Justice Reinvestment as an Approach to Reducing Crime and Re-Offending - Assignment Example

Justice reinvestment as an approach to reducing crime and re-offending Introduction To look at justice reinvestment as an approach to reducing crime it is important to first look at the meaning of justice reinvestment. Justice reinvestment are policies that reduce spending on correctional facilities aimed at making communities and neighbourhoods safe, the environments to which the people that have done time in prison come to (Durcan, G. 2010). There are many challenges facing the corrections department in many countries including America. The population of incarcerated individuals is high and so are the costs. Despite the budgetary allocations, the problem of incarceration and recidivism is not getting any better but is becoming worse. The policies developed by justice reinvestment helps the relevant authorities to be better equipped to make decisions that are cost effective as well as enhance public safety (Justice Center 2011). Justice reinvestment principles help in creating cost effective correction programs and policies that aid in the identification of individuals that pose the greatest risk to public safety (Justice Center 2011). Risk assessment tools help criminal justice practitioners to evaluate incarcerated individuals or those that are the supervision of the community by targeting those that are likely to offend. These effective correction programs deliver the greatest return to the taxpayers Restorative prisons to justice reinvestment Society’s response to people who break its rules has become a political issue and has become one of the most challenging problems for many years (Allen and Stern 2007). Imprisonment is the most severe punishment society can mete out against an offender especially in countries that do not have the death penalty. This punishment varies in degree depending on the nature and rate of crime. The management of prisons differs depending on how they are funded and organized by government (Allen and Stern 2007). Justice reinvestment describes the way funds are used on imprisoning offenders more productively through local based community initiatives intended to address the underlying problems that give rise to criminal behaviour (Justice Center 2011). It is a fact that the prison population does not represent the society as a whole but that they are drawn from poor neighbourhoods where a variety of social problems is high. Law enforcement should therefore be concentrated in these areas because people who are socially and economically marginalize dare at the greatest risk of getting into crime (Justice Center 2011). Justice reinvestment therefore gives the local community the power to decide how money should be spent better address these problems as well as ensuring a safer communities. The approach of justice reinvestment is not focused on individual cases but also on particular places and also the prevention of re-offending by collecting data to bring up to date the decisions about how and where best to allocate funds to reduce crime (Justice Center 2011). Retributive model for prison Retributive model for prison is based on meting out punishment on prisoners by cutting them off from society because of the crimes that they may have committed This model had people that were incarcerated being unable to function well even after they have completed their sentences and so revert back to crime and so end up being incarcerated again at the expense of the taxpayers. To cut back on this there needs to be collaboration between the local communities and the justice departments to encourage participation (La Vigne et al., 2010). There need to be a transition from the retributive model for prison to restorative prisons based on principles that strengthen the relationship between prisons on one hand and the local authorities including the civil society and others. The restorative prisons approach conducted in the United Kingdom showed many positive outcomes, which have been sustained such as, work done by prisoners for the benefit of the community (Bloch 2010). This however does not take away the role of prison, which is aimed at achieving public safety. The program highlights the need for better outcomes for victims, offenders and the neighbourhoods in which they both tend to live because they do not lie behind prison walls but in the way people in vulnerable communities’ access social amenities health care and their economic empowerment. The restorative prisons project in the United Kingdom highlighted the contradiction that has been in the criminal justice system (Great Britain: Ministry of Justice. 2010). Though the services are at a local level, they do not involve local participation in the arrangement for supervising convicted known offenders. Local authorities do not have a clue of how public money is spent on probation and prison. Though sentencing takes place at local level, it has little impact on the social local context (Shaw 2010). Criminal justice policies have been relatively unconstrained by issues of affordability and the long term impact notwithstanding that prison is the most costly prison sentence paid for nationally but with little local interest in reducing the numbers incarcerated. There have always been two competing purposes for the criminal justice system: retribution and rehabilitation. The rehabilitative model believes that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reform criminals while the retributive model believes that the purpose of prison is to punish criminals (Giddens 2010). The rehabilitative model lends itself to sentences such as 15 to 20 years, which has a condition that if the prisoner behaves or makes appropriate progress they are released on parole or remain in prison if progress is not made. The retributive model on the other hand lends itself to sentences such as 10 years whereby at the end of the 10 years the criminal is deemed to have paid his debt to society and is free to go. The rehabilitative model is sometimes not practical and ideological because rehabilitation is sometimes almost impossible in prison. The discretion of judging as to whether a person has reformed should not be left to government alone but the community where the inmate will be released should determine this (Armour and Umbreit 2010). The policy framework for justice reinvestment Justice reinvestment policies are based on the following goals: Improving the cost effectiveness of existing criminal justice system resources Managing the growth of the prison population and reducing spending on corrections Reinvesting in strategies that increases public safety The policy has the following objectives that are threefold: Holding offenders accountable in meaningful ways Making smarter and effective use of community programs Strengthening of probation supervision. Holding offenders accountable in meaningful ways This objective is achieved in the following ways: Requirements that first time offenders seek treatment and serve probation Petty crimes such as first time property and drug offenders need to serve probation terms and complete their drug treatments as needed (Coyle 2010). The rationale behind this is that for many first time low-level drug and property offenders they have mental health disorders due to substance abuse that contribute to their criminal activity. Placing these individuals on probation and requiring them to be on treatment that addresses their mental disorders along with substance use associated with re-offending (Justice Center 2011). Probation supervision unlike a brief stay in prison is enough to engage through the completion of a rigorous program. Completing treatment programs in the community is effective in reducing re-offence rates as compared to treatment programs in jail. Probation officers can revoke probation when a person fails to meet the requirements of these treatment programs (Justice Center 2011). Mandating supervision to people with high risks of re-offending Supervision for all people convicted of violent crime such as sex offences by the community is important because they have the highest chances of committing these crimes again. This is because without supervision to such convicts they have a high likelihood of re-offending (Justice Center 2011). The policy reallocates existing resources to ensure the supervision of people who pose the highest risk of re-offending especially those leaving prison undergo a period of community supervision with no additional cost to the taxpayer. Providing judges with risk reduction sentencing options to encourage participation in programs that lower the chance of re-offence. This helps in providing transparency during sentencing to victims and the public. It makes it clear that when a judge imposes a sentence how much time the convicted person will spend in prison at the same time provide incentives to encourage convicts to get into programs in prison that will enable them reduce the chances of them getting back to the same crimes that they were convicted of once out of prison (Justice Center 2011). Raising the maximum sentence length for people convicted of committing violent crimes and providing judges sentencing lower level offenders with more options. This ensures that judges put away hardened criminals who have caused the greatest harm to crime victims and the community for longer periods. With this policy enables judges to be more precise in describing the sentences to criminals (Justice Center 2011). Making smarter and effective use of community correction program For the criminal justice system to be effective it has to be have risk assessment instruments that help it gauge and sort out individuals based on their risk profiles such as high, medium. Low risk groups. They help in measuring the likelihood of an individual coming into contact with the criminal justice system through an arrest and conviction or re-incarceration because of violating the terms of supervision (Justice Center 2011). Adopting a common set of risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system. Inconsistency in the risk assessment instruments undermines the value of these instruments. Applying consistently a validated risk assessment system will cause a focus on supervision on the people that pose greatest danger to the community (Justice Center 2011). This allows for systematic assignments to the prison services that aim at maximizing scarce program slots. Sentencing people to community based correctional facilities that are less likely to re-offend. Residential programs that address crimes related to substance abuse disorders and job skill deficits reduce greatly the chances of an offender to return to crime. Low risk offenders are more likely to go back to crime if placed together with high-risk offenders (Justice Center 2011). However, when medium and high risk individuals placed in community based correctional facilities improve. Making effective use of prison diversion programs by ensuring the employment of supervision strategies and services demonstrated to reduce recidivism. Evaluation programs with higher risk offenders have declining recidivism rates and those with fewer risk offenders have increase in recidivism. By standardizing prison diversion programs the eligibility criteria facilitates the efforts of court officials to sentence defendants to programs that are more likely to reduce recidivism (Justice Center 2011). This evaluation of extensive supervision probation programs demonstrate that intensive supervision is effective in reducing recidivism when combined with treatment programs that address criminogenic needs. Strengthening probation supervision An effective probation system is integral for public safety especially in the working with populations that the courts deem appropriate for local management (Justice Center 2011). Many probation departments do not use evidence-based practices that have been shown to reduce recidivism rates due to a lack of minimum qualification for officers, number of monthly officer probation contacts and the use of risk assessment instruments that assign probationers levels of supervision that these lead to inefficiencies in probation (Justice Center 2011). Establishing standards that define probation supervision policies and practices. Evidence based standards have been associated with the success rates in the which is a resultant feature in fewer revocations to prison (Blyth 2009). Having minimum standards that all probation departments must meet this involves tracking the performance of a probation department, monitoring local budgets, distribution of funds, providing technical assistance and training and certifying probation officers. This will help introducing greater consistency, coordination and professionalism to the agencies operating in the country (Justice Center 2011). Provision of funding and incentives to improve felony probation supervision and increasing successful completion rates. Performance incentive funding structures facilitate the partnership between local and state probation departments that increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice resources in reducing recidivism and increase public safety. This provides the incentive to enhance public safety, mange the prison costs and increasing the effectiveness of its investment in community correction programs that encourage local probation departments to strengthen the supervision they provide (Justice Center 2011). The performance incentive program helps in reducing recidivism among people on probation and this reduction in crime is a cost saving measure precipitated by the reduced rate of crime. These monies can then be reinvested to victim services, substance abuse treatment and to strategies that improve community supervision while reducing recidivism (Justice Center 2011). Reducing duplication of supervision resources. Assigning offenders to misdemeanour and to felony probation officers makes them report to two officers in two separate probation departments. This leads to inefficient use of court resources because of lack of a communications systems linking (Justice Center 2011). This use of distinct probation agencies to supervise the same person increases the likelihood of the probation being revoked because of the various conditions to be met for the supervision. This leads to time wastage because the time that would have otherwise been spent in activities that promote a crime free stable life is used in meeting the numerous conditions of supervision (Justice Center 2011). Requirements for probation violations hearing to be held in a relatively swift time. The time spent by probationers in court awaiting their violation hearings needs to be reduced. Holding a person in jail for weeks or even months awaiting decision about whether or not to revoke their probation accomplishes little (Justice Center 2011). It is expensive for court officials and it is disruptive to the connection the person had made in the community based treatment and employment. Collecting monthly data from probation departments and analyzing this data Working out a uniform data reporting template ensures that all probation agencies use the aggregate data submitted monthly in a consistent manner (Justice Center 2011).This basic information is collected and reported in order to provide information about how effective the probation in holding offenders accountable. Outcomes in the implementation of justice reinvestment framework It saves money because the money that would be spent in the construction of additional prisons is reduced. The food, clothing and medical costs, which factor in the budget for many prisons are reduced. It reduces the number of people incarcerated and therefore reduces prison crowding as the number of people in prison declines gradually. It reduces crime because of the focus on reducing re-offence rates by targeting people that that intensive programming is appropriate and who would otherwise have been sent to prison at a higher substantial cost to the taxpayer. By strengthening the probation system, the chance of recidivism is reduced significantly because of the greater incentives. Justice reinvestment in the United States of America The criminal justice system in the US is structured in a complex conflicting set of incentives for policy makers. Upon arrest, a defendant is held in the county jail awaiting the case disposition, for a sentence that is less than a year it served in jail. The financial responsibility of jail falls on the municipal or county government, which is also true for juvenile detention and probation, and the state provides little financial support (La Vigne, 2010). The burden of paying for state prisons is borne by each state with little or no support from the federal government (Justice Center 2011). There is no incentive to come up with local solutions because of the financial disincentive because it is the counties that that would come up with the money for alternative programs for the former convicts. This causes them to continue sending this class of offenders because it does not cost them to anything to do it because they will not have to take the financial obligation that the state is currently doing repeating this counterproductive pattern (Allen and Stern 2007). With the recent budget pressures on the states such as the rising costs, declining tax revenues and declining economic performance. Prison expenditures are among the highest rising state government expenses. High rates of recidivism has led to officials asking for a return into their continued investment in prison expansion and for there to an effective strategy that reduces the number of released convicts ending up back in prison. This has led to a gradual investment of prison money in ways that allows for a restructuring of parole and probation to people in need of housing and healthcare are increased sponsorship of civic and neighbourhood renewal initiatives. Public education A large percentage of inmates come from communities that are excluded from the political, social and economic life of the mainstream. Inner-city neighbourhoods are breeding ground for recycling perpetual residents between prison and parole. These high rates of incarceration in these neighbourhoods increase the prison budgets (Robinson 2011). The needs of these communities are many and the states are in no financial position to allocate additional funds. The costly reality of resettling inmates does not create a viable life outside of prison and the demand for greater accountability by lawmakers in the criminal justice system has an impact on the daily life and civic resources in neighbourhoods where a large number of people recycle in and out of prison. Conclusion Research conducted at the dawn of the new millennium created a completely new context in which to consider the questions of criminal justice performance (Allen and Stern 2007). The research uncovered the connection between growing prison populations and the failure of parole and probation supervision while the second was related to spending on prisons and criminal justice conditions in neighbourhoods with a majority of people caught up in the justice system come (Allen and Stern 2007). Prison populations have continued to grow and with it, the annual budgets allocated to prisons alone (Fox and Albertson 2010). Even though the crime rate has gone down this has not been reflected in the prison populations commensurate with this fact. The fact is the statistics for new crime has gone down and this does not form the bulk of the population of those incarcerated. Majority of those incarcerated that form the bulk of those in prison are those that are re-offenders. People that have been in the system before and went back to do the same crimes that landed them in prison before. To address this issue which has to do with the resources being used in funding the prison budgets and the failure of the system in ensuring that once a person is out of prison he or she remains out because of the supervision and close monitoring that they are able to get to fully integrate into society and communities where they committed these offences. References Allen, R and Stern, V. 2007. Justice reinvestment –a new approach to crime justice. International center for prison studies. London: King’s college London. Armour, M.P and Umbreit, M. 2010. Restorative justice dialogue: an essential guide fro research and practice. New York: Springer. Bloch, K.E. 2010. Reconceptualizing restorative justice. Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, 7(1) Blyth, M. 2009. Children and young people in custody: managing the risk. Sydney: The policy press. Coyle, A. 2010. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods Worse. The British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), pp. 975-977. Durcan, G. 2010. Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment. Advances in Dual Diagnosis, 3(1), pp. 32-5. Fox, C and Albertson, K. 2010. Could economics solve the prison crisis. Probation Journal, 57(3), pp. 263-80. Giddens, A. 2010. Sociology. New York: Polity. Great Britain: Ministry of Justice. 2010. Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment. Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Report. Justice Center. 2011. Addressing recidivism, crime and corrections spending. The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety. Justice center. 2011. Policy framework to reduce corrections spending and reinvesting savings in strategies that can reduce crime. Justice Reinvestment in Ohio. La Vigne, N. et al., 2010. Justice Reinvestment at the Local Level Planning and Implementation Guide. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. La Vigne, N.G. 2010. The Criminal Justice reinvestment ACT of 2009 and Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) initiative Act of 2009. US House of Representative Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Robinson, L. 2011. Exploring certainty and severity- perspectives from a federal perch. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 85-92. Shaw, R. 2010. Restorative justice in prisons: responsibility, restoration, reintegration and rehabilitation. London: Cengage Learning. Read More