Criminal Rehabilitation
Origins of rehabilitation in prison
With time, punitive approaches in relation to criminal justice system have significantly lost influence. In this regard, there has been a subsequent introduction of community correction programs to meet the desired need of rehabilitation. Introduction of counseling in criminal justice is sourced on the knowledge that, recidivism based crime is often radicalized as compared to the original crime. Again, vengeance, a subsequent of recidivism, is gaining popularity in the criminal world. The commencing research will examine the various forms of rehabilitation that are applicable in responding to criminal situations (Duff, 2005).
Criminal rehabilitation is a broader approach of mitigating recidivism. The act is based on the ethics of correction and not punishment. In earlier American prisons such as, Pittsburg and Ossining, rehabilitation was implemented as early as 19th century. These early programs sought to isolate convicts from a criminal mentality. The underlying belief is that a former convict will naturally report to negative influences of the society. For this reason, by 1820, researchers in the fields of criminology, psychology, and sociology provided direct reforms with deeper approaches necessary in installing values, skills, and attitudes.
In the mid-20th century, reformers adopted critical approaches prompted a general rehabilitation of convicts based on the counseling approaches. At this time, understanding the criminal-mind was more crucial than understanding the nature of the crime. For this reason, deliberative policies, for instance, indeterminate sentences were adopted to pave the way for specification of the timing period. Another crucial policy being pursued at the time was Parole – to be discussed later (Duff, 2005).
Difference between Parole from Mandatory Release
Parole is a conditional release of a prisoner to serve his or her sentence in community service. Parole is granted at any stage of the sentence and provided that the convicts meet the optimal criteria. Accompanying this is a series of apologies, which are expected to be issued by the convict to the victim on condition that the convict will not continue with his or her wrong doings.
On the other hand, mandatory release occurs after an inmate has served time equal to the specified sentence minus the total good time. The law specifies a given percentage of the total sentence. Federal jurisdictions and states determine the sentencing period and good time provision allowances. This differs from a parole since the mandatory release examines the convict while still confined in the prison whereas a parole on the other hand examines the prisoner during his or her service to the community (Ostermann, 2011).
How probation compares to other forms of sentencing
In parole, probation appeals lucratively especially if the extent of the crime could be categorized as civil. Probation incorporates the offender view in a comprehensive ideology of practice by offering the offender an outside sentence parallel to incarceration. The offender is ordered by the court to pay an equal amount to avoid serving time in prison. Probation differs from incarceration since the individual will not be required to serve in a confinement sentence, but will only appear to specific answering period to ascertain the development of the case (Ostermann, 2011).
Definition and options of community corrections
Community correction is a wider patronage act which improvises a statewide mechanism through channeling of funds to community initiatives; for instance, counseling. The options of community correction are propelled from high rates of recidivism, longer sentences (which are expensive) and tougher situations inside prisons, for example, murder or forced homosexuality. Community correction population is gradually gaining influence in the last quarter of the 20th century. Deterrence being a central theme of modern justice system became a successful strategy in building positive criminal justice systems. According to Duff (2005, pp. 18), changing responses of government to crime and punishment during the course of the 20th century, focused on the wider scope of the rehabilitation as the dominant theory as compared to punitive stratagems. Options of community corrections include counseling and clinical psychotherapy.
Comment on the current rehabilitation options:
Criminal rehabilitation options have with time, attracted serious criticism. In some jurisdictions, the system has optimally lost influence, whilst in other jurisdictions the system has not been initiated comprehensively to permit proper operations. Annually, there are well over 600,000 criminals released. The increased number of freed convicts often challenges the current rehabilitation option. Steve (2013, pp. 191) establishes that; a greater number of these criminals turnout are compelled by recidivism since the desire to reunite with old-bad habits is still eloquent. Criminals operate their activities for either financial gain or pleasure. In either of the two, crime will act as a satisfying factor. Rehabilitation will fail to extinguish this operation since rehabilitation does not provide criminals with alternative options of satisfaction.
Solution to the current parole process
As stated earlier, parole ensures that people serving a sentence are scheduled in a sequence of the community service. However, the parole process attracts a series of shortcomings in that; it does not guarantee optimal rehabilitation. Parole can be blamed for the increased occurrence of recidivism. Recidivism in its making is more dangerous than a first offender (Ostermann, 2011, pp. 18). Nonetheless, community correction and rehabilitation appeals positively as compared to parole. In that, in the parole system, the offender is not made to understand his crime in a positive way, but punishment is applied to explain it. On the other hand, community correction focuses on the background of the crime.
Better solutions to the current probation system
As stated, probation ensures that the offender is exempted from prison confinement intern the offender offers security to ensure that his constantly being monitored. However, again, this system does not act appropriately since it is based on punitive ideologies. As a result, the offender is not made to understand the negative consequences of his or her crime. The offender after the probation might retort back to criminal activity (Ostermann, 2011).
Are there better solutions than the current community corrections options?
Based on the nature of social development and criminal rate cases, this study has not identified any other better solutions as compared to the community corrections. Community correction can be achieved in a plethora of strategies. Most of these strategies ensures that the offender understand the grievous part of his offence and for this reason, advice on a possible rehabilitation mechanism. In summary, community correction appears a decisive strategy as compared to traditional punitive strategies.
References
Duff, A. (2005). Punishment and Rehabilitation – Or Punishment As Rehabilitation. Criminal
Justice Matters, 60(1), 18-19.
Ostermann, M. (2011). Recidivism and the Propensity to Forgo Parole Release. Justice
Quarterly, 3, 1-23.
Steve, M. (2013). Correction. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 68(2), 191-191
