Correctional Theory in General and Nontraditional Approaches - Research Paper Example

Research paper on Correctional Theory in General and Nontraditional approaches of the Law of the Date: Abstract Correction strategies are necessary to be implemented in a country’s judicial system. This makes society a hospitable and calm place to be in. Various theories of correction have evolved ranging from traditional to nontraditional correction strategies. They include: rehabilitative, boot camps. The goals of these specific goals of these strategies vary but they are aimed all aimed at modifying behavior and reducing recidivism. Nontraditional strategies like Electronic Home Monitoring and Day reporting have garnered prevalence in the judicial system. They are aimed at reducing the judicial expenditure and enhancing rehabilitation into the community. Analysis of recidivism and educational and vocational results illustrates the effectiveness of these strategies compared to traditional correction strategies. Introduction Criminal offenders are members of the societal system who needs protection and care from the very society that they threaten. For this reason, correction facilities such prisons and juvenile correction centers have been established to help in changing the offenders from their criminal ways into responsible and productive members of the society. Correction of offenders is essential to ensure that they refrain from their criminal endeavors and also to enhance a safer community where no one is threatened by their presence. Sociologists and criminology scholars have advanced various theories, both traditional and non-traditional to explain the evolution and importance of correction systems. Each of these theories has been advanced to support various goals and objectives of the correction process. The goals include advancing the principle of cost effectiveness and reducing rates of recidivism. Prevalent Competing Theories of Correction Rehabilitative strategy is one of the prevalent theories of correction. Rehabilitation is aimed at making the community a better place to live by changing the mindset of the offender and eliminating the factors that make an offender engage in crime. It is also aimed at reintegrating the offenders back into the community rather than eliminating them and excluding them due to their acts. Rehabilitative strategy is all round as it not only changes the individual, but also changes the society from which the individual lives. It is a strategy aimed at completely eradicating the proponents of criminal behavior (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). Boot camp (Shock incarceration) strategy as the name suggests is a correction strategy that resembles martial indispensable training. This correction program entails manual labor, emphasizes on forceful physical bustle, and any activity that was aimed at reducng free time that the inmates might have. This strategy also implies strict rules as pertains to the appearance and the conduct of the inmates. Intense verbal techniques are also utilized by the correctional officers, aimed at constructive changes by shuttering the in mates resistance (Parent, 2003). Difference in the Goals of these Correction Strategies Goals of rehabilitative strategy Firstly, it attributed breaking of the law to social and psychological factors that led the individual to breaking the law and these factors needed to be dealt with in a personalized approach. Secondly, it aimed at changing the factors that led each offender to committing crime. In addition, the rehabilitative program was aimed at individualizing the correction of each offender on a case after case basis. Consequently, this correctional approach aimed at incorporating discretion in the imposition of sanctions to offenders (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). Goals of boot camps (shock incarceration) strategy Boot camps as strategies of correction had three main goals. To begin with, they were aimed at reducing operational cost. Consequently, they were aimed at reducing prison populations. They were also aimed at reducing recidivism (Parent, 2003). Data Supporting One Approach over the Other Data supporting rehabilitative strategies Rehabilitation strategies have been in existence since early 1900s and their prevalence has fluctuated with recourse to their effectiveness. However, rehabilitative strategies have aimed at enhancing the encompassing the offender back to the community. Rehabilitative strategies consequently aim at removing the factors that make offenders prone to committing crime. Rehabilitative strategies have been incorporated in the nontraditional correctional strategies where the offender stays in the close knit of familiar surroundings and family members. Data supporting boot camps (shock incarceration) These camps were rampant in the 1980s and early 1990s having approximately 75 boot camps for adults in the United States correction facilities. However, these correction strategies were not able to meet their aims as they was a decline in mid- 1990s with their population having dropped by 30%. The failure of this strategy was attributed to lack of community re- entry strategies in the program. Consequently, it aimed at reducing prison population but not necessarily reducing recidivism (Parent, 2003). Goals of Two Nontraditional Correctional Approaches Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) is one nontraditional correction approach that has been implemented in diverse jurisdictions in the United States. The goal of this system is to incarcerate the offender within his premises where he is monitored electronically. It is a cost- effective method as no accommodation to the offenders is offered in jail, hence achieving the goal of reducing expenses incurred by the judicial system (Kushian, 1996). EHM entails screening of the offender with the goal of ensuring that the offender is a liable candidate for the system. Screening of his drug use, previous criminal record, and suitability of the program is assessed culminating to the judge issuance of a decision to implement it. The offender wears an ankle monitor that has set limit of approximately seventy five feet enhancing his free mobility. However, if he bypasses this limit, the transmitter sends signal to the synchronized monitoring station and police are dispatched to retrieve the offender. In most instances, the offender is removed from the EHM program and restrained to jail (Kushian, 1996). Day reporting is another nontraditional correctional approach. The goal of this method is to ensure that offenders report to a probation office every day. This method is used for offenders whom the judge arrives at a decision that they will be more harmed if they served a jail term and their offense calls for lesser insight. The offenders in this program are required to report to probation office where screening is carried out of alcohol and drug levels. Failure to improve leads to disqualification from the program. Consequently, the offender is required to submit a summary of his activities for the day, including job searching for the unemployed. This approach aims at revolutionizing the offender by making him more responsible and accountable for his day to day activities (Kushian, 1996). 4a. Effectiveness of the Nontraditional Approach Taking a genesis with the EHM, this being an electronic method, its effectiveness is exhibited in its ability to reduce crime. This is achieved as the offender is contained in his home hence he cannot commit a criminal act. Consequently, EHM is an effective way of keeping track of the offender without necessarily being with him. This is made possible by the transmitter on his ankle that sends an alert whenever the offender tries to move from his residence (Hoshen and Drake, 2001). EHM is also effective as it serves as a way of reducing the populace in penitentiary. In addition, it is a method that cuts down on supervision costs encountered by the judicial system. Of importance to note is that this nontraditional approach aids in the rehabilitation of the offender. This is since the offender is in continuous association with his family, friends, colleagues, and an environment that he is familiar to him. Also since he is being observed by those who know him, the offender will be compelled to revert from his wrong ways. Compared to the traditional correction methods, EHM is effective for offenders who are mentally ill, physically challenged and those who are terminally ill (Schmalleger, 2005). Day reporting program has been reported to be effective in reducing drug and alcohol crimes. This is since the offender is screened each day he reports to the probation officer and hence chances of engaging in drug and alcohol related crimes are reduced (Hoshen and Drake, 2001). 4b. Cost- Effectiveness of Nontraditional Approaches Compared to Conventional Incarceration High cost is incurred by the judicial system in the quest to pay for services accorded to offenders in jail. Consequently, there is an alarming overcrowding in jails necessitating a dire solution as expanding jails has been documented to be expensive and time consuming. This necessitates the need for substitute cheaper ways through which offenders can be overseen (Kushian, 1996). EHM costs the United States judicial system $2, 190 annually and $1,130 annually per parole and probation offender. This is cost effective as compared to imprisonment cost of $18,100 annually per inmate and additional $43,756 required for cell construction cost (Schmalleger, 2005). Justification of 4b with data on rates of recidivism, completion of academic and vocational programs in prison Support of nontraditional approaches can be garnered from The Orange County, Florida jail Vocational and Educational program. Report compiled illustrated that this program led to reduction in cost as the inmate to officer ration dropped to 3.2:1 compared with previous 5.6:1 ratio. Consequently, the operating costs in the prison reduced to $60.40 compared to those of neighboring jails that did not have the program: Dade County had $66.68 while Broward County had $66.68. Also, the educational and vocational program incorporate direct supervision which cost $30, 000 compared to indirect supervision in other jails that cost $ 50, 000. Recidivism reduced significantly by 37.4% pertaining to inmates who spent 6-45 days under direct supervision, and a 23.7% reduction among inmates who spent more than 46 days under direct supervision. This empirically illustrates that the program was not only cost effective, but the rates of recidivism declined following its incorporation (Finn, 1997). Conclusion Nontraditional correction strategies are more cost effective since they involve lesser costs incurred by the judicial system. They are also efficient as they work towards rehabilitating the offender back to the community. In finality, for a correction strategy to be effective both to the individual and to the community it has to incorporate three main points. Firstly, it has to be behavioral. It has to target the behavior that offenders engage in and find ways of eliminating them. Consequently, an effective correction strategy should include other considerations and not necessarily the offender. This consideration pertains to the society he comes from, the propagating factors to his behavior and the involvement of his family members in his rehabilitation program. The most important of them all is that a correction strategy should be aimed at reducing recidivism. References Cullen, F. T., and Gendreau, P., (2000). Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. Criminal Justice, Vol.3, 109-175. Finn, P., (1997). The Orange County, Florida Jail Educational and Vocational Programs, National Institute of Justice; Program Focus, U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, NCJ 166820. Hoshen, J., and Drake, G., (2001). Offender Wide Area Continuous Electronic Monitoring Systems, Executive Summary, Doc no. 187101, Award Number: 98-LB-VX-K005, pp. 1-7. Kushian, K. (1996). Alternatives to Incarceration. Evaluation of Proposed City of Port Angeles Municipal Court, Bellevue, Washington: Philip and Associates. Parent, G. (2003). Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a Decade of research”, Correctional Boot Camps. U. S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. 810 Seventh Street N. W. Washington, DC 20531. Schmalleger, F., (2005). Criminal Justice Today, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. (2002). Bureau of Justice Statistics Press Release, Retrieved from http://urlaststop.qondio.com/identifying-competing-theories-of-corrections-prevalent-in-todays-justice-system. Accessed November 4, 2011. Read More