Alternative Programs to Incarceration - Essay Example

Running Head: principles and evidence Prepare a paper for a staff meeting identifying principles and evidence that should inform an effective approach to community based supervision (1-1 or group work) in work with offenders placed on probation [Name of the writer] [Name of the institution] Prepare a paper for a staff meeting identifying principles and evidence that should inform an effective approach to community based supervision (1-1 or group work) in work with offenders placed on probation There are several programs available as an alternative to incarceration, the earliest being probation. Probation is still widely used for first time offenders. This program allows the offender a sort f second chance in the community. Offenders on probation must report to their probation officer anywhere from once a month to three or four times a week depending on their case need. On the average offenders are required to report once a week. Aside from reporting to their probation officers, offenders may have certain criteria they must meet and accomplish as a condition f probation. Some of the conditions may be a requirement for employment, school, or community service hours. These conditions must be met to satisfy the sanction, if they are not met the offender would be in violation and sent to jail or prison. Probation and parole are the primary alternatives to jails and prisons while there are many similarities between these two systems there are a few obvious differences. One difference is evident in their definitions. Probation is defined as "releasing the convicted offenders into the community under a conditional suspended sentence, avoiding imprisonment, showing good behaviour under the supervision f a probation officer" (Black, 1990:1202 cited in Champion, 2005, p. 131). Parole is defined as "the conditional release of a prisoner from (either prison or jail) under supervision after a portion of the sentence has been served (McKean and Raphael, 2002 cited in Champion, 2005, p. 286). The obvious difference is that probationers have the opportunity to avoid incarceration where as parolees are incarcerated first and then have the opportunity for early release from prison after serving a portion of their sentence in prison or jail. The exception to this rule is called Shock Probation which is a relatively new practice that some states have adopted. The concept of Shock Probation is almost identical in nature to the parole system except Shock Probation sentences the offender to jail not prison. Also, when the offender is sentenced he is led to believe that he is going to serve his entire sentence in jail. Another difference is that probation is usually only available to those who have committed minor offences while parole is reserved for more serious offences. Also, the parolees may be subject to more rigid rules to follow while under supervision than probationers and they must abide by these rules in order to avoid being sent back to prison. High rates of criminal activities unfortunately are an essential feature f modern urban life in most countries. The conditions of living, psychological and social issues evolving in cities often favour deviating, criminal behaviour. Situations, with this kind of behaviour becomes even a socially accepted norm within a given community, are met, unfortunately, quite often. The Police are and always will be the first line f defence when tackling crime Whilst there are many forms of policing available to them including foot and mobile patrols along with community Policing with high presence/visibility, McNamara argues that only a multi disciplinary partnership can succeed against crime with residents being the foundation of any fight that tackles the problems of society. Therefore In order to understand the question we have to examine some of the evidence that is documented with regard to community crime initiatives that have worked in a multi partnership. These partnerships have involved the police, residents and the voluntary and private sector and it is not just simply about applying the "Broken Window" theory to estates. There have been the successes with regard to projects that have worked in partnership one being the Kirkholt project. In applying the same principles from Kirkholt one can see some success and arguably set the standard for any project that was about to follow in it' wake with regard to working in partnership with residents more so on a local level in Brandon Co Durham. Whilst it will be shown these projects achieved their aim, there is however those who will not take advantage f these projects and carry on with a criminal agenda. In 1991 the Government introduced referral orders a major move on the Governments behalf in addressing the alleged problem of youth crime. This culminated in the Youth offender Panel Implemented by the Government on a national level in April 2002 and based upon the principal of restorative justice where by which the offender is encouraged to look at the effect f their crime on their family, victim and the community again involves residents from the community, and again provides another level where there is participation. . Whilst this paper will examine the panels more closely within the main body we therefore have to look at the effectiveness of these panels. Primarily as directed within the question what are the advantages and disadvantages of these panels for members of the community who serve on them and the communities they serve. Alison Morris an exponent of the restorative justice model points to the success f initiatives such as Glasgow. However she is also forced to concede as we will see accepts there some problems with the restorative model and evidence resented will show there has been mixed success with these panels. Therefore can this form of restorative Justice really work for communities and thus divides communities into disorganised and even disadvantaged as Hope and Shaw suggest, or is it effectively another white elephant that allows the Government to massage figures and fail the very communities they were set up to help and is arguably forming a tokenism approach by the Government to keeping the masses happy, and in turn the people who serve on these panels. Whilst the intentions of the Serving Government may be honourable can as Carrabine suggests these people truly understand the complex nature of society and the problems that people are faced with in these Post modern communities, and in turn failing the communities they are wanting to serve and protect from crime Whilst there is enough money being allocated to this measure there too have also been critics of these panels as we will see in the HMIC thematic report f 2002. In turn this forces to focus more heavily on the question set and arrive at a conclusion. What are the benefits to these people in working partnership with agencies Of course there is the belief that through consultation and delegation of tasks residents will again form a sense of community and hopefully reduce the crime in their areas or are the problems to inherent in these communities for any agency to tackle. The efficiency and effectiveness of the police force is always under constant scrutiny. The police service is required to carry out its role f protecting and serving the community, with minimum resources in the most productive and cost effective method possible. One way in which the police are able to deal with the ever increase in crime, is through the partnerships they have developed with other public and private bodies. These organisations aid the police in many different forms from providing support and advice, to physically helping to police society (Lea.2002). Within these communities the Police patrol and help, there will always be an element of youth crime. Many residents especially elder residents argue that they are harassed and even frightened by groups/gangs of young people (Jewkes & Letherby, 2002). In order to allay these fears the Police have to work in close partnerships with many statutory agencies and agencies from the private and voluntary success. An alternative approach to law enforcement community policing. Joseph McNamara, argues that even the most valiant police work often fails to reduce crime. On the other hand, when neighbourhood citizens become organised and worked with the police it was possible to drive out the criminal element and reduce burglaries and solve other problems resistant to traditional police methods. Strict enforcement was frequently part of the solution, but it was enforcement demanded by neighbourhood people as opposed to the random arbitrary and repressive enforcement f 'Fixing Broken Windows'(Kelling & Coles, 1996).However the major flaw in the 'Fixing Broken Windows' philosophy is that it creates an 'under class' made up of minor offenders for the police to harass and attack based on the theory that doing so prevents crime." (McNamara 1997).Whilst it would be easy to dismiss the 'broken window' theory it still does provide a basis where to start from when wanting to address crime within the community. It does identify a problem and very frequently residents within these communities argue that the police and council do nothing and have allowed the estate to fall into disrepair and neglect. This in turn allows the criminal and anti social elements to flourish. However an early example of community partnership and often the model applied to most schemes when tackling crimes within the community is the Kirkholt project in the early 80s .Underpinned by consultations with the community and adopting a multi disciplinary approach with constant monitoring. It reported an 80% decline in domestic burglaries over the first seven months and a 75% reduction in the burglary rate over a three year period. This was compared to a reduction f only 24% in the remainder of the division. Residents Through identifying the stakeholders and the benefits it would bring to the communities residents did reap the benefits ( ncp.gov). More recently policing has been shown to be effective through partnership was in the village in Brandon, County Durham. The initiative involved a partnership between the police, fire service, district and county councils and other organisations including the County Durham Youth Engagement Service as well as members of the community. Extra police officers as well as youth workers identified and talked to young people. Through this pro-active involvement the police and the youth services attached to this programme were able to identify what they wanted and involve them in decision-making at a local level. Police said there has been a drop of 70% in the number f "nuisance" incidents reported by local people (bbc.2004).Whilst it would appear from the research about this community project and applaud their success we have discuss the remainder, the 30% that got away. Assumptions have to be made that within this 30% there was some crime committed and the perpetrators were brought to justice. The justice system therefore becomes re-active as opposed to a pro-active stance as taken by the agencies as residents from Brandon. In 1991 the introduction of referral orders and Youth Panels took place. As part of The Government's strategy to prevent offending by young people. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1991 saw a major shift in the national agenda with by the labour Government regards to restorative justice and Youth Crime (Carrington & Hogg 2002).In April 2002, youth courts found themselves having to will refer all young offenders (aged 10-17) who pleaded guilty for their first time were referred to a youth offender panel (court determines the length of the order (between three and twelve months) according to the seriousness of the offence. Compromising of least two volunteers f the public who represented the local community, and a member of the youth offending team. These members from the community were to lead the panel and chair the meeting (YOT team sat in an advisory role). Within this hearing the victim may well have to confront his victim and make reparation along with background information all sides of the story can be heard. After the decision has been arrived at the said course of action agreed. The panel will monitor the offender's Progress. If at the end f the referral order period the contract has been successfully completed, the conviction will be spent. If however the offender is unwilling to fails to complete the agreed course they will be referred back to court which may Revoke the order and impose an alternative sentence (HMSO, 2002). Alison Morris an advocate of restorative justice acknowledges that restorative justice advocates that through this process victim and offenders come together all be it a facilitory body where offenders' victims and community leaders can discuss these problems and make a direct intervention. In Glasgow a scheme which forces young offenders to face up to their crimes has reported a 99% success rate. f the 500 youths who entered the Restorative Justice programme in Glasgow only 5 committed further crimes. Part of the scheme involves a meeting between the offender and the victim to encourage youngsters to face the consequences of their actions. Young people joined the scheme after being referred to the children's panel. Having been found guilty of offences such as burglary, assault, possessing offensive weapons and arson. The scheme compromises f a three tier approach. The first level of the scheme involves the Young person receiving a restorative caution. This looks at the reasons for offending and aims to steer the youth away from crime. The second stage involves a meeting between the offender, his or her family and the victim of their crime. The third and level is for those who have carried out four or five offences, by which they must attend a dozen two-hour sessions on a course designed to stop repeat offending. Deputy leader Councillor Jim Coleman said: "Glasgow accounts for about 30% f all offences referred to the reporter to the children's panel in Scotland. The programme is designed to ensure that young people involved in petty crime face up to their behaviour." From relatively minor offences to more serious crimes, restorative justice offers the chance to make amends"(Scotsman.2003) Restorative justice is a way of thinking about conflict and a way f acting on that thinking. Primarily it challenges people as a community to examine how they respond and go onto resolve these issues (Morris, 2002). References Black, H. C. (1990). Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Carrabine, E. (2004).Criminology Sociological Introduction.Routledge,London. Carrington. K & Hogg.R. (2002).Critical Criminology.Issues,Debates,Challenges. Willan Publishing Devon. Champion, D. J. (2005). Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. HMIC (2002) Calling Time on Crime A Thematic Report. HMSO (Feb 2002).Referral Orders & Youth Offender Panels.Guidance for Courts,Youth Offending Teams & Offender Panels Hope, T & Shaw,M (1998). Community Approaches To Reducing Crime. Cited in Communities And Crime Reduction. H.M.S.O. Jewkes. Y & Letherby.G (2002) Criminology : A Reader.Sage London. Kelling G.L & Coles,C.M (1996).Fixing Broken Windows.Martin Kessler Books. Lea J. (2002).Crime and Modernity.Sage London. McKean, L. and Raphael, J. (2002). Drugs, Crime and Consequences: Arrests and Incarceration in North Lawndale. Chicago: Center for Impact Research. McNamara J D. (1997). The Secret War. Anderson Publishing Co. Morris A.(2002).Critiquing The Critics.Brit.J.Criminol 42 596-615. References: Read More