Intricacies of Habitual Offenders and Psychopathy - Essay Example

Running Heading: RECIVIDISM Recidivism Recidivism Introduction Recidivism is defined as the predisposition that a person has to resort to committing repeated acts of felony. Specifically, recidivism is regarded to be committing a second crime after having been convicted for one (Davie, 2008). Recidivism rates are considered to be of integral importance since they reflect upon the effectiveness of the infrastructure that a society has implemented to detain and rehabilitate felons. Governments work hard to decrease recidivism rates because an increase illustrates an incapability of released convicts to become productive and functioning members of the society after having served their sentence. For this reason, it is extremely essential that an accurate measurement of the tendency towards recidivism of a society be attained. In the paragraphs to follow, light shall be shed upon the reasons for recidivism, the measures taken to reduce the recidivism rate, the problems encountered in carrying out those measures, and most importantly, the methods used to measure the recidivism in a society and the problems encountered in attaining an accurate measure of the recidivism. Over 60% of the people released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years for a severe violation of the law. A startling 25% of the law violators were convicted to prison over a fresh criminal offence and 46.9% were reconvicted. 2.5% of the law breakers previously arrested for rape were rearrested for another rape and statistics for homicide also showed a similar pattern as 1.2% homicide convicts were rearrested for committing another homicide (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). Non-sex offenders made up the larger part of the repetition of the offences as compared to sex-offenders. It was observed that non-sex offenders were about six times less likely to be convicted for a repetition of a sex offense. When analyzing Recidivism, it is important to delve into the intricacies of Habitual Offenders and Psychopathy. Both subjects are brought under extensive analysis when a system to reduce recidivism is required. Habitual Offenders Habitual Offenders are law breakers who are classified to have a tendency to commit repetitions of a crime. Legislation is designed to discourage habitual offending tendencies and rehabilitation programs are designed and implemented to allow for habitual offenders to curb and eventually eliminate their tendency to repeat offences. Habitual Offenders are given the highest level of significance by law enforcing agencies in not only western countries but also in eastern countries where habitual offenders are often subjected to constant surveillance (Duhaime, 2008). Law enforcement agencies in certain countries exercise a policy to bring in habitual offenders for questioning when a crime has been committed that can be related to the nature of offence that the habitual offenders are known for. Psychopathy Psychopathy is defined as a bent of mind to commit a crime simply for the sake of breaking it and any amusement or thrill that it gives to the offender (Arkowitz & Lilienfeld, 2007). The term Psychopathy is often substituted by the term sociopathy, however the core of the matter remains the very same. It is a behavioral tendency to carry out destructive actions because of a mindset that is more than often defined as a personality disorder. Psychopathy is one of the most studied and researched of issues under Recidivism because most recidivism offenders are recorded to either be psychopaths or have shown streaks of behavior that can be defined psychopathic. It is important to high light here that media based portrayals of psycho-pathetic behavior are more than often exaggerated and deviate from what the actual mindset of the psychopath. Traditional studies have outlined Psychopathy to be a mix of traits that include a tendency towards egocentricity deceit, manipulative outlook towards achieving desires and a severe deficiency of remorse regarding any activities (Hare, 1996). However in 1980, Psychopathy was more specifically defined to be a tendency to violate societal standards. These societal standards include constant psychological trends of lying, stealing, truancy and the like. The Sociologists Perspective Some sociologists argue that the increase in the development and accessibility of computerized data bases of criminal offenders. They are of the opinion that lower social exposure of recidivism rates in the past allowed released and rehabilitated offenders to begin a new life and attain respectable standings in society after having been released, but modern day technology has made the accessibility of this sensitive data so convenient that recidivism rates no longer have the encouragement to decrease that they previously had. Efforts to discourage and reduce recidivism Over time, several measure have been taken to curb recidivism and detention centers have developed and administered discharge plans that allow for the rehabilitation of convicts before they are released to tame the psychopathic mindsets that can lead them to become habitual offenders. These "discharge planning" programs have proved to be effective in reducing recidivism and funding has been increased towards these programs over time for the same reason. In 2007, around $11 million was spent on such programs in New York City (Horn, 2007). Government agencies form coalitions to identify convicts who show trends of becoming habitual offenders and suitable convicts are given government support to encourage them towards leading a fair life and not feeling the need to resort to committing a felony. The Department of Homeland Services plays an important role in this process. Assistance and support is also provided by community service organizations to increase productivity of these programs and to encourage the provision of employment opportunities and medical treatments for released convicts. These programs have proven to show such rates of productivity that an increase in the number of such community programs has been recommended. Unfortunately, an increase in law enforcing agencies and laws to keep the peace does not seem to have caused an influence on mans tendency to commit crimes, instead the U.S. has now become one of the few countries in the world where repeated sentences have been served by about 40% of the prisoners. Studies have even indicated statistics stating facts as alarming as one in every one hundred adults in the country are currently incarcerated or have been at a point (Davie, 2008). If the current recidivism rate continues, over 90% of the prisoners to be released in the coming years, and over half of those prisoners will be back in confinement within 3 years of their release. The second chance act The second chance act is one such initiative being taken on a government level to reduce recidivism rates. The second chance act has been brought forth to increase funding of programs to support the reentry of released convicts into the society. This is being considered an improvement in the efforts and the awareness towards the curbing and eradication of recidivism. Getting down to measurement recidivism The Measurement of Recidivism has always remained a sensitive issue amongst criminologists. Judging recidivism rates through criminal records and event files has been the traditional practice but one that has come under increasing criticism over the past few years. The opinion expressed by many criminologists is that several crimes falling under recidivism are committed without being distinguished to be so. An alternate approach towards measuring the recidivism rates was also used. Convicts were interviewed regarding their criminal history and were asked to recollect their crimes. This method was swiftly scratched because the observations extracted were observed to be highly inaccurate when compared to documented statistics. The inaccuracy was attributed to the factor of age causing deterioration of memory and the obscuring of events and the sequence of events in the minds of many of the convicts and ex-convicts. A solution was found to the problem by assessing recidivism in a number of ways to come up with the most suggestively correct measurement. There are a number of observations that are kept in light when doing so. Firstly, the element of timing has to be given its due importance, secondly, the rate of recidivism should be determined uniformly and risks involved in the measurement of recidivism should be given proper significance. Timing is a key element to the measurement of recidivism. This is so because recidivism is determined and read from the initiation and the conclusion of proceedings. Initiations of these proceedings are usually recorded to be the release of a criminal from incarceration or the entry of the criminal into a release rehabilitation program. The points of conclusion of these events are usually recorded to be instances in time where the released or rehabilitated offender repeats a crime or performs a new crime. Paroles and probations are also classifiable as starting points. Generally put, conclusion points are when a violation of the law causes law enforcing agencies to take action against the subject. In such terms, recidivism can be inferred from the time between the initiation and the conclusion instances. An issue that is given a lot of significance in the measurement of recidivism is the approach through which recidivism rates are attained. It is important to note that the accurate measurement of recidivism is not possible through data sets of releases and arrests of felons. That is because not all criminal misdemeanors are revealed or reported. Alternate methods used to determine the rate of recidivism include interviewing convicts and ex-convicts, analyzing official criminal records, determining whether or not a crime has been committed by an ex-convict who has been released or is on probationary parole after having gone through a rehabilitation program and determining the time difference between the first felony and the second felony. Also, to determine recidivism rates and to gain data that can help towards research into reducing recidivism rates, the effects of various drugs and reentry programs are also brought into consideration when measuring recidivism rates (National Institute of Justice, 2008). Including this factor in the analysis can be a cumbersome process but it is one that allows for improvement in reentry programs designed to decrease recidivism rates in released felons. As can be observed, the problems mentioned above are influenced highly by social indicators, yet analysts have derived methods to reach sound and credible results for recidivism rates. Influences of external nature that influence the measurement of Recidivism also include the fact that there is a large legal frame work in process between the conviction of the first crime and the repeated crime. A felon, once having committed the crime and having been caught for it, sentenced, served time and released back into the societal framework, goes through an extensive setup of legal issues if ever convicted of a crime again. The fine print that hinders the accuracy of the actual recidivism prevalent in a society gets affected by the fact that a hundred percent surety does not exist that a crime recommitted by a felon will be recorded, and even if it is recorded, there is a long process that extends through the time period when the felon is recorded to have committed the crime, to the point where it is determined whether the felon is guilty or not. Hence getting caught for a crime committed does not mean that the subject is found to be convicted of that crime. Hence the use of court based data in the measurement of recidivism is discouraged because it leads to an underestimation of the actual facts would be experienced if court reports were to be used to determine the recidivism rate. The core of the matter is that there can be a gaping difference between the recorded criminal offences and the actual committed offences in a society. According to the National Institute of Corrections, one factor that has not been observed to influence the recidivism rate and does appear to have any relation with the rate of increase or decrease of recidivism is the exact nature of the crime (National Institute of Corrections, 2006). Connotations for Recidivism In some cases Recidivism is not the measurement of the same crime performed recurrently by the same individual, it simply means that re offenders of the same crime are not generally caught or are not convicted, if they have already been previously found guilty of the same. Case studies have proved that out of the burglaries and thefts over the past few years, a vast majority has not been recorded. Problems of Recidivism Difficulties in Recidivism have been found majorly in the period of follow up. Usually depending on the nature of the crime, a study requires 5 years of a follow up period. However nature of offences and the occurrence of reappearances present hurdles and delay the follow up period. The Juvenile law in New South Wales controls the crimes of individual's up to 18 years of age. If however within the 5 year follow up period of time, he is caught up in a crime once again, he will not be dealt with by the Juvenile Law, he will subjugated to State Law (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004). As the difference in their age, does not permit them to become juvenile delinquents or juvenile offenders again. Here an important point crops up, that the time period for a court appearance does not mean that the time issued is heaven sent for an act of re offence. For in some cases due to the matter being of low seriousness in the case of juvenility, the juvenile offenders are able to escape the trail appearance and go undetected and unnoticed by the court, making it easier for them to perform acts of re offence. Another upheaval in the otherwise successful measurement of recidivism is the, the lack of seriousness of the re offence. Often cases when the re offence is more serious than the first this carries the same weight for an act of punishment attributed, if the first offences are more serious than the recurring crime. However if the evidence is not sufficient enough to back the analysis and to present a solid front in court the results are a risk at losing as the lack of implications in a subsequent crime often are not recorded as acts recidivism and the criminal may be acquitted of charges accused. Possessing the factor of immunity in a crime, which means the transfer of a criminal from interstate to state prisons, during the observation period, causes distortion in the analysis procedure for defining recidivism. Recidivism of Sex Offenders Recidivism for the crimes of incest and sex offenders, rates for a lower average than no sex offenders. The follow up period for sex offenders and molesters is of 7 years. In cases pertaining to molestations and incest it was found especially in Canada that only 42% of such criminals were ever convicted (Maxfield, 2005). Almost 77% was the average found to be of those molesters who sexually assaulted boys (not related to criminal) and those molesters who had no evidence of ever being married (Maxfield, 2005). However, the rate of recidivism of rapists was found to be considerable higher than those of child molesters. The crimes are equally serious in both cases but contrary to the seriousness only rapists showed inclinations to re offend yet again. A point of importance to be brought to light is that the rate of child molesters with male victims show a higher rate of recidivism that those with female victims. But all in all Incest offenders (the cases in which the molester and victim are closely related, could be a parent and child or even siblings) showed the lowest rate of recidivism in all acts of molestations and assault. The significance of accurate measurement of recidivism When sentencing convicts federal judges have a two axis instrument that allows them to determine the minimum and the maximum time span that an offender can be sentenced. In this tool, the horizontal axis stands for the factor of previous law breaking records and an increase in that factor encourages a trend towards a relatively higher sentence span. In other words, the more widespread the criminal record of the offender is found to be, the more the convict is found liable to receive a stricter sentence (Maxfield, 2005). In other words, the length of the criminal record of the past is in direct proportionality to the length of the sentence an offender is liable to receive for any misdemeanors carried out in the future. For the same reason, the accuracy of the recidivism rate on a micro and a macro level is realized and given much significance by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Conclusion From the above mentioned facts and figures, it is safe to assume that an accurate recidivism rate holds immense significance in the law enforcing infrastructure of a society and that while current recidivism measurement techniques may be doing the job at hand, more accurate means of measurement of recidivism have to be developed and deployed. The current modes used to measure recidivism are largely influenced by external factors and this creates quite a lot of disturbance in criminologists and analysts as well as controversies on research studies into recidivism rates. Current day recidivism measurement techniques revolve around the justice system, the offender and the immediate law enforcing agency, this more than often causes a conflict in the research studies carried out as well as debates upon the legitimacy of sentences that are in turn influenced by the justice system. As far as the current recidivism rate goes, intentions are to bring down the current recidivism rate by 50% within the next two to three years (Davie, 2008). The only solid treatment for successful recidivism is the timing. The timing between the crime first performed and the cautious observation of the recurring crime performed. Secondly the timing between the crime and the calm preparation for the re offence during the follow up period must be controlled. As some researchers mark the entry period and the start and stop of events inaccurately. The start being the entry of the individual into the crime and the stopping of the event which is the inevitable arrest, the inaccuracy of measurement begins when researchers only record the stopping period statistics or the arrest of people. While some researchers on the other hand record both the starting and the stopping periods. This causes an incorrect delineation of statistics. List of References Arkowitz, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2007, November). What "Psychopath" Means. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfmid=what-psychopath-means Australian Institute of Criminology. (2004, January 8). An analysis of juvenile recidivism. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Australian Government: http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/juvenile/cain.html Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007, August 8). Criminal Offenders Statistics. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism Davie, F. (2008, April 6). The Second Chance Act: A First Step Forward to Curb Recidivism. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/rights/81512/ Duhaime, L. (2008). Habitual offender. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Duhaime.org: http://www.duhaime.org/ Hare, R. (1996, February 1). Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Psychiatric Times: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831 Horn, M. (2007, January 26). Curbing Recidivism . Retrieved January 24, 2009, from The New York Times Company: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9A06EFDC153FF932A35751C0A9619C8B63 Maxfield, L. (2005, June 16). Measuring Recidivism under the Federal Sentencing. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from Regents of the University of California: http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.166journalCode=fsr National Institute of Corrections. (2006, October 31). Measuring Recidivism. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from http://nicic.gov/Library/019904 National Institute of Justice. (2008, February 20). Measuring Recidivism. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/corrections/recidivism/measuring.htm Read More