Can You Teach An Old Dog New Tricks?

It seems that in many respects the traditional sentencing of offenders has simply failed. In response to this many people are beginning to suggest rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration and other standard sentences. But what exactly is rehabilitation? In a nutshell, it means to change an offender’s behavior in such a way that it adheres to societal norms – basically, make them normal. Rehabilitation can undoubtedly provide society a great service, if it in fact works as the definition suggests it should. Though the definition sounds simple enough, it is a highly complicated matter that involves attempting to completely change not only what a person does, but in most cases, who a person is. As such, it continues to be a highly controversial goal of the criminal justice system and rehabilitation policies always seem to be under the microscope. While some claim that certain rehabilitation practices do in fact make a difference in reducing recidivism and should be more commonly utilized, others argue that rehabilitation is simply a waste of time. There is merit to both and ultimately, it just comes down to a matter of what works and what doesn’t.  

One success story, if you will, is the use of drug courts. This type of rehabilitation is typically utilized in one of two fashions. The first is prior to prosecution in which the offender is either not prosecuted further or the charges are dismissed altogether. The second is after a guilty plea has been entered in which case sentencing will be waived, and in many cases the records expunged. Both approaches are reliant upon successful completion of the program however. Studies by the United States Accountability Office (2005), on the effectiveness of drug courts have shown that in-program recidivism reduces significantly and post-program recidivism also declines though there have been mixed results regarding drug courts’ abilities to reduce substance relapse. The inability of the programs to prevent relapse has been the cause of scrutiny, but they do help some and therefore make a difference. It is for this difference many fight for the increased use drug courts and programs like them because for every offender successfully rehabilitated, society has one less criminal in their midst.

Less optimistic views claim that efforts to rehabilitate offenders are simply useless. Some even go so far as to argue that rehabilitation is a ridiculous concept because you cannot turn offenders into something they never were (American Community Corrections Institute, 2010). A similar notion to the old dogs can’t learn new tricks saying. A cited example of this failure is the program aimed at juveniles, Scared Straight. Still in practice today and nationally televised, this attempt at rehabilitation uses deterrence as its underlying method of operation. At risk youth and juvenile offenders are taken to jails and prisons and shown what their future will look like if they continue down their destructive paths. The idea behind these programs is that a realistic glimpse of the future that awaits the troubled youth will help to “scare them straight”. While the programs have good intentions, the fact of the matter is recidivism rate in juveniles who participated in Scared Straight actually went up compared to those who received no intervention (Schembri, 2006). Clearly a failure, Scared Straight helps make the case against rehabilitation programs.

While rehabilitation is more widely accepted today as a viable goal of corrections, this was not always the case. Opinions have been changed over time as seen with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who only added the “R” to their name on July 1, 2005 (GAO, 2005). Although many corrections departments now include rehabilitation in their mission statements, there is still a long way to go if it is to be a successful endeavor. While opponents are simply waiting for the rest of the world to see it can’t be done, those in favor are working hard to develop new, successful rehabilitation programs to offer offenders. It has taken a long time to get practices where they are today, and it will no doubt take even longer to discover if there are in fact methods of rehabilitation that will prove effective enough to be used around the world. I hope those for and against can both at least agree to allow efforts to continue as there is still so much left to discover about criminals and why they do what they do. Perhaps we have simply not yet found the solution to helping offenders change their ways, but then again, there is no saying we ever will.

References:

American Community Corrections Institute. (2010). Rehabilitation in the Criminal Justice System. Offender Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.offender-rehabilitation.com/rehabilitation-in-the-criminal-justice-system/

Bureau of State Audits. (2005). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: The Intermediate Sanction Programs Lacked Performance Benchmarks and Were Plagued With Implementation Problems. Retrieved from http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2005-111.pdf

GAO. (2005). Adult Drug Courts. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219.pdf

Schembri, Anthony J. (2006, August 1). White Paper: Scared Straight Programs, Jail and Detention Tours. Retrieved from http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Scared_Straight_Booklet_Version.pdf

How Much Information is Too Much?

Whenever there is a discussion regarding sentencing the topic of sex offenders cannot be ignored. There have been various methods employed with the attempt to appropriately sentence and punish sex offenders. However, there is a subcategory of conflict and divided opinion between those who consider incarceration most appropriate and those who consider medical treatment most appropriate for sex offenders. The varieties of sentencing options include group and or individual counseling, traditional incarceration, and even chemical and surgical castration. Some places still use varying methods of castration including certain states within the United States and the Czech Republic, who uses surgical castration at the request of prisoners (Mullins, 2009). Although there is a variety of sentencing options, there are mixed reviews about whether any of these methods are effective.

In addition to the sentencing practices mentioned above, many countries have adopted the use of sex offender registries to maintain the whereabouts of sex offenders. The use of this system varies greatly from country to country. For example, the United Kingdom provides an extensive registry called ViSOR, which is a multi-agency collaboration across all regions of the UK (National Policing Improvement Agency, 2010). Canada also has a national sex offender registry that was established by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, which is a national sex offender database that contains information on convicted sex offenders. This provides police with an essential investigative tool (Public Safety Canada, 2011). Both of these registries are helpful for the countries they serve, however, in some counties the essential information on sex registries can only be accessed by law enforcement officials (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2008). However, this is not the case in the United States.

 Unlike those of Canada and the UK, citizens can access the registries of each state in the United States. The online sex offender registry gives the general public access to an array of information including the address of some offenders, the offense, a picture, and full description of the criminal. The motivation for this system began after the murder and rape of 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994 (Nevada Department of Public Safety, 2010). The idea is that if citizens are able to know where offenders live in their communities they can be vigilant while avoiding and deterring future sex crimes.

Overall the fact that anyone in the United States can get on the internet and find sex offenders in any area provides a since of awareness. But can access to this information hinder as much as it helps? The instinctive answer is no, however the discussion of sex offenders frequently involves emotion and there is a perception that those on the sex offender registry are mainly child molesters or pedophiles.  Although there are offenders guilty of crimes against children, not all people guilty of a sex offense committed a crime against children. The offenses that force someone to have to register for the rest of their lives vary state-to-state. Having access to this kind of sensitive information can be cause for undue harassment, especially if the information is not presented in a way to avoid misunderstandings. There is a disclaimer of sorts warning citizens not to use the information to discriminate or harass offenders; however bold type words are hardly enough to stop discrimination or in extreme cases, crimes against the offenders.

 While sentencing processes should continue to evolve it is also essential to educate the public. It is essential to educate the public about the different types of sex offenders to prevent any form of discrimination. A possible way to evolve the system is to have separate registries for offenders who commit sexual crimes against children, which is the crime a majority of citizens equate with anyone on the sex offender list, and those who commit other types of sex crimes. Both of the lists would still be available to the public. Education coupled with evolving sentencing procedures can give law enforcement and the community a better sense of security while protecting the rights sex offenders maintain.

 

References

Nevada Department of Public Safety. (2010). Nevada Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from http://www.nvsexoffenders.gov/sorstart.aspx

National Policing Improvement Agency. (2010). Dangerous Persons Database – ViSOR. Retrieved from http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10510.htm
Public Safety Canada. (2011). National Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/tls/soir-eng.aspxRoyal Canadian Mounted Police. (2008). National Sex Offender Registry. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tops-opst/bs-sc/nsor-rnds/prog-eng.htm

Mullins, K.J. (2009, February 11). Czech Republic Uses Surgical Castration on Sex Offenders. Digital Journal. Retrieved from http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267014

Nieto, Marcus. (2004). Community Treatment and Supervision of Sex Offenders: How It’s Done Across the Country and in California. California State Library – California Research Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf

Time for Change?

Sentencing criminals has been a topic of controversy for as long as it has been around. For centuries it has been up to much debate as to what to do with law violators, and interestingly enough this is still a predicament today. Throughout history there is documentation of criminals being exported to other lands, killed, tortured, and shunned. While modern sentencing includes a variety of punishments such as fines, incarceration, parole, probation, community service, and death. More recently attempts have been made to introduce intermediate sanctions for all types of criminal offenders such as boot camps, house arrest, drug courts, and even drug rehabilitation programs. The ever-evolving efforts to effectively sentence criminals shows that sentencing is of great importance to the criminal justice system. Sentencing is how justice is achieved for the victims and the community. Ideally, the effects of sentencing would deter individuals from committing future criminal offenses. However, there is clearly a flaw in the appropriateness of sentencing since the recidivism rates continue to grow.

Despite the creation of numerous sentencing methods and policies that have been implemented with the attempt to diminish criminal behavior, there is still an ever-increasing rate of recidivism. This is proven by the abundance of published statistics by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). BJS has stated on several occasions that the number of adults in corrections has been increasing. In 2007, over one million offenders on parole were considered at risk of reincarceration, and in 2009 there were over 7.2 million people under some form of correctional supervision (BJS, 2009). The increasing rates of recidivism are portrayed as a failure in the criminal justice system and it would appear as though sentences are not harsh enough to prevent crime from occurring. Reducing the crime rate is a goal of every law enforcement practitioner; however problems remain when determining what sentences are appropriate that can reduce recidivism, ensure justice, and are cost effective.

Whenever sentencing and corrections are discussed it is common to be concerned with the fiscal impacts. For example, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was allocated $9,776,618,000 for the fiscal year of 2007-2008, and the question on many minds is what is that massive amount is being budgeted for. The goal of the money being spent on corrections and the several sentencing options like probation, parole, etc. is to serve justice for the victims, ensure that the criminal is punished for their criminal choices, and essentially to reduce crime rates. However, there is much controversy over the continued outcomes of such sentences being handed out. Crime rates aren’t decreasing, which infuriates society that so much tax payer money is being spent on this aspect of the criminal justice system that is not appearing to work. So the question remains, is there another option for sentencing that could have better results?

In the United States, prisons have been the method of sentencing for years. However, the costs both fiscally and socially may suggest it is time to determine if current practices are the best. Statistics can’t be ignored and they show that perhaps our current methods simply aren’t cutting it. It is possible that if nothing changes, we will be left with the same problems and crime trends. On the other hand, it may be determined that current methods are the best available. Regardless, there should be constant evaluation of whatever practices are being used to allow for improvements. Ultimately the goal of sentencing is simple, to punish the offender responsible for the crime, to deter them and others from future criminal behavior, to rehabilitate offenders, and to show that reduction of recidivism is possible.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Correctional Population Trends Chart. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm

 Bureau of Justice Statisctics. (2011). Recidivism. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2011). Budget Management. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Budget/index.html

California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2011). How Much Do California Counties Spend on Local Corrections? Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/2_cj_county_spending.aspx?catid=3