The RNR Model

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.

In conclusion, RNR model usually brings to the fore its principles, that is risk policy, need principle and the active principle. Risk policy matches the program intensity versus the risk level there is minimal intervention to low –risk offenders and intensive levels advanced to high-risk offenders. Need policy, on the other hand, aims at the criminogenic needs. These offenders are functionally interrelated to the criminal behavior. Responsively principle tries to match intervention mode style of the offender to their learning styles and abilities (Rothman, 1980).

The prison system often proves ineffective at reconditioning prisoners to free life due to the high potential of recidivation soon after release, the decrease in education and other programs in prisons, and the physical and emotional results of the conditions in which prisoners live. Although some may argue that the threat of a prison sentence deters potential criminals from pursuing a life of crime, the experience of prison may result in increased criminality, subverting the goal completely. Firstly, many prisoners recidivate, or reoffend, soon after release. Of released prisoners, “44 percent... were rearrested within one year and 68 percent were rearrested within 3 years” (Mears). Since nearly one half of prisoners committed another crime in one year after their release, the rate of recidivism indicates that the prisons fail to recondition inmates to free life. This may be due to the failure of rehabilitation programs offered in prisons; many recently released prisoners end up back in prison soon after release due to the limited reentry programs (Pager 2). Rehabilitation efforts in prison aim to reduce recidivism by changing a person's mindset from one of crime and criminality to one of compliance with laws and consideration for others; however they do not often accomplish this goal well, if at all. Rehabilitation efforts in prisons produce less positive effects than those offered in the community (Clear 132). The lack of results likely stems from the poor environment

Lurigio and Olson (2014) noted prison-based treatment starts the recovery process, but a continuum of care is a necessity to maximize the effectiveness of treatment. Their research found offenders who participated in prison-based treatment and community aftercare were less likely to re-offend compared to those who only participated in prison-based treatment. Hall et al. (2012) found higher success rates among offenders who participated in prison-based treatment and continued to engage in treatment once released from custody. A lack of education is another factor that plays in the role of recidivism. Dirks-Linhorst et al. (2012) highlighted the importance of community aftercare and the role of education because those who lacked a high-school diploma or GED were more likely to re-offend. Many offenders have poor work histories and Dickson, Leukefeld, Stanton-Tindall, Webster, and Wilson (2014) noted employment is a critical key to the continued success of an offender and their treatment. Dickson (2014) suggest offenders who obtain employment once released from custody will be more successful in the reentry process.

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

No exact science or theory provides an absolute guarantee that someone will be incarcerated. However, once incarcerated as many as seventy-five percent of released offenders will return to prison (Jonson 2010). Prison must be effective. Therefore, those who are released must be positively affected whereby they are no longer subject to the same dilemmas that increased the likelihood of criminality. Defining risks and conditions that acerbated an offender’s propensity toward incarceration must be addressed, resolved or treated while in prison, thereby lessening the impact upon re-offending. Studies and research were examined that identified aspects of offenders ability such as learning disabilities, educational and injury that if identified

The definition of rehabilitation according to professor Mona Lynch, is “any discourse or practices that speak transforming or normalizing the criminal into a socially defined non-deviant citizen, including psychological programs, drug treatment programs, educational and work-training programs, work and housing placement assistance, and halfway houses.” This definition of rehabilitation is unique because it focuses on outcomes, encompasses an array of inmate services, and is more multidimensional than any of the preceding works. I believe that prisoners should be treated with exactly the same degree of respect and kindness as we would hope they would show to others after they return to society. People learn by example. The Timelist program showed that offenders hearing from ex-offenders who are on the outside and are doing well is very powerful. These rehabilitation programs; The Timelist, Edovo, and the GreenHouse Program all provide evidence to support the Prison Rehabilitation Act of 1965, which devoted full attention exclusively to the crime problem in the U.S. and the high numbers of population in our prisons, by providing more flexible rehabilitation programs. It would be beneficial to every man, women, and child in America, if we were to continue providing resources for existing rehabilitation

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

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.

The first and most important step of evidence-based practices is to assess the risks and needs of the offender. It is essential to identify the risks and needs of the offender to better understand his or her reasons for committing crime, and to then build a plan to make sure better decisions are made in the future. According to the Crime & Justice Institute, the goal of the risk/needs assessment is to, “develop and maintain a complete system of ongoing offender risk screening/triage and needs assessments. Sizing-up offenders in a reliable and valid manner is a prerequisite for the effective management (supervision and retreatment) of offenders” (3). Every offender is different; therefore, a in-depth assessment of each offender can provide a clear direction created specifically for him or her to become a law-abiding citizen. Critical information of the assessment may consist of the criminal history of the offender, and the criminogenic needs of the offender. Criminal

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

There has been a lot of controversy about the accuracy of risk assessments. Risk assessments are essentially predictions of future behaviour and are subject to error. The result of a risk assessment has serious implications for both the assessed individual and society: for the individual offender, the assessment will decide his or her freedom; for society, it may determine whether a potentially dangerous person will be released into the community. The community requires protection, but

Another goal of criminal sentencing is to rehabilitate. “Rehabilitation is a programmed effort to alter the attitudes and behaviors of inmates and improve their likelihood of becoming law-abiding citizens” (Seiter, 2008, p. 32). Rehabilitation assumes that criminals have underlying problems that are the cause of their criminality and that if these causes are treated, the offender can return to society and possibly provide some type of restitution for the victims of their crimes.

Reasoning and rehabilitation focused on helping the offender stop and think before acting. Moral recognition uses textbooks and group exercises. Aggression replacement focuses on role-playing in order to teach the offenders to control their behavior and anger. Thinking for a chance has a 22 group exercise that focus on controlling the way the offender thinks. Cognitive intervention program focus on the offenders behaviors that caused them to commit the act. Some of the programs where actually used on real offenders but some were just demonstration and practices. Treatment was given to the offenders, and the providers had little to no training in cognitive behavior. The effects on recidivism was influenced characteristics and treatment. Success rate was greater for those in treatment groups rather than being in control groups. The chance of those not recidivating after the 12 month programs was greater among the individuals that were in treatment groups than those in control groups. Which reduced the recidivism rate in the control group by 50 percent and about .19 in the treatment groups. Design produced three variable: randomized, matched or neither. Design program focuses on treatment and control groups. Out of the 58 studies 6 from the random studies were actual conducted in the real world as for the rest where just demonstration and

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