Diversion in the US Law - Assignment Example

? Diversion in the United s Law First Pre-trial Diversion has for a quite a few yearsnow become a feature of the United States Criminal Justice system whose use and popularity has continued to grow. Diversion has a number of useful purposes that make it ideal especially with regard to juvenile offenders, offenders who suffer from mental and other behavioral disorders and those whose criminal activities may be traced to specific societal or community situations. Apart from ensuring basic fairness in the application of criminal law, diversion has also had the effect of increasing the efficiency of the system by freeing up resources that can then be directed to more serious legal issues. It also has resulted, in many cases in a great deal of cost savings for the stretched budgets of many criminal justice departments throughout the country. Introduction Diversion is the conditional changing or suspension before the conviction of formal criminal proceedings against a person, in return for which the defendant performs certain agreed activities such as restitution, community service or undergoing treatment options. This process, when successfully completed, results not only in the stopping of the conviction for the crime but also in the expunging of the criminal incident from public records or the sealing of the record. In other instances it may also lead to a reduction of a sentence. Diversion offers an opportunity to provide a more comprehensive and efficient approach to managing the defendants flowing into the system and the utilization of court resources by determining which type of case intervention is most appropriate for any given case (National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, 2008). 1. There are various reasons that have been advanced for diversion as provided for in United States law. One reason is that it allows for the management of not just the crime but the underlying cause of the reported criminal behavior. Except for a few cases, diversion is primarily applied to first-time offenders, and in a majority of the cases, these are usually juvenile offenders. A lot of the times that these offenders are brought to court for minor charges that are usually related to the kind of environment they are brought up in, depending on the nature of the charges. Mino drug possession offenses, such as possession of small amounts of marijuana are some of the offenses that qualify for diversion (Steadman & Naples, 2005). In many cases such as these, the offenders are not only given an opportunity to confess their crimes, they are also given a chance to have their criminal record wiped clean, as long as they participate in an educational program on the dangers of drug use and drug possession. Diversion requirements may include making restitution to any victims of a crime, attending an educational program and performing community service or any combination of these. In a majority of these cases, the fact that the offenders have been offered a “second chance” has been known to be enough of a caution to ensure that the criminal behavior does not occur again (Steadman & Naples, 2005). The other reason that diversion is used is because in some of the cases, the criminal behavior is caused by underlying mental and psychological disorders, which are better dealt with through treatment than through incarceration. It is estimated that up to seven percent of all persons charged with criminal offenses and imprisoned have some form or degree of mental or social disorder which is usually the underlying cause or trigger for the crime. Studies have shown that a large majority of these cases suffer from mood disorders and schizophrenia, with most of the patients (two out of three) being female. Studies have also shown that diversion improves the quality of life in cases of offenders who undergo treatment programs rather than incarceration (Steadman & Naples, 2005). A third reason why diversion is used is to reduce the burden, both in terms of workload, financially and in the paperwork involved that these usually minor offences can place on the criminal justice system. The costs of diversion programs, especially where they have been well thought out and have matured and earned public confidence and support are usually far less than the costs of holding many of these offenders in the jails. 1. A. A diversion has been shown to be quite beneficial to the criminal justice system. The first and most obvious benefit is the reduction in the over-crowding and the stress on the meager resources of the correctional institutions. By reducing the numbers of the offenders of these usually minor misdemeanors that end up in the prisons, the diversion programs also reduce the increasing amount of money that is used to secure and accommodate those living in prisons. The prison population of the United States is currently over 2 million and the costs of maintaining especially the minimum security state-funded prison facilities have been especially cumbersome both in terms of the manpower, security and physical facility requirements (Clark, 2011). Diversion programs have also been shown to be effective especially in the case of juvenile defendants where they have reduced the likelihood of a juvenile being charged again with the same crime considerably and thus addressed one of the major concerns of correctional institutions throughout the United States – recidivism or the tendency for offenders to be re-arrested and re-imprisoned for the same or similar offences. Studies have shown that teenagers and young adults who are incarcerated are likely to suffer negative peer influences from the more experienced criminals they mix with in the prisons. Thus diversion programs that ensure that the juvenile delinquents do not end up in prison have been proven to be beneficial in reducing the chances of them being in the criminal justice department system later on in their lives (Clark, 2011). The diversion programs, by ensuring those offenders that have drug or alcohol abuse-related conditions and those that may suffer from psychological and mental health problems are treated also prevents possible future criminal acts by these offenders and thus reduces the burden on the criminal justice system. This is particularly important given that a large proportion of the drug possession and drug use crimes that many people are arrested for are in many cases are as a result of medical and behavioral conditions. In many cases where offenders have the option of a diversion program, one of the conditions is that they do not repeat the crime either during or during and after the program that they are in. By ensuring that the candidates for diversion programs do not engage in the criminal activity for which they entered the program, the diversion programs thus reduce the numbers of crimes that were likely to happen and in this play a role in reducing the burden on the criminal justice system (Clark, 2011). 2. The use of diversion has both a positive and negative effect on law enforcement. The positive effect on law enforcement is that it results in a reduction of the paperwork, documentation and the entire court process involved in arraigning petty and juvenile offenders. This in effect frees up the law enforcement resources to deal with more serious and larger crimes. By reducing the burden on the prison and correctional services, the diversion program also reduces the workload of the law enforcement agencies and thus improves the efficiency of these departments. Another positive effect of diversion programs is that they are able to take care of a lot more than just law-breaking. They are able to go to the root cause of criminal behavior in a way that custodial sentencing does not. Research has shown that, in many instances criminal behavior often happens concurrently with other social/psychological situations and conditions and in many cases the social, economic and psychological situations are either the cause of the criminal behavior or a major contributing factor (Abbot, 2011). By successfully implementing diversion programs, the law enforcement agencies are able to not only “treat” the law-breaking behavior but also its underlying cause and this in the end weeds out from the correctional facilities those offenders who have other, more serious problems and who usually benefit from the more holistic nature of diversion initiatives. The negative effect of diversion on law enforcement is that it has occasionally been found to be detrimental to the morale of law enforcement officers. In California for example, it was found that the police felt that the diversion programs just ended up providing an easy way out for offenders who used it as a way to evade the justice system. They also felt that for an arrested person to be freed on a diversion program meant that all the hard work that they had put in in getting to arrest the person in the first place went to waste (Welter, 2012). 3. Diversion has had mixed results in various law enforcement jurisdictions. Where it has been part of other more inclusive and more holistic criminal justice reform activities, and where especially the communities have been supportive, it has worked well and been seen to reduce the workload and thus improve the efficiency of the criminal justice department. Also, by charging fees for its application, a lot of the diversion programs are able to cover their administrative costs and therefore be “self-funding”. That, coupled with the savings that are made in reducing the numbers of convicts that have to be secured, accommodated and housed in the correctional facilities means that many diversion programs are cost-effective and can go a long way in reducing the budgetary burden on the criminal justice system (Bruner, 2012). Conclusion Diversion has been and continues to be an effective mechanism through which the criminal justice system can be made more valuable, effective and efficient. There does however appear to be a need to conduct a few more studies on why and how it has worked very well in certain places and why it has not had the desired full effect in certain other places. This would eventually result in the development of a more uniform and more measurable way of assessing its implementation. References Abbot, S. E. (2011, January 1). Evaluating the impact of a Jail Diversion Program on police officer's attitudes toward the mentally ill. Law, Policy, and Society Dissertations, 22. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from http://iris.lib.neu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=law_pol_soc_diss Bruner, B. (2012, August 13). Prosecutor: Diversion program saves the system money and time. Springfield News-Sun. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/crime-law/prosecutor-diversion-program-saves-system-money-an/nQ9qr/ Clark, J. (2011, April). Juvenile Diversion: Panacea or Solution?. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.msba.org/departments/commpubl/publications/bar_bult/2011/april/JuvenileDiversion.asp National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. (2008, November). Performance Standards And Goals For Pretrial Diversion/Intervention. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.napsa.org/publications/diversion_intervention_standards_2008.pdf Steadman, H. J., & Naples, M. (2005). Assessing the Effectiveness of Jail Diversion Programs for Persons with Serious Mental Illness and Co - Occurring Substance Use Disorders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23 (2), 163-170. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.floridatac.org/files/document/Assessing%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Jail%20Diversion%20Programs%20for%20Persons%20with%20Mental%20Illness,%20SA%20or%20Co-Occuring.pdf Welter, K. (2012, September 20). Study Reveals Police Frustration with California Diversion Law. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/study-reveals-police-frustration-with-california-prop-36-diversion-law/ Read More