Criminal Justice System and Its Reducing Risk of Criminal Behaviour - Coursework Example

To what extent does the criminal justice system need to change when it comes to reducing the risk of criminal behaviour throughout society? Introduction The criminal justice system has several goals that include rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation(Andrews, Bonta and Wormith 736). Overall, the system has tended to overemphasize deterrence at the expense of the other goals of the correctional system. Deterrence refers to the use of punishment to discourage people from offending or re-offending. As a result, several “tough” sentencing laws have been enacted that have seen the number of imprisonments soar over the years. However, a major policy question regards the effectiveness of punishment in preventing crime in society. To date, research continues to question the effectiveness of deterrence in reducing crime. Thus, the author of this paper believes that in order to reduce crime in society, the system needs to change its emphasis from punishment to other ways of preventing criminal activity. The following discussion supports this position. Discussion Even as the author proposes the promotion of deterrence as a goal of the criminal justice system, they are full aware that the goals of correction are closely related(Aberson and Jenion 170). As a consequence, one goal cannot be pursued in isolation from the others. Rather, the goals need to be pursued concurrently. For instance, punishment may be expected to lead to deterrence in at least two ways. First, when the authorities increase the certainty of punishment, potential offenders may be deterred out of the fear of being apprehended. Secondly, if the punishment is severe enough, potential offenders may decide to avoid crime. Deterrence theory assumes that human beings, including potential offenders, are rational and that they carefully consider the repercussions of their actions prior committing them. However, this is not always the case. For instance, a person who commits a crime under the influence of drugs cannot be said to have been rational at the time of committing the crime. Over the years, criminological research has shown that, overall, increasing the certainty of punishment generates more deterrence than making the punishment more severe(McAlinden 389). If people known for certain that when they commit a crime or offence they will be arrested, they will refrain from committing the crime or the offence. In reality, however, many offences and crimes go unapprehended. Thus, a potential offender will go ahead and commit an offence even if the consequences are dire, provided that they know that the chances of them being arrested are slim. The implication for policy-makers and law-enforcement agencies to enhance their capacity to apprehend offenders. Unfortunately, law-enforcement agencies are cumbered with limitations of personnel and equipment. As a work-around to this challenge, the idea of community policing has been floated and attempted in many jurisdictions. The rationale behind the idea of community policing is that by virtue of their interactions, the members of a community know one another better than the police do(Hugh and Taylor 10). Consequently, it is easier for the members of the community to apprehend criminal behavior among them and report the same to the police. Community policing calls for a great sense of community participation. Unfortunately, a very small portion of any community is interested in community affairs, including community policing. Under these circumstances, law-enforcers must invent creative ways of stimulating interest in community policing. Another factor that makes deterrence an attractive alternative to punishment is the failure of more severe sentences to enhance public safety(McAlinden 400). By imposing higher sentences on offenders, correctional and law enforcement agencies hope to send a warning to potential offenders. In addition, by imprisoning offenders for years or decades, the agencies believe that they reduce the risk of the offenders returning to their communities and re-offending. However, contrary to these beliefs, research has shown otherwise. The implication for policy-makers and law-enforcers is for them to rethink their notion of deterring crime by imposing harsher punishments on offenders. Instead, they must explore more effective ways of preventing crime. Difficult economic times, coupled with the demand for practices based on evidence, policymakers are having to rethink the efficiency and sustainability of harsher sentences(McAlinden 398). Incarceration is a costly form of correction. It is even more costly if when offenders have to be locked up for decades. In the United States, for instance, authorities are spending over $68 billion a year to keep inmates in prison. A recent study in the same country revealed that by keeping fewer serious offenders out of prisons and jails, the authorities could save the taxpayer $16.9 billion without compromising public safety. The money saved could be put into programs to inhibit new re-committed offences. Such programs, if well-implemented, could lead to fewer offenders ending up in correctional facilities, resulting in greater savings. Critics of deterrence have described the device of “heavy” punishment as the most ineffective and least fair form of correction(Andrews, Bonta and Wormith 740). Paul Gendreau, a Canadian criminologist, analyzed the findings of fifty different studies that together involved more than three-hundred thousand offenders. Gendreau concluded that none of the analyses demonstrated that imprisonment reduced recidivism – the tendency of offenders to re-commit the same offences or commit new ones upon completing their sentence. Instead, the converse was found: a 3% increase in recidivism was associated with longer sentences. Gendreaus study is arguably one of the biggest in the recent history of criminological research. The study challenged the notion of supporters of deterrence that imposing harsher punishments on offenders will keep them from criminal activity in the future while also discouraging potential offenders. Besides imprisonment, the imposing of fines is another way of punishing offenders. For instance, when a traffic police officer fines a motorist for running a red light, the officer assumes that the fine will deter the motorist from committing the same or related offence in the future. However, a study conducted in 2000 by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini showed that fining a behavior that was hitherto unfined may encourage rather than inhibit the unwanted behavior(McAlinden 392). This happens especially where the fine imposed is small relative to the criticism the offender previously received for committing the offense. Gnzeey’s study had certain limitations. First, its scope was limited such that meaningful generalizations may not be drawn from it. Secondly, the study is silent on what the outcome of the study would have been had the fine imposed been substantial enough. These limitations notwithstanding, the study cast some doubt on the effectiveness of fines, as a form of punishment, in deterring offences. Some scholars have advocated rehabilitation of offenders as a better alternative to punishment(Aberson and Jenion 173). Rehabilitation seeks to restore the offender to normal life. Promoters of rehabilitation regard punishment and backward and ineffective. Most people believe that every person is responsible for their actions. Consequently, the offender must be held accountable for the harm they do to others. By contrast, promoters of rehabilitation start from a different premise: the offender has little personal responsibility as their actions are influenced by forces in their environment, many of which are beyond their control. It is the work of correctional professionals and workers to remold the mind of the offender such that they become drawn more toward legal and less to criminal behavior. Laudable as the argument for rehabilitation sounds, there is limited empirical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Despite the limited evidence, all is not lost for rehabilitation. Providing inmates with work appears a viable form of rehabilitation(Aberson and Jenion 170). Work makes it possible for inmates to earn incomes and acquire marketable skills they can utilize upon completing their sentences. Work also teaches them to be responsible citizens. The incomes they earn enable them to contribute to the compensation of the victims of their acts and support their families even while in prison. In 1991 the U.S. Bureau of Statistics undertook a study that found that of all the federal inmates working in prison industries only 6.6% were rearrested within one year of their leaving prison. This figure compares favorably with 20% of their unemployed counterparts. In spite of the limitations of this study, it points to the potential effectiveness of rehabilitation as a viable alternative to punishment in reducing crime in society. Conclusion Traditionally, the correctional system has tended to over-rely on punishments such as imprisonment and fines as a way of reducing crime. However, studies indicate many inmates commit the same or different crimes within a year or so of leaving prison. This observation has cast doubt on the effectiveness of punishment as a way of containing crime. In addition, many studies have found that punishment does not deter offenders from committing the same crimes again. In fact, in some studies, severe punishments have been found to increase the chances of inmates resorting to crime upon completing their sentences. In view of these facts, policymakers need to shift their focus from punishment to more effective ways of curbing crime. These include rehabilitation and community policing. Rehabilitation involves transforming an offender such that they leave their criminal ways and become law-abiding citizens. Community policing, on its part, entails police officers working with communities to identify and deal with criminal elements in communities(Barrenger and Draine 160). Promising as these two tools are, there is limited empirical evidence to support their effectiveness. Hence, there is the need for criminology scholars to pay more research attention to them. Works cited Aberson, Martin and Greg Jenion. "“Crime Prevention and the Science of Where People Are.”." Criminal Justice Policy Review19 (2008): 164-180. Print. Andrews, D., James Bonta and Stephen Wormith. ""The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?" Criminal Justice and Behavior38 (2011): 735-755. Print. Barrenger, Stacey and Jeffrey Draine. "You Don’t Get No Help”: The Role of Community Context in Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Treatments for People with Mental Illness Leaving Prison for High Risk Environments." American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation16 (2013): 154-178. Print. Hugh, Russel and Norman Taylor. “New Directions in Community: Consolidating Lessons Learned about Risk and Collaboration. Working Paper. Ontario: Ontario Working Group on Collaborative, Risk-Driven Community Safety: Ontario Association of Police Chiefs, 2014. Print. McAlinden, Anne-Marie. "Transforming Justice: Challenges for Restorative Justice in an Era of Punishment-Based Corrections."." Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice14 (2011): 383-406. Print. Read More