Problem within Probation Programs - Research Paper Example

?Introduction The different criminal justice programs that have been developed in the United s provide opportunities to rehabilitate individualsthat have created crimes in the past. However, there are also gaps that are presented within probation programs, specifically because of the regulations and expectations that are within the program. One of the main noticeable problems is with the percentage of those who go through a rehabilitation program and then have to go through re-entry programs for further crimes committed in the future. This is a common problem that is associated with criminals and is one which most offenders face. This specific problem is one which can be attributed to the system with the probation programs because of the inability to meet the needs of those that are adjusting back into society. Problem within Probation Programs The criminal offender conduct is the main concept that is focused on with probation programs. Those who are working with criminals who have just been released from prison are focused on changing mannerisms and ensuring that the prisoner is able to work within society as a citizen. Getting steady employment, staying away from further crime and developing new habits within society are some of the associated concepts that are a part of probation programs. Supervising those individuals and working with counseling programs are also some of the attributes that are a part of probation programs. However, there is a noticeable re-entry crisis that occurs among criminals. The inability to change the focus out of the habits from past crimes and the inability to provide criminals with the ability to move into a completely correctional system are causing many criminals to go through probation periods then move back into the same crimes as in the past (Johnson et al, 2006). The problem with those who are in parole systems is one which is showing a high return rate that is not decreasing with the systems that are in place. In 2006, an average of 35% of all inmates returned to prison during or after the probation period. This was a result of parole violations, as opposed to new crimes that were committed. The state of California held the highest of parole violations, which was inclusive of two-thirds of inmates returning to prison because of the same violations. The problems with probation include the first problem of too many inmates being supervised with too little supervision. In 2006, 4 million offenders were placed into probation. The officers were primarily responsible for the movement back into society with other court orders that were associated with this. It was found that the restrictions with probation, such as not being able to find employment because of a criminal record, led to many being forced into breaking the probation rules to try to integrate into society (Lawrence, 2008). The parole systems, while known to assist with the integration back into society, are causing the reverse problem to occur. Those who are within the system and are going through parole are aware that there is difficulty in getting past probation systems and staying in society. There are many who have created the mentality that they will go back into prison during their probation period, adding in a psychological response to the known statistics and rates of those who are going in and out of the justice system. Those who are going back into prison work as an example of the difficulties within the probation and parole system, making the trend arise among those who are a part of the probation system and which are trying to work back into an integrated society. The psychological responses, trends and the large amount of criminals that go back into prison add into the complexity of those who are going through the parole system (Johnson et al, 2006). Theories of Criminal Justice Practice There are several theories that apply to the criminal justice practice and the way in which individuals integrate into society. Historically, those who had committed a crime were only required to serve prison time. After this time was over, they were free to go back into society. However, it was found that many would go back into the same lifestyle and commit similar crimes with the belief that they were free to do the same concepts as before. This led into several theories for criminal justice practice and began to change the behaviors and approach which was used for criminals. The theories applied are based first on the behaviors while in prison. If a criminal is able to exhibit progress while in prison through a continuous jury, then they can be released before their time. However, the probationary period follows this, specifically to ensure that they can integrate into society with an alteration of habits (Ashworth, 2006). The concept of criminal justice practice is one which applies to the integration that is associated with the way in which probation works within society. The victim – offender mediation system is one of the applications that are closely associated with the way in which the system works. The three theories which apply include equity theory, narrative theory and restorative theory. According to the equity theory, specific policies and applications have to be applied within the probation system and in allowing individuals to move back into society. To do this, the narrative theory applies, which includes probation officers working with criminals to establish a track record and supervision of those that are going back into society. However, this is based only on meeting the policies and regulations that are within society. The restorative theory is based on specific concepts and steps which are required for rehabilitation. This is inclusive of psychological assistance, moving into a systematic system for restoration and working with specific cases to ensure that individuals are able to meet the needed requirements within the system (Jinghua, 2003). Within each of the theories established to help restore criminals into society is also linked to the theory of criminal justice established by John Braithwaite and Phillip Pettit. According to this theory, each individual should be able to rehabilitate into society, make life choices and work within a social and political framework to integrate back into society. It is from this basis that most of the criminal justice establishments have been shaped, specifically with the probation system. If each criminal is able to hold a specific level of responsibility, then the parole officers and methods used should work as a support system to ensure that each individual is able to work back into society. More important, the sentencing that is established from the policies and regulations is one which is able to show each of the individuals how to integrate back into society, as opposed to being a complete punishment with the law (Ashworth, 2006). When looking at this theory, it can be seen that there are gaps in which the policies and regulations don’t provide integration into society, but work as an extra form of punishment that don’t allow criminals to work back into the structure of society. More important, the amount of regulations doesn’t provide room for the correct life choices or level of responsibility that is needed for criminals to become citizens within a given environment. The theories which link to integration back into society also link to the concept theories related to correctional treatment. This is a term which has been applied from Wilson and Davis when creating specific reentry programs for criminals. The evidence based principles which are applied relate to the need to have psychological factors, guidance and other techniques that effectively provide integration into society. The policies and regulations don’t provide the guidance needed for criminals within society, but instead create a sense of restraint that is associated with the social viewpoints with criminals. The integrity and strength of the treatment, from this specific theory, is based on how well the outcomes are within society and what occurs in response to the reentry programs. From the responses of criminals, it can be seen that there isn’t an effective change in the rehabilitation techniques and the programming which is linked to the correctional treatment, both psychologically and with practical application (Visher, 2006). Legal Foundation of Criminal Justice The policies that are based on the criminal justice theory for probation were established first through the various applications needed to rehabilitate prisoners. The probation supervision began with intermediate sanctions. These were established in the 1990s because of overcrowding in prisons and low levels of supervision that were available after criminals got out of prison. It was found that without supervision, criminals could easily develop the same habits and problems in the past, which created difficulties with new victims and problems that would lead criminals back into prison. The system established was designed as an intermediate punishment that could change the problems with criminals while altering the sentences that were required. Probation became a judicial act that is based on supervisions. This includes curfew, living regulations, employment, educational programs and psychological sanctions that are required. This also is based on levels of community service and work that may be required for those that are integrating back into society (Cole, Smith, 2006). While there are defined concepts that are a part of the intermediate sanctions and integration of criminals back into society, there are also legal procedures that limit what a criminal can or can’t do. For instance, a criminal record is one which is used during a probation period. This is required for any employment that a criminal decides to take with a statement on the offense which the individual has had. The criminal offenders have little chance of receiving employment or moving back into the work force because of the regulation received. At the same time, probation curfews and restrictions with living don’t provide alterations in how the criminals can integrate into society with different shifts or expectations with living. Most that are a part of the legal process are then restricted to several policies that limit how well the criminals can move back into society. The ability to provide guidance then creating restrictions with the policies is one of the main problems which is known to bring the amount of criminals back into prison while breaking the violations of probation, as opposed to committing a new crime (Uggen et al, 2006). Ethical Basis The ethical system is based on upholding specific values and expectations that are linked to the criminal justice system. The amount of supervision that is required for offenders is one which has questioned the moral and philosophical implications of what should be required when one is integrating back into society. The right for privacy and the freedom to be a part of society is one which each criminal demands when in the specific system. However, the restrictions with parole supervision create a different aspect that is linked to the rehabilitative treatment. Many of the parole officers have found that there are ethical questions based on a non – treatment paradigm. From one instance, there are specific policies that are required. However, for this to work effectively there has to be treatment that restricts criminals from integrating back into society. The non – treatment of criminals is one which many state would work more effectively as it would allow criminals to have more options. The moral implications related to this is based on the questions of freedom, ability to work with offenders and the amount of management which should be required without interfering with those who are moving through the penal system (McNeill, 2006). Another question which arises with the ethical concerns is based on how the probation officers and system decides to work with many criminals. While there are policies and restrictions that are based on the criminal demeanors, most know that the practical applications are difficult to reach and maintain within the system. To alter this, there is a specific question of how much the judicial ethics should be cared for. Several probation officers and those supervising criminals are known to avoid some of the policies because of the lack of logic. The ability to have a sense of confidentiality and to not report some of the problems with the criminals is one that begins a chain reaction. However, the officers are aware that there is the inability to reach all policies required. The response is that the criminals are able to respond by breaking more violations. When this is brought into the court, there is integration back into the system. However, most criminals note that the restrictions have to be broken while most probation officers allow some of the confidential materials and problems with policies to not be notated within the system. The ethical concerns which arise are based on the reporting as well as the confidentiality that is a part of the system. This creates a gap in being able to fix policies as well as to match the specific needs of individual cases between probation officers and criminals (Hellman, 2007). Daily Functioning of Criminal Justice System The systems that are required for the criminal justice system are further compounded and lead to complications because of the initiatives that are used for re-entry. The collaboration which has to take place is based on collaboration between the court systems, psychological services and probation officers that are required to supervise those that are reintegrating into society. Those who have specific problems outside of the crime committed are also required to have extra developments within the criminal justice system. This includes programs and specialized options, such as assistance with mental health problems that are specific to different cases. The daily collaboration that is required between all agencies is one which becomes difficult to maintain and work with. This is from the combination of the number of criminals that are within society as well as the treatment services which are not able to maintain and monitor the activities of the prisoners that are going through the programs. The lack of the right integration into society then becomes difficult to maintain with the individual prisoners while the lack of collaboration on a daily basis because of the number of criminals on probation becomes one that requires more collaboration and options within the different agencies (Wilson, Draine, 2006). The daily functioning, from the specific monitoring that is used is known to have a sense of impairment and a question of which correctional interventions should be measured. The amount of risk, need and responsivity is one which is the main objective of each probation officer. However, the determinants for this can’t be judged by the criminal time that was spent in prison. New patterns, problems with offenders and the needs which arise on a daily basis are continuously changing. More important, there are specific ways in which responses can’t be handled in the same fashion, making probation officers liable for policies and procedures which may not be effective for individual situations. The daily problems which probation officers encounter are based on individual situations which arise as well as the amount of risk that one is in after they come out of prison. This can’t be determined through the initial probation sentence and often leads to a lack of finding the right model to support individual situations. Probation officers then are required to go through with different sentences and policies which may not apply to individual needs while creating responses that are not applicable. These daily situations all lead to a higher return of criminals into the prison system (Taxman, Thanner, 2006). Solutions to the Problem The solutions to the problem with those on parole going back into prison is one which is dependent on changing the strategies and roles of specific individuals while re-examining the policies that are a part of the system. While the probation and parole system can work effectively in given circumstances, there is the need to re-examine some of the models and processes that are used in given situations and to begin providing alternative solutions. Focusing on individual needs and working with solutions that allow individuals to integrate into society in a more methodological manner can help to change the amount of criminals that violate probation policies and go back into the prison system. Changing the way in which the supervision works as well as the alternatives that are available for criminals can then help to change the way in which officers work with criminals as well as what the available options are for those who are trying to integrate back into society. The first change which can be made within the criminal justice system is based on the ability to change the amount of activities and the relationships that are created between probation officers and those on parole. The current environment for criminals is based on mild activities, which is inclusive of an average of one to two meetings per week. Those who are alcoholics, for instance, are required to attend an AA meeting one time per week. Meeting with probation officers usually occurs one time per week as well. If there is a check point with those who are staying in a living area, it is not expected to happen more than once a month. By changing this methodology into more aggressive monitoring systems, there is a forced alteration with those who are on probation to comply with specific regulations. The assertive community treatment which is required is based on meeting daily with those who are on probation with continuous monitoring that is more intense. The environment which is created is one which will be similar to the prison system where there is always an individual monitoring and looking to those who are on probation. More important, the activities can be inclusive of systems and programs for employment that are specific to criminal offenders and which allow them to slowly work back into society while beginning to work into certain activities that are expected by civilians. Changing the system and model which is at work can provide stricter monitoring and will ensure that those in society have a treatment that is reinforced instead of providing ways for criminals to break out of the parole (Morissey et al, 2006). Another way in which the system can work more specifically with criminal offenders is to begin to re-examine the policies and procedures that are used with those who are on probation. The system in which each criminal is in is one which determines the amount of those who break the probation rules and go back into prison. Creating a different sense of legal determinations that don’t force ethical flexibility and other problems with probation officers and those within the system can ensure that there is a lower risk among criminals. The objective in this instance has to be associated with a zero tolerance of risk that is created from the policies. The individuals that are in the criminal justice system as well as those who are working with justice and civil liberties then have the ability to slowly integrate those into society with different policies and procedures that slowly allow one to move into new habits and to integrate as a civilian in good social standing. The changes are inclusive of employment options, curfew rules and regulations, living situations and alternatives that apply to individual cases which offer both flexibility and the correct type of monitoring for individuals that are coming out of prison (Eastman, Campbell, 2006). The application of these two changes with policies as well as the integration through different methodologies can change the outcome and expectations of those in the criminal justice system. The model which has to be incorporated is one which re-evaluates the mentality and the habits of those who have recently been released from prison and providing specific policies and procedures that ensure new habits are created to stop them from violating the probation rules. Over time, these specific policies and procedures can begin to alter to help those who are going through the probation system to begin to integrate into society. The models and methods can take a more aggressive approach that is based on the psychology and the mannerism of criminals and which provides flexibility as they are integrated into society. Conclusion The problems which are a part of the criminal justice system and the probation that is available for criminals is leading to a gap in how criminals adjust into society. The problem which is directed toward this can be seen from the high number of criminals who are put back into prison. This isn’t occurring from new crimes that are committed, but instead from the violation of probation laws and policies that are required from individuals. The equity, policies that are expected and the theories all lead to the same gap from those who are brought back into the prison system through parole. To alter this, new systems and models have to be used, both with the legal policies as well as with the methods that are used for assisting those that are working their way back into society. References Ashworth, Andrew. (2006). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. UK: Cambridge University Press. Cole, George, Christopher Smith. (2006). The American Criminal Justice System. New York: Cengage Learning. Eastman, Nigel, Colin Campbell. (2006) “Neuroscience and Legal Determination of Criminal Responsibility.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience (7). Hellman, Arthur. (2007). “The Regulation of Judicial Ethics in the Federal System: A Peek Behind Closed Doors.” University of Pittsburgh School of Law (57). Jinghua, Ma. (2003). “On Victim – Offender Mediation System.” Political Science and Law (4). Johnson, Shelley, Francis Cullen, Edward Latessa. (2006). “How to Prevent Prisoner Re-entry Programs from Failing: Insights from Evidence Based Corrections.” Federal Probation (19). Lawrence, Alison. (2008). “Probation and Parole Violations: State Responses.” National Conference of State Legislatures. McNeill, Fergus. (2006). “A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management.” Criminology and Criminal Justice 6 (1). Morrissey, Joseph, Piper Meyer, Gary Cuddeback. (2006). “Extending Assertive Community Treatment to Criminal Justice Settings: Origins, Current Evidence, and Future Directions.” Community Mental Health Journal 43 (5). Taxman, Faye, Meridith Thanner. (2006). ‘Risk, Need, and Responsitivity: It All Depends.” Crime and Delinquency 52 (1). Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza, Melissa Thompson. (2006). “Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605 (1). Visher, Christy. (2006). “Effective Reentry Programs.” Criminology and Public Policy. 5 (2). Wilson, Amy, Jeffrey Draine. (2006). “Collaborations Between Criminal Justice and Mental Health Systems for Prisoner Reentry.” Psychiatric Service (57). Read More