History and Development of Community Based-Corrections - Book Report/Review Example

 History and Development of Community Based-Corrections Introduction Community corrections are very vital in the modern world because they help in decongesting the jails. They give members of the society a chance of participating in the supervision of their loved ones who would otherwise be in the congested prisons. Similarly, the government has been offering support to community corrections through passing legislations to help strengthen their relationship with the offenders. Because of this, more money is devolved towards reintegrating the offenders by building reentry facilities for the learning purposes. The paper will define community corrections and early alternative sanctions as well as its philosophy. Similarly, it will discuss the suggested theoretical approaches to reintegration and offender treatment as well as legislative responses to the community. Definition of community corrections and reason for the emergence Community corrections are defined as non-incarcerating correctional sanctions imposed on offenders with the aim of reintegrating them into the society (Hanser, 2013). The above definition is important because it entails many aspects that are worth understanding and considering. It acknowledges that community corrections comprise of programs without incarceration (Hanser, 2013). It provides alternatives to jail because of the existing social challenges. Therefore, it offers an alternative to the front end and back end of the correctional system under the judicial system such as rehabilitation and split sentencing. Community correction did not just emerge without its source; certain factors inspired it. The historical developments can be traced through sanctuary, benefits of clergy, judicial reprieve, and recognizance (Hanser, 2013). These four sanctions used in European nations contributed to the development of community correction as they are applied today. Sanctuary: sanctuaries were sacred religious grounds or cities where the accused ran and hid. They were situated away from the public, hence difficult for soldiers to reach looking for the accused. Similarly, soldiers were forbidden to enter in search of accused. The suspected criminals or accused confessed their crimes and were granted abjuration, and they were never allowed to return without the permission from the crown (Hanser, 2013). Therefore, it provided leniency to the accused. Benefit of clergy: it was an exemption given to the clergy in Europe. It benefited members of various religious institutions such as clerics, nuns, monks among others accused of crimes (Hanser, 2013). The accused were delivered to church authorities for punishment as they avoided secular courts. Judicial reprieve: this started in 1700s and used in cases where the judges did not feel incarceration was appropriate and would yield the expected benefit (Hanser, 2013). Therefore, it suspended sentences of incarceration and replaced it with leniency for the accused. However, it was only applicable to minor offenders and those with no prior records. Recognizance: this stems back in the case of Commonwealth v. Chase (1830) in the US (Hanser, 2013). The accused was found guilty of stealing from a home and pleaded her guilt. She had other friends who also pleaded a leniency in the same court leading to their release before the final acquittal. This forms the current probation as a community correctional. Early historical precursors to probation and parole Probation and parole play an important role in community correction because of their ability to correct the accused. Therefore, they have four goals to play in community correction, and they include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (Hanser, 2013). Rehabilitation and deterrence focus on the offender as retribution and incapacitation focuses on the crime committed. Retribution: the proponents of these argued that offenders of crime should be punished in a manner that is in line with the offense or crime committed (Hanser, 2013). Hence, they believe that every crime should be proportional to the punishment making it lay the ground for parole and probation. Deterrence: this was meant to discourage those who intended to commit an offense through seeing the punishment the criminals go through (Hanser, 2013). Its aim is to discourage criminal actions through punishment and instilling fear. Similarly, it inflicts fears on the offender through punishment to avoid a repeat of the same. Incapacitation: this aimed at depriving the offender the liberty and removing them from the society with the aim of preventing the society from further victimization when in incarceration (Hanser, 2013). This was meant to correct offenders who were more dangerous to the society by confining them. Rehabilitation: this meant that offenders be given a chance or means of fulfilling a constructive functioning in the society with the aim that they will be deterred from doing the past mistakes. Similarly, it protects the offenders from losing their status as well as a role in the society because of their criminality. Philosophical underpinnings associated with sentencing and administration of offender supervision There are three approaches towards sentencing and the administration of offender supervision, and they include assessment, evaluation, and intervention (Hanser, 2013). Sentencing of an offender is a long process and entails a judicial process. Therefore, it entails more than the expected to convict an individual. Similarly, the emergence of community corrections has facilitated some offenders to serve their term under the community watch, hence calling the work of the supervisor who comes from the society. Under such circumstances, stages must be followed to enhance supervision often offender who is serving under community watch. The following are the stages in loved in the process: Assessment plays the role of providing understanding to the supervision officer on the current functioning of the offender (Hanser, 2013). It will facilitate better understanding of the offender from personal interviews as well as from close friends and family members. Through this, the correctional officers or community supervisors will know how to relate with the offender towards reintegration in the community. The second stage involves evaluation, which entails incorporating the assessment information into the process of planning to enable goals setting for the offender (Hanser, 2013). The evaluation process includes focusing on the offender’s problem, and the goals sought the psychological and social situation and need to find help for the problem (Hanser, 2013). Lastly, the nature and purpose of the agencies as well as support that can be made available. Moreover, the evaluation stage considers the process and the desired outcome that can help the offender to reintegrate into the society (Hanser, 2013). Lastly, intervention stages involve all activities as well as actions aimed at bringing behavioral change in a desired manner (Hanser, 2013). At this stage, the relationship between the offender and the community supervisor is necessary, and both must adhere to the rules. Similarly, the community supervisor must stay close to the offender to ensure that the compliance is maintained and on the right path towards the reintegration. Recent legislative responses to supervising offenders in the community In efforts to supervise offenders in the community correction, many policies have been developed to address the problem. They also help in reintegrating the offenders in the community by protecting all the individuals involved as well as community members and supervisors. Some of the legislation include Community Correction Act and Second Chance Act (Hanser, 2013). Community Corrections Act: The Act was developed in the1970s to incorporate the members of the community to participate in the supervision of offenders (Hanser, 2013). The law was designed and passed due to lack of trust in state governments and liberals. The act addresses the needs of the local communities and values their partnership with state and local governments towards achieving the goals of community corrections. Moreover, the act calls for a statewide mechanism where it involves the citizen's participation and funding of local government units to plan and develop correctional sanctions within the grassroots. Many states have passed similar laws, and they have a common goal of increasing public safety, improving local programs and promoting collaboration between states and communities (Hanser, 2013). Further, the goals include promoting creative options within the community and providing a variety of choices within the community (Hanser, 2013). Second Chance Act: The Act was signed in 2007 by President Bush to provide communities with support towards assisting offenders get back into the community. The focus of the act was to on training, housing, and the treatment of substance abuse and mental health (Hanser, 2013). It was also to expand the offender’s projects as they re-enter the community and make them productive towards addressing the societal challenges. The central government has designated funds towards establishing re-entry resource centers in different parts of the country following the provision of the act. Similarly, the act warrant for distribution of money to local communities towards reducing overlap of services and enhancing monitoring the offenders (Hanser, 2013). Moreover, the act increases family bonds and drug treatments among the offenders, and they reintegrate into the society. The effort of passing the act signifies the commitments of the state in addressing the problem of overcrowding witnessed in many correctional facilities and efforts to assisting families of the incarcerated. Four main purposes of punishment and ways they serve as a guide for policy and practice Rehabilitation: This type of punishment is effective in changing the offender to make them better citizens afterward. It involves counseling, drug treatment, mandatory vocational training with the aim of enhancing a behavioral change among the offenders (Hanser, 2013). Moreover, it is helpful because the offender is restrained or enjoys minimum freedom, hence cannot commit another offense. Retribution: this encompasses doing to others what they have done. For instance, those who kill are also killed to feel the similar pain. This is very dangerous and nobody like being subjected to harm. Similarly, people are afraid of pain that they might undergo, hence will try all they can to avoid such punishments. Deterrence: people are afraid of punishment, hence deters them from engaging in criminal behavior or unacceptable acts within the society. Similarly, it cautions or instills fear on the potential offenders making them afraid of doing similar law (Hanser, 2013). Because of this, it contributes to minimizing criminal behaviors since nobody welcomes suffering. Incapacitation: this is every effective since it imprisons offenders hence restricting their movements. The restraint is effective because the offender does not meet people or things that motivate them towards such actions. Similarly, it is useful because one undergoes some forms of punishments that change the behaviors to become a better person in future or when freed. Conclusion Community corrections are playing a vital role in reducing pressure on the few resources available in the jails. It provides an alternative to incarceration hence giving the offenders a chance to serve their community. Since the development of community corrections, many legislations have been passed to strengthen the relationship between the offenders and their communities and realized a positive response. Through the legislations, the government devolves funds that assist communities in reintegrating the offenders. This strategy helps them to adapt quickly and become useful members of the society through positive contribution. Reference Hanser, R. (2013). Community corrections. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Read More