offender. Also, “in addition to relieving jail and prison overcrowding, the level of risk many offenders represent is too much for probation, but

Mandatory sentencing has good intentions that people should be required to serve a minimum amount of time for the crime they committed. If someone broke into a person’s house and stole a lot of their belongings, the victims would have a little assurance that the criminal will pay for what they did by going to jail for at least ten years or more. But since incarceration does not always convince or prevent ex-convicts from re-offending, many people might question why they are even let back into society. Incarceration is pricy and the purpose of this paper is to find ways that reduce the number of people locked up in a beneficiary way to society. If people are more likely to commit a crime after incarceration, then having someone serve ten years of prison for having drugs on them will probably increase their rate of reoffending more than if they were in there for a shorter period of

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

The offender must have some type of punishment for the action he or she chose. Deterrence is a type of sentencing that prevent future actions of crimes. There is a general deterrence and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is punishment that prevents the criminal to commit additional crimes by enforcing fear. "Back in the day", depending on the crime, the criminals would get parts of their body removed. For example, rapist were castrated. General deterrence is when examples are shown to prevent someone, that is contemplating on committing crimes, to change their minds. Sometime's when a person is put in jail it does not change their criminal minds.

Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while

Incarceration of offenders has been the typical and most commonly used form of sentencing in corrections. Punishment is often the first choice when an offender breaks the law, which is understandable, because criminals should be held accountable for their crimes. Corrections is a system of checks and balances that holds individuals responsible for their actions. We must ask

Community Service within the justice system is being used in the present,due to prison overcrowding.The problem with giving community service as a discipline in the justice system.Some offenders may be a threat to the safety of citizens and safe communities.Community service was established as a way for the justice system to budget for the community.Community Service,(2014)

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.

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

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