Rehabilitation and AB109 Paper
Offenders are always punished in different ways. Fundamentally, this is in a bid to restore and enhance a desirable state of social cohesion. The characteristic rehabilitation refers to efforts geared towards enabling an individual to effectively readapt to society and assume practices that are consistent with the societal rules and regulations. In his research, Gottschalk (2006) indicates that the origin of the practice of rehabilitative imprisonment can be traced in penitentiaries that were constructed at the close of the nineteenth century and were by all means informed by biblical principles that postulated that offenders who are left in solitude have a chance to reflect penitently over their felonies, and are therefore likely to transform or cleanse themselves. With time, discipline and hard labor were introduced in the practice to be partaken silently. This, according to the reformers helped the prisoners to meditate over their felonious practices.
The rehabilitative efforts have undergone various changes and currently, most of them assume a more community based approach. The common method employed in this regard pertains to parole. Woodard (2011) defines parole as the release of an imprisoned offender who agrees to established rules even though he or she has to be closely monitored for a given period of time. This release is provisional and allows the offender to serve the remaining term from within the community. This differs from mandatory release in different ways. Essentially, the parole boards have the discretion to either accord or deny the parole. This is unlike mandatory release that does not require any decision making process. The rules for mandatory release are distinct, and its accordance or denial depends on the qualification of the offender. Russell (2011) also points out that the stipulations of mandatory release are more lenient than those of parole. Unlike parole, mandatory release in some instances does not impose any form of obligations on the offender being released.
Another corrective form that is community oriented is probation. Basically, probation refers to sentencing that requires an offender to abide by certain conditions for a distinct period of time; that can be up to three years (Russell, 2006). During this particular time, the offender is required to follow the entire terms defined by the probation order. The terms of the probation order are determined by the type of offence of the individual. Thus the sentence of the affected individual is suspended. This is unlike conditional sentencing that requires the offender to serve the jail and adhere to strict rules at the same time. Discharge on the other hand allows the offender to go scot free, regardless of having been found guilty. Nonetheless, Gottschalk (2006) argues that most discharges are conditional. They require the individual to adhere to certain probation orders.
Community corrections is an all encompassing term referring to various non incarcerative, yet supervisory approaches of dealing with the offenders facing conviction or those who are already convicted (Gottschalk, 2006). Basically, the commonly used options are parole and probation. Others include electronic monitoring, day fine programs, home confinement, restitution, halfway houses, community service, check in programs, furloughs, drug and alcohol checks, offender monitoring and reporting programs, curfews and mediation. In all these, Russell (2006) contends that offenders need to demonstrate their ability to maintain peaceful co-existence and refrain from engaging in criminal activities.
As aforementioned, rehabilitation efforts seek to enable an individual to reform and adapt a socially acceptable way of life. Statistical evidence indicates that probation and parole have failed dismally to attain this goal. According to Russell (2006), only 62% of the offenders on probation complete the period of probation. Most of them commit new crimes and ex-probationers commit various capital offences. Close to two thirds of those who complete the period commit other technical offences such as escaping (Russell, 2006). Generally, community corrections have not been successful in enforcing effective rehabilitation. This can be attributed to the inherent disorganization and poor monitoring. The most viable solution to the probation and parole systems is to intensify offender monitoring. In order to attain optimal outputs, the relevant authorities should nonetheless explore alternative approaches to offender rehabilitation. Comparatively, these would yield more sustainable outcomes compared to community based correctional approaches.
References
Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge: University Press.
Russell, C. (2006). Alternatives to prison: Rehabilitation and other programs. USA: Mason Crest Publishers.
Woodard, B. (2011). Inside the broken California prison system. USA: Humble Press.
