Recidivism in America - Literature review Example

Introduction Recidivism is a term used by criminologists to refer to repeat offending following conviction and sentence.(Maltz Michael Maltz argues that recidivism is the cumulative effect of failures ranging from individual shortcomings to societal failures.(Maltz, 1) A report released by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons in June, 2006 acknowledges that on an annual basis up to 13.5 million Americans are incarcerated and up to 67 per cent of those “prisoners are rearrested” while another 52 per cent “are re-incarcerated.”(Gibbons and Katzenbach, 6-118) Gibbons and Katzenbach maintain that these recidivism rates reflect the failures of the corrections institutes in its goals to rehabilitate the individual. The prison experience is horrific and rather than prepare the individual for re-entry into society it fosters an atmosphere in which overcrowding, violence, poor medical facilities and other failings only contribute to recidivism.(6-118) It is obvious that there is no single cause and that recidivism starts with the individual and ends with society and its institutions. The discussion that follows will take a more detailed look at recidivism rates in America and will examine the common factors that contribute to recidivism. The underlying goal is to determine what measures are necessary for reducing recidivism. Recidivism Rates in America In June 2002 the US Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics released a recidivism study in which 272,111 prisoners were released in 1994. (U.S. Department of Justice) This number represented at least two-thirds of the US prisoners released in 1994. (U.S. Department of Justice) The US Federal Bureau of Justices Statistics traced these prisoners for three years in 15 states following their initial release in 1994 using several elements for measuring recidivism. These elements included rates at which former prisoners were re-sentenced, reconvicted, rearrested or returned to prison for violation of parole or probation.. (U.S. Department of Justice) The results of the study found that within three years of release at least 67.5 per cent were rearrested for entirely different criminal conduct than the previous conviction which resulted in incarceration the first time. (U.S. Department of Justice) At least 46.9 per cent were re-convicted for new crimes and 25.4 per cent were re-sentenced in respect of new crimes. Moreover, 51.8 per cent of released prisoners were returned to prison either with or without a new sentence with 25.4 per cent representing new custodial sentences and 26.4 per cent representing some sort of violation of the terms of release. (U.S. Department of Justice) The study also revealed that persons previously convicted of primarily of crimes of dishonesty were among the highest rates of recidivism. For example, 70.2 per cent of those prisoners returned to prison or rearrested had been previously convicted or robbery, 74 per cent had been convicted of burglary, 74.6 per cent had been convicted on larceny charges, 78.8 per cent had been previously convicted of auto theft, 77.4 per cent were convicted of stolen property and 70.2 percent were convicted on possession of illegal weapons charges. (U.S. Department of Justice) The US Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics also found that released prisoners with the lowest re-arrest rate included prisoners who were previously convicted of violent offences. The relevant conviction rates included 40.7 per cent homicide, 46 per cent rape, 41. 4 per cent sexual offences and 51.5 per cent had been previously convicted on DUI charges. (U.S. Department of Justice) The over all result is that 61.7 per cent of prisoners who had been incarcerated on offence of violence re-offended within three years of their release from prison. (U.S. Department of Justice) Those prisoners previously convicted of crimes of dishonesty had a recidivism rate of 73.8 per cent. (U.S. Department of Justice) Another key revelation was the fact that approximately two-thirds of the recidivism took place within the first year following release.(U.S. Department of Justice) The report prepared by the US Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reflects a recurring cycle where recidivism is more likely to occur in instances where the offender has a history of antecedents. The report notes that: “70% of the discharged prisoners had 5 or more prior arrests, half had 2 or more prior convictions, and almost 44% had served a prior prison sentence.”(U.S. Department of Justice) The result was that prisoners with only one previous arrest experienced a 40.6 per cent re-arrest rate within the three year period studied while those with two previous arrests suffered a 47.5 per cent arrest rate for the same time period, those with 3 priors suffered a 55.2 per cent arrest rate and those with 15 previous arrests experienced a 82.1 per cent arrest rate. (U.S. Department of Justice) These previous arrest statistics are significant since it: “…provides a good predictor of how quickly that prisoner will resume his or her criminality after being released.”(U.S. Department of Justice) Of little or no significance is the length of time a prisoner spends in custody. According to the US Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, there is no evidence to suggest that recidivism has any connection to how long a prisoner has spent in custody. (U.S. Department of Justice) These statistics provide in part a good starting point for determining why prisoners who are released from prison re-offend. It becomes immediately obvious that the society and environment in which the offenders committed crimes in the first instance remains substantially the same and the imprisonment experience did nothing to rehabilitate the prisoner with the result that he like his environment is also unchanged. It therefore follows that recidivism is more likely than not. What Causes Recidivism Author Dean Champion takes a unique position in respect of recidivism. He maintains that recidivism is directly linked to the functions and mechanisms of the criminal justice system which classifies and treats offenders in a certain way. Society which takes its cue from the criminal justice system responds to the convict in a like manner.(Champion, 35) For instance the three strikes position demonstrates a get tough on criminals attitude. (Champion, 75) While this attitude demonstrates a penchant for placing all the blame on the offender for recidivism, it has the result of overcrowding prisons with the result that the correctional institutes become punitive rather than rehabilitative.(Champion, 35) The most common reason given for recidivism is prison overcrowding. The Bureau of Justice Statistics for the year 2005 reports that around 2.2 million prisoners were housed in US prisons and jails, a prison population growth increase of 2.7 percent over 2004.(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005) Karberg and Beck maintain that although crime rates have fallen since 1991, incarceration rates have multiplied by at approximately 50 per cent. (Karberg and Beck, 2004) Robert Cushman argues that the problems associated with prison overcrowding is nothing more than a management which was a direct result of dysfunction within the criminal justice system as a whole. (Cushman, 2002) Prison overcrowding invariably leads to housing prisoners squalid conditions since there is a general lack of bed space which invariably accounts for increased tensions and lack of hygienic facilities all of which facilitates health, safety and security risks. (Anson and Hancock, 1992, pp 123-132) The natural consequence is that prisoners are punished rather than rehabilitated and the lack of rehabilitation naturally results in recidivism upon release. It is impossible to rehabilitate prisoners given the present prison conditions. (Dissel, 1995) Dissel notes that the current state of prison overcrowding is not conducive to rehabilitation. In order to overcome the threat and likelihood of recidivism the criminal justice system should consider: “A philosophy and practice…be developed which both respects the individuals rights and human dignity and creates opportunities for the development of skills and abilities which will assist the offender to live a crime-free life once he or she is released from prison.”(Dissel, 1995) The solution seems to be in either reducing the imprisonment rate or implementing an early release program where the prisoner is subjected to close state supervision. Obviously the state of overcrowding in US prisons is a direct result of the ongoing “broken windows” approach implemented in the 1990s. The broken windows theory involved a zero tolerance approach to all crime with no allowances for insignificant infractions. (Levine, 2) This practice, according to criminologist Bernard Harcourt resulted in tremendous overcrowding. Harcourt submits that: “…order-maintenance crackdowns permeate out streets and police station houses while severe sentencing laws pack our prisons. We are left with the worst of both worlds.”(Harcourt, p.6) James Austin released the result of a study in 1986 which supports the theory that early release programs do not in anyway give rise to an increase in the rate of recidivism. (Austin, 405-502) The study took into account action taken by the Illinois Department of Corrections between 1980 and 1983 where some 21,000 prisoners were released from prison at an earlier date than mandated by their initial sentence. Austin notes that: “In terms of public safety, early release did not increase the probability that an inmate would commit additional crimes once released...The state crime rate actually declined while early release was operating.”(Austin, 405-502) Professors of Criminal Justice at Ball State University, Steve Smith and Stephen Brodt explain that the numbers of prisoners in US prisons are not only disproportionate to the facilities available but also to the cost to the community. Smith goes on to explain that: "Each time we send someone to jail for a non-violent crime, the taxpayers have to pay for that person to sit in a cell, watch television, and become less employable. There are options to putting people behind bars."(USA Today Magazine, 2000) Professor Smith also argues for an early release regime to counter the recent and current trends toward a “get tough” political and judicial agenda which has given way to prison overcrowding. Early release would have to include“work release, at-home sentencing, intensive probation and day-reporting.”( USA Today Magazine, 2000) However, in order for early release programs to work toward recidivism it should be reserved for persons who have been convicted in respect of “non-violent” offences. (USA Today Magazine, 2000) Robert J Harris argues that institutionalization alone has the capacity to encourage and contribute to recidivism. Many first time offenders, he submits overcome the fear of incarceration once they have suffered incarceration. Therefore the general loss of fear of incarceration can lead to criminal conduct once the prisoner is released. (Harris, 427-444) This loss of fear is only buttressed by the squalid conditions associated with prison overcrowding. The end result is a general criminalizing rather than de-criminalizing. After all the goal of deterrence by the threat of imprisonment is to discourage offending in the first place. When incarceration itself removes that fear of imprisonment deterrence fails and recidivism thrives. (Maltz, 13) Maltz takes his argument further by submitting that there are instances where a prisoner picks up productive traits in prison, but is unable to conform to society’s demands upon release. He uses the following example: “If an illiterate offender has learned to read while in prison, but committed a crime after release because of a heroin habit or unemployment, this crime has nothing to do with the program’s effectiveness….success at one level does not automatically (or immediately) lead to success at another level.”(Maltz, 20) To this end community and familial support systems are also necessary for the prevention of recidivism. Reccomendations In order to effectively reduce recidivism, Maltz suggests a cumulative approach to the problems identified. The statistics reveal that most persons commit crimes in response to social conditions. (Maltz, 41). Once they are exposed to an overcrowded prison system with little hope of rehabilitation the chances of becoming immune to imprisonment and incapable of reentering society, recidivism is inevitable. Therefore the only hope is to devise a scheme whereby imprisonment is the last resort. By reducing the prison population the facilities will be better poised for rehabilitation programs. However, as Maltz suggests efforts at reducing recidivism cannot begin and end with the correctional institutions. Community and individual intervention is absolutely imperative. (Maltz, 41) The underlying goal is to help the individual acquire skills in prison with the prospect of obtaining employment after release. This fosters an element of self-worth. (Walsh) If this acquired feeling of self-worth is to have a positive impact on recidivism the prisoner will need community and familial support upon release.(Walsh) In other word there will have to be family or social connections willing to house the prisoner and employers willing to employ the prisoner. A report to the California State Legislature in June of last year addressed some key changes that would reduce recidivism. These changes included a scenario in which the community as a whole are engendered to protect “against recidivism” and used “to support offender reentry and reintegration.” (Report to California State Legislature, 2007) Other initiative include a correctional institution that focuses on rehabilitation rather than penalization. Moreover the institutionalization program should be tailored to provide incentives for rehabilitation. These incentives would include promise of early release upon successful completion of rehabilitative programs, complying with prison rules and meeting the requirements for probation and parole. (Report to California State Legislature, 2007) The Report to California State Legislature identified seven crimogenic needs areas that were required to be monitored for the successful reduction of recidivism. These needs areas include educational/vocational/financial needs, “anti-social and pro-criminal associates”, anger and impulse management deficiencies, family dysfunction, alcohol and drug problems and sexual deviance. (Report to California State Legislature, 2007) Once these needs areas are identified in a prisoner, the system should work toward rehabilitation of the offender by addressing these shortcomings. Failing to address these needs areas where necessary will only return the unchanged offender to the unchanged environment led to criminal conduct in the first place. Conclusion In light of the foregoing discussion, recidivism is a direct result of a disconnect in society. The prisoner is carted away and forgotten. He or she develops little or no tools for re-entry into society and is received by society with an element of shame and rejection. While removing these barriers will not remove recidivism altogether it will certainly reduce recidivism to an appreciable degree. As it is both society and institutions are creating an environment in which it is impossible for a released offender to lead productive lives. Once society does its part, it is entirely up to the offender to chose the path he wishes to take. Works Cited Anson, R. and Hancock, B. “Crowding, proximity, inmate violence, and the Eight Amendment.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. Vol. 17 pp 123-132 Austin, James. “Using Early Release to Relieve Prison Crowding: A Dilemma in Public Policy.” Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 32, No. 4, 404-502, 1986 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005 Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm Retrieved January 23, 2008 Champion, Dean, J. Measuring Offender Risk: A Criminal Justice Sourcebook. Greenwood Press, 1994 Cushman, Robert.” Preventing Jail Crowding: A Practical Guide.” Washington, D.C. National Institute of Corrections, 2002 Dissel, Amanda. “Prison Reform Needed.” The Sowetan, July 7, 1995 Gibbons, John and Katzenbach, Nicholas, de B. Confronting Confinement: A Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Vera Institute of Justice, 2006 Harcourt, Bernard. Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing. US: Harvard University Press, 2001 Harris, Robert, J. “Community Service: Its Use In Criminal Justice.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 46, No. 4, 427-444, 2002. Karberg, Jennifer, C. and Beck, Allen,J. “Trends in US Correctional Populations: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.” Presented at the National Committee on Community Corrections, Washington D.C. April 16, 2004 Levine, Michael. Broken Windows: Broken Business. New York: Time Warner Book Group, 2005 Maltz, Michael, D. Recidivism. Academic Publisher, 1984 Report to California State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective Offender Programming in California. (June 30, 2007) Staff Writer. “Growing Jail Population Is a Financial Drain.” USA Today Magazine, April, 2000 US Department of Justice. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002. Available online at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm Retrieved January 22, 2008 Walsh, Brendan. (n.d.) Rehabilitating Our Criminals. Available online at: http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:n-d-I3tP5rYJ:www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM22/Rehabilitating%2520criminals.html+what+causes+recidivism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Retrieved January, 23 2008 Read More