Factors of Former Incarcerated Person Perceptions of Reentry - Thesis Proposal Example

Introduction In 2002, there were more than 2 million persons in federal and prisons in the United s and 95 percent of them will be released to reintegrate into society (Bahr, Armstrong, Gibbs, Harris, & Fisher, 2005). Approximately 600,000 offenders are released annually in the United States or an average of 1,600 per day. This is four times greater than the number of offenders who were released 25 years ago (Bahr, et al., 2005). If there is no presence of proper training, programs, and services provided for former incarcerated persons, there could be a possible threat of non- successful reentry. Most former incarcerated persons are released into the community under some type of community supervision, using parole. With more than two-thirds of prisoners re-arrested within three years of their release from prison, a rate that has not changed in nearly thirty years, the state department of corrections and related organizations seek to find alternative solutions to address this issue (U.S. Department of Justice Programs, Reentry, 2006). The process of prison reentry (reintroduction to society programs) is the process of leaving prison and making a return to the society (La Vigne, 2006). This process involves policy makers, rectification agencies and the broad public. This process is extremely important in ensuring that the public and the prisoners get in to good terms (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). Proper preparations need to be done before the release, and that both the prisoners and the public are prepared for one another (Schmalleger, 2007). However, examining Former Incarcerated Person Perceptions of Successful Reentry needs to be looked at. This depends with a number of variables ranging from the perception of the society on their status of being former prisoner, the correction programs, and influence of their neighborhood. Reentry involves any program or initiative that addresses concerns necessary to ensure offenders successfully transit from prison and uphold a crime-free existence post-release. The roles of reentry programs include enhancing public safety, reduce recidivism, and reduce crime (Vito, 2012). For example, the Ready4work is an ex-prison community program funded by the U.S department of labor. It was initiated to provide for the needs of ex-prisoners. It consists of employment training, job placement, drug treatment and other initiatives. The program mostly involves practical and emotional mentoring (Vito, 2012). In this regard, it is essential to note that both the correction programs and the perception of the society play a critical role in determining the perception of former incarcerated person perceptions of successful reentry. For example, correction programs that fail to tackle the possible causes of the criminal activities of the incarcerated person, and concentrate on punishing them; these people would develop some immunity and later revert to their criminal behaviors (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). On the other hand, when the society is not well informed of the importance of correction facilities and other reentry programs and their effects on the former incarcerated persons, they may end up developing some negative attitudes towards these people. If prisoners are only subjected to punishment and serving their jail term, their perception of successful reentry would be negative. For example, they may have the heart of revenge on persons they wronged. Their revenge may be facilitated by the suffering they might have undergone while in prison. Therefore, it would be essential to have programs that focus on changing the perception of former incarcerated persons, rather than just putting them in prison. Problem Statement There are many things to examine that determine successful former incarcerated persons’ reentry into the society. However, their perception depends with the transformation process during their jail term. Rehabilitation programs are very important in helping prisoners realize and correct their actions. They not only offer the prisoners with corrective measures but also equip them with some skills and training that enable them earn a living after they leave the prison (Schmalleger, 2007). These programs are designed in such a way that the prisoner is enlightened of the benefits of good coexistence with the community (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). They act as a link between the prisoners (criminals) and the public. The government is burdened by the responsibility of forming and funding reentry programs in order to facilitate former incarcerated persons recently to the society. The community has to be educated on the importance of accepting back and supporting these people (Gaines & Miller, 2011). On the other hand, the government has to ensure that former incarcerated persons adhere to the laws and desist from committing crimes again. Each state has to ensure that reentry programs functions properly. States have to employ probation officers to oversee that these programs runs accordingly. On the other hand, many former incarcerated persons have problems ranging from economic and their social life. Some of them losses their jobs while businesses of others fall as a result of imprisonment (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). The families and especially the children of incarcerated parent are faced with many challenges. They are not only faced with financial problems but also psychological torture. The situation is worsened by the fact that even after release from prison; many former incarcerated persons are discriminated against by the society. They have problems getting jobs due to their status of being former incarcerated persons. In this regard, reentry programs play a critical role in ensuring that these people reenter and reconcile with the community successfully. They assist them with getting jobs and linking them with community based financial agencies which help them with financial matters (Gaines & Miller, 2011). Reconciliation between former incarcerated persons and victims are fueled by probation officers. This way, former incarcerated persons, are able to leave harmoniously with the victims. They offer them with counseling services in order to mentor them on how to cope with real life situations. It is apparent that reentry programs help to reduce recidivism. Studies have indicated that if former incarcerated persons are not subjected to these programs end up committing previous crimes (Gaines & Miller, 2011). The relationship between former incarcerated persons and the community and especially the victims become sour if there are no efforts to enhance the relationship. Some of former incarcerated persons become immune to police arrests and imprisonment, and they commit a crime without any regard to the law. Some of the distinguished and efficient ways through which criminal justice system can achieve its objectives is through the use of the correction programs which have proved to effectively correct behaviors of many individuals with deviant behaviors (Gaines & Miller, 2011). When subjected to these programs, much attention is set on psychoanalysis and other counseling programs. This approach is used by the counselors to influence conscious thought and behavior (Hodge, 2009). It is an approach that includes cognitive techniques like reverting negative thoughts, anxiety, problem solving and general behavioral methods. For example, psychotherapy approach has developed a procedure of counseling people with drug and alcoholic problems (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). The process involves exploring the patient’s problem, assisting the client set goals, inspiring the client and helping them to uphold the changes they gain in the recovery process. It is believed that counseling process can change the individual behavior and the way they perceive their reentry to the society. Rehabilitation programs are necessary in assisting the prisoners realize and correct their deviant actions (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). They not only offer the prisoners with remedial measures but also provide them with some skills and training that enable them earn a living after they leave the prison (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). These programs are designed in such a way that the prisoner is enlightened of the benefits of good coexistence with the community. They act as a link between the prisoners (criminals) and the public (Solhkhah & Wilens, 1998). Harr, (2008) noted that the criminal justice system addresses the human needs of prisoners with an aim of expressing faith in them. This goes in line with the purpose of prisons other than punishing them, to correct the prisoner (Cressey, 1965). This idea helps the prisoners maintain their humanity and cooperate with the programs designed to rehabilitate them. The aim of inclusion of criminal justice system is to abstract values and not to punish the prisoners (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). General strain theory (GST) General strain theory (GST) was developed by Robert Agnew. GST focuses on the strain that people in all classes can feel. Agnew contended that strain isn’t just frustration over failing to achieve the goals that society imposes, but that strain includes many issues, as well. Failure to achieve middle-class success leads to strain in poor areas (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). In this regard, there are sub-cultures that develop in these poor neighborhoods which include violence, excitement, toughness, instant gratification, and risk taking among others. Therefore, strain theory can be used to elucidate how individual’s strain leads to delinquency and crime (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). A more individualized strain theory was introduced by Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton. They well thought-out that GST is a micro level, rather than micro level and should be expanded. According to Siegel & Welsh, (2012), it is character personality in the person that leads to their response to strain, and that these traits ends up making these individuals result to delinquency and crime with means of relieving the tension caused by strain (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). Most of the traits associated with strain are negative emotionality, which is provoked by strain causing anger, whose effects result in felony and criminal behavior to relieve the anger (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). According to this theory, it would be necessary to have a model of investigating and helping individuals with deviant act. In this regard, criminal justice system should focus on transforming the punishment centers into correction centers. Correction facilities should comprise of more deviant correction models than punishing the individuals (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). Labeling theory Beckers labeling theory defines deviance as breach or violation of some agreed-upon rules and regulations. The theory also goes further to inquire who breaks the rule and tends to search for factors that that instigate to break the rules (Gottfredson, & Hirschi, (2001). The theory assumes that individuals who break a rule comprise of a homogeneous category since they have committed the similar deviant act (Scheff, 1999). However, the degree to which different people responds to a given deviant act variess. At the same time, the degree to which an individual who have committed a deviant is responded to varies over time (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). A person who might have committed a deviant act at one time may be responded to more leniently than another person who might have committed the same deviant act at a different time (Cressey, 1965). Unfortunately, the degree to which an act of deviant is dealt with also depends with who commits the act and who feels has been offended or harmed by the act (May, 2008). In other words, rules tend to be applied more on some individuals than others. Some studies of juvenile delinquency indicate that boys from middle –class do not reach higher legal process when apprehended as boys from slum areas do. In most cases, the boys from middle-class are less likely to be taken to court when arrested by police (Gaines & Miller, 2011). Accordingly, some people engage in unruly behaviors due to the compromising legal system (Braithwaite, 1989). It is most likely that individuals from middle-class would tend to repeat the same deviant act since little attention is paid on them. On the other hand, individuals from lower class would tend to repeat the same deviant act if they are subjected to punishment other than correctional centers (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). Therefore, according to labeling theory, there is a need to have a fair legal system, which would treat all criminal acts equally. There is no deviant act which is less harming when committed by a certain category of people (Cressey, 1965). Goals and Objectives Going by the two theories, examining former incarcerated persons’ perception of successful reentry can look at the following independent variables: family support, employment, education, criminal history, and self- esteem. The objectives of this study are as follows: 1. To examine the relationship between perception of successful reentry and family support. 2. To examine the relationship between perception of successful reentry and employment. 3. To examine the relationship between perception of successful reentry and education. 4. To examine the relationship between perception of successful reentry and criminal history. 5. To examine the relationship between perception of successful reentry and self-esteem. Theoretical Framework Criminal history – the participants’ criminal history will be measured in the account of the number of felony convictions, a number of times one has served in prison, and current community supervision status. This will be of help in this research because it will help in evaluating whether former incarcerated persons obtained any help from reentry program. Although these programs are set up to help incarcerated persons, and specifically to reduce their level of recidivism, some people tend to repeat committing crimes even after being subjected to reentry programs. Therefore, this variable will help in ascertaining former incarcerated person’s perception of reentry programs. Family support- the participant’s family support will be determined in terms how the family has impacted their lives, and its perception about their past criminal activities. Their perception on reentry programs will be of help to this study. When one member of a family involves in criminal activities and incarcerated, it is apparent that his or her family members suffer psychologically and emotionally. Therefore, as reentry programs tends to help former incarcerated persons by changing their criminal activities, family members would be of help in indicating their perception about reentry programs. Employment- participant’s employment record will be evaluated in order to have an overview of how their criminal activities affected their jobs. Most former incarcerated persons have problems getting jobs. They are faced by social isolation from the members of the community. Employers have fears of employing persons with past criminal activities. However, reentry programs helps former incarcerated persons secure jobs after release from prison. This variable will help identify what employers and former incarcerated persons perceive about reentry programs. Education- the participant’s education background will be used to give an overview of how their education could have influenced their criminal activities. In case of juveniles who have had criminal records, getting back to school becomes difficult as they are ridiculed by other students, and some schools would fail to admit them in school with fear that they might influence other students negatively. In this regard, this variable would help determine what schools and other stake holders perceive about reentry programs. Self esteem- self esteem of former incarcerated persons may affect their lives in several ways. Participant’s self-esteem will be assessed to determine how it affects their lives. Due to stressful moments during prison life, and perhaps due to an unhealthy relationship with their victims, former incarcerated person’s self esteem may be lowed. In this regard, assessing former incarcerated person’s self esteem would be necessary in determining how they perceive about reentry programs and the role they play in increasing their level of self esteem. Data Discussion This study is of importance because it provides an examination of former incarcerated persons’ perception of successful reentry. If former incarcerated person do not return to prison, they may be offered with the chance to become productive citizens in the community. Reentry programs can provide the tools and resources for a successful reentry into society, by providing the former incarcerated person with the proper knowledge of how the free world operates legally. This study will investigate by examining former incarcerated persons’ perception of successful reentry. Data will be collected through the use of questionnaires and interview. Former incarcerated persons would provide a detailed analysis of what they think a reentry program purpose is, what they want to gain from the reentry program, what stage are they in now after reentry into society. The sample size will be around 50-100 and will take a month to collect all of the data and to input it. Then I will analysis data and talk about the limitations of the study that occurred. References Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J.P., & Cullen, F.T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40(1), 43-73. Bahr, S. J., Armstrong, A. H., Gibbs, B. G., Harris, P. E., Fisher, J. K. (2005). The Reentry Process; How Parolees Adjust to Release from Prison. Fathering. (Vol.3 (3), pp. 243-265). The Men’s Studies Press, LLC. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Briggs, S. & Friedman, J. (2009). Criminology for dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Cernkovich, S.A., Giordano, P.C., & Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Race, crime, and the American dream. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37(2), 131-38. Cressey, D. R. (1965). Social psychological foundations for using criminals in the rehabilitation of criminals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2(2), 49-59. Gaines, L. & Miller, R. (2011). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (2001). A general theory of crime. Stanford, Calif. Stanford Univ. Press. Harr, J. (2008). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Hodge, A. (2009). Understanding the components within the criminal justice system 101. S.l.: Outskirts Press. La Vigne, G. et al. (2006). Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. Washington: Urban Institute. May, C. (2008). Corrections and the criminal justice system. Udbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Pub. Scheff, T. (1999). Being mentally ill: a sociological theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Schmalleger, F. (2007). Criminal justice today: an introductory text for the twenty-frist century. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Solhkhah, R. & Wilens, E. Timothy (1998). Pharmacotherapy of Adolescent Alcohol and Other Drug Use Disorders. Alcohol Health & Research World, 22, 2: 1-99. U.S. Department of Justice: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics www.ojp.usdoj.gov Read More