Alternatives to Incarceration - Essay Example

? Alternatives to Incarceration of the Law of the Concerned February 21, Alternatives to Incarceration Introduction There is no denying the fact that incarceration tends to constitute a viable and perhaps one of the oldest punitive options that tends to facilitate the society with a range of benefits and advantages. The primary purpose of incarceration is to punish the offenders and to make them in a way compensate for the harm they have done to the society. Incarceration also acts as a potent deterrent to crime. By keeping the prisoners behind bars, the justice system tends to safeguard the society. However, it is a fact that irrespective of all the benefits it promises, the option of incarceration also has multiple demerits and disadvantages. Legal incarcerations come at the cost of a very heavy burden over the taxpayers, and in a financial context, happens to be an utterly dearer option (Geraghty, 2004). Besides, when it comes to criminal rehabilitation, it has been found that the criminals get hardened in the prisons and it is only a few criminals that give up crime after their jail term (Geraghty, 2004). So far, in a pragmatic context, it would be safe to say that incarceration has done little towards facilitating a solution for restraining crime in the society. Besides, retaining law and order within the prisons is also a big problem in itself. The overcrowding of the prisons has made it utterly difficult for the prison authorities to securely manage and run prisons (Geraghty, 2004). In the last few decades it has dawned on the law and order authorities in varied states that it is possible to safeguard the society without confining the criminals to incarceration (Kruttschnitt, 2006). Besides, it has been found that extending prison sentences to non-violent criminals is not rights and proves to be counterproductive. Therefore for a need is being felt to come out with alternatives to incarceration. Any punishment that intends to punish an offender, without confining one to prison could serve as an alternative to incarceration. Day Reporting Centers Day Reporting centers are an alternative for the prisoners who are not very aggressive and mostly found culpable in petty or non-violent crimes. Day Reporting centers tend to be centers that are non-residential in their scope, and where the prisoners are required to receive supervision and services. Offenders tend to check in, in the Day Reporting Centers on a daily basis, where the plan the days’ activities in consultation with their supervisors, and participate in and adhere to a prescribed treatment schedule. Day Reporting Centers tend to check, guide and rehabilitate the criminals by actively engaging them in varied activities like curfews, community service, employment, enrollment in schools, random drug tests, etc (McBride & VanderWall, 1997). Day Reporting Centers not only happen to be more cost effective as compared to incarceration programs, but also tend to help a lot in relieving the over burdened traditional prison system (McBride & VanderWall, 1997). Day Reporting Centers have their limitations in the sense that they are more suitable for the aged, non-violent and educated prisoners. Day Reporting Centers serve as an alternative to incarceration in both the pretrial and post trial stages. The Day Reporting Centers allow for a very high level of surveillance of the offenders while extending to them the necessary treatment and rehabilitation opportunities (McBride & Vander Wall, 1997). Day Reporting Centers work on the principle of intermediate punishment. Intermediate punishment is any form of punishment that does not involve incarceration, but involves court ordered restrictions. Hence the Day Reporting Centers in a way constitute the middle link between incarceration and a parole. The offenders who participate in the Day Reporting Center programs are allowed to move amidst the society, but with the requisite guidelines and restrictions. Day Reporting Centers make way for a structured supervision of the offenders. To participate in a Day Reporting Program, the participants are required to fulfill certain eligibility criteria, the main purpose being to select such participants that are not a direct threat to the society. In that context the Day Reporting Centers tend to be the more pragmatic and humane substitute to incarceration (McBride & VanderWall, 1997). They in a way constitute a cognitive restructuring facility aimed at changing the thinking patterns of the offenders by extending to them education and skills, thereby enabling them to integrate in the society, once they have served their sentence (McBride & VanderWall, 1997). The primary goals of the Day Reporting Centers is to minimize an offenders possibility of getting arrested again, enabling the offenders to integrate into the society by extending to them the requisite help and skills, and at the same time to care for public safety by keeping the offenders responsible for and accountable for their conduct all the time. Day Reporting Centers enable the participants to enhance their coping skills through treatment and counseling. They also allow the participants to be able to relate to their families in a more direct way that is not possible in incarceration. Day Reporting Centers help the participants in structuring their activities in the community through guidance and counseling. They also allow the participants to be able to apply for social service related benefits. Unlike incarceration that depends on the complete withholding of the offenders movement and activities, Day Reporting Programs are a more flexible option, which allow the supervision staff to control the offender’s movement and activities, while allowing one to be a serving part of the society. The other good thing about Day Reporting Centers is that they could be constituted and managed in a range of community populations and settings. Community Service There is no need for the courts to hand over the minor offenders to prisons. The court can subject the minor offenders to community service, which allows them to extend unpaid services to the communities, without wasting their time behind bars in the prisons. The community service allocated to an offender may involve a range of services like keeping the public parks and other public places clean and tidy, engaging in landscaping activities, etc. Community service tends to be a very pragmatic option for the offenders who engaged in petty crime, or owing to health reasons could not serve their sentence in the prisons, or happen to be minor offenders (Doob, 2000). Community service happens to be a more pragmatic sentencing option as compared to incarceration in more than one way. Community service allow the petty offenders to mend their status and standing in a social context (Doob, 2000). Besides, by engaging in activities aimed at benefiting the community, the offender develops a positive self image, which goes a long way in rehabilitating one (Doob, 2000). Community service allows an offender to come out as being a really productive member of the society (Doob, 2000). This allows the offender to be able to retain the family connection while being actively engaged in the community work. Community service also allows the courts of law to resort to a non monetary way of making the offenders pay for their fault who do not have money and are not in a position to pay any sort of fines. Besides, in such alternative to incarceration, the offenders get the chance to accrue skills and capabilities, which simply could not be acquired while serving a prison sentence. Community service also helps the offenders in developing viable work ethics and allows them to hone their social and interpersonal skills (Doob, 2000). Hence, community service tends to penalize the offender for violating laws by placing one amidst a community setting and making one serve the community. Community service also leads to direct benefits to the tax payers. It saves the taxpayers money hitherto spent in running and managing prisons. It provides the society with the service that it much needs, without incurring any cost or a loss to the taxpayers money. There is no denying the fact that now is the high time for the courts to desist from extending prison sentences to the offenders who have engaged in petty crimes, are non-violent and non-aggressive and are capable of serving the society with minimal supervision and control. Drug Courts Drug courts happen to be specialized courts that are endowed with the responsibility to deal with such offenders as engage in substance abuse (Burke, 2010). These courts tend to deal with the offenders addicted to substance abuse through a range of measures like comprehensive supervision of the drug-abuse offenders, drug testing of the offenders, extending treatment services to the offenders or imposing sanctions or extending sanctions to the offenders (Burke, 2010). Most of the times drug courts are required to deal with such offenders as are found guilty of substance abuse or are caught for the possession of drugs and narcotics. The drug courts offer the option to the substance abuse offenders to enroll in a drug rehabilitation program in lieu of serving a sentence in the prison. As it is very hard and difficult for the offenders given to substance abuse to get cured and rehabilitated, the requirements of the drug courts happen to be very stringent and strict. The offender is strictly required to frequently get tested for drug abuse, to promptly attend the recovery programs and meetings and to make regular appearances before the court so as to fulfill the requirements set by the drug court (Burke, 2010). The main thing is that drug courts essentially deal with the offenders engaged in drug abuse, as they recognize that most of the breach of law indulged in by these offenders tended to be motivated by their substance abuse. So by engaging with the addiction tendencies of the offenders the drug courts in a way strike at the very cause that actually motivates these offenders to engage in crime. Drug courts have salient advantages over direct incarceration. As the drug courts require the offenders to test for drug abuse on a regular basis, this assures that the offenders engagement with drugs gets curtailed and one possibly get cured of substance abuse. It has also been found that drug courts have significantly reduced recidivism in case of the offenders who actively participated in the programs managed and overseen by the drug courts (Burke, 2010). Going by the success of the drug courts, the defendant monitoring and supervision programs ordered by the drug courts have become more disciplined, organized and stringent (Burke 2010). Drug courts prevent relapse and look to it that the treatment programs get coordinated with other rehabilitation programs and engagements (Burke 2010). Electronic Tagging It goes without saying that the primary purpose of incarceration is to control the movements of the offenders. With the recent advances in technology, it is not an imperative for the courts to incarcerate the offenders to restrain and watch their movement and to curtail and check their mobility. Electronic tagging allows the courts and the law enforcement authorities to electronically monitor the movements of an offender while confining one within the four walls of one’s house (Newburn, 2007, p. 63). Electronic tagging has in a way obliterated the need for imprisonment in many cases. In the case of electronic tagging, the offenders are required to wear a tag that regularly sends signals to a central control system, thereby allowing it to punctually and accurately mark and trace the movements of the offender (Newburn, 2007, p. 63). Electronic tagging also allows the law enforcement authorities to look to it that an offender abides by the restrictions set by the court. One advantage of electronic tagging is that it extends value for money as it is much easier to set and manage as compared to placing offenders behind the bars (Newburn, 2007). Besides, once an offender is placed under electronic monitoring, it gets much easier for the law enforcement officials to act in time in case the offender breaches the instructions set by the court. It could also be assumed that since the electronic monitoring systems happen to be fool proof and state of the art, electronic monitoring may play a big role in acting as a deterrent to crime. It goes without saying that electronic tagging programs if increased in scope and incidence over the coming decades, could lead to significant cost reductions for the law enforcement authorities. Besides, going by the fact that prisons happen to be cost intensive, unwieldy and expansive means of impacting and restraining criminal behavior, electronic tagging if used in combination with varied other alternatives to incarceration like Day Reporting Centers could bring about a gargantuan change in the way prisons are managed, influenced and restrained in the times to come. The criminal justice system could save millions of dollars wasted on managing prisons and incarceration facilities, if it could adapt to a restraining arrangement that happens to be a combination of electronic tagging and some sort of curfew. When used in tandem with the latest technological possibilities like satellite imagery, electronic tagging could work wonders for the criminal justice system. Introduction It could conclusively be said that the varied alternatives to incarceration like Daily Reporting Centers, drug courts, community service and electronic tagging make the criminal justice system more versatile and sensitive. Such alternatives empower the courts with alternative sentencing options. Going by the fact that each offender and the crime committed by one stands to be unique, the prison may not serve as just the right sentence for each and every offender. Also, considering the overcrowded prisons and the high cost of managing and running prisons, the alternatives to incarceration provide the courts and the society with viable sentencing options that don’t burden the tax payers’ contributions. The other great thing is that such contributions allow for the rehabilitation of the offenders while placing them amidst family and community settings, thereby allowing them to lead a productive life while abiding by the constraints set by the courts. References Burke, K.S. (2010). What Made Drug Courts Successful?. Judicature, 94(3), 119-127. Doob, A.N. (2000). Transforming the Punishment? Environment: Understanding Public Views of What Should be Accomplished at Sentencing. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 323-328. Geraghty, T.F. (2004). Prisons and After Prison. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, , 94(4), 1149-1155. McBride, D., & VanderWall, C. (1997). Day Reporting Centers as an Alternative for Drug Using Offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 27(2), 379-384. Kruttschnitt, C. (2006). Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration. Law & Society Review, 40(3), 740-743. Newburn, T. (2007). Private Security and Public Policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Read More