In today’s society, many people commit crimes and illegal behavior is nothing new. Society knows that there are criminals and they have criminal intentions. The question today is not if people are going to commit crimes, it is finding the most effective method to help those criminals reenter society as productive citizens, and preventing new people from becoming criminals. Department of corrections around the nation have implemented a program that identifies the most effective method. The “what works” movement outlines four general principles that are implemented in the rehabilitation of criminals; and, these principles are risk principle, criminogenic need principle, treatment principle, and fidelity principle. In the first place, the risk principle focuses on high-risk criminals who are likely to reoffend. This principle should match the level of intervention with the offender’s risk level. As written by Van der Knaap, Alberda, Oosterveld & Born, “The need principle suggests that interventions should address dynamic risk factors— or criminogenic needs—because they are aspects of a person or his or her situation, which, when changed, are associated with changes in the chance of recidivism. (Van der Knaap, Alberda, Oosterveld & Born, 2012, p. 413)” The high-risk criminals are targeted for this program after being assessed for risk. The criminals this principle undergo intensive treatments. It is not effective to use this principle with low risk criminals since it is likely to cause more damage than advantage. Of course, the risk principle is effective for high-risk criminals. However, it should not be used for low risk offenders since it is likely to place low risk lawbreakers in the same areas as high-risk prisoners. Then the low... ... middle of paper ... ...(2004). Applying the principles of effective intervention to juvenile correctional programs. Corrections Today, 66(7), 26-29. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4bd9d7f2-8ac5-42c6-a100-a2443eda9cbf@sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4213 Van der Knaap, L., Alberda, D., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism.Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 413-422. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5dc33823-1541-4e10-9ac6-36b6fbb83bbf@sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4203 Wright, J. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice. (p. 9.1). San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCRJ201.12.1/sections/sec9.1
These women have been increasingly going to jail for longer periods of time for minor crimes, the most frequent crimes that are being convicted are mostly related to drug and alcohol related crimes as well as theft (Mental Health Coordinating Council, 2010). A survey conducted in New South Wales of female inmates had concluded that; 80% are current smokers, 78% have used an illicit drug(s), 67% were unemployed in the six months prior to incarceration, and 66% of these women had also been in a violent/abusive relationship (Mental Health Coordinating Council, 2010). It has been argued that the risk factors for offenders are derived from that of genetic theories of crime and that they are an adequate guide for correctional supervision and treatment-planning decisions for females, however others argue that this approach is highly flawed and does not take into account gender differences (Rettinger & Andrews 2010). This is an issue in the CJS and its importance cannot be undervalued, the assessment for the risk and need has implications for the assignment of female offenders to a correction option that is the least restrictive, the assignment to an appropriate intervention dosage, appropriate targeting of criminogenic needs, and an understanding of female offending (Rettinger & Andrews 2010). Due to the increasingly large number
Throughout his novel, Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire, author and professor Robert Perkinson outlines the three current dominant purposes of prison. The first, punishment, is the act of disciplining offenders in an effort to prevent them from recommitting a particular crime. Harsh punishment encourages prisoners to behave because many will not want to face the consequences of further incarceration. While the purpose of punishment is often denounced, many do agree that prison should continue to be used as a means of protecting law-abiding citizens from violent offenders. The isolation of inmates, prison’s second purpose, exists to protect the public. Rehabilitation is currently the third purpose of prison. Rehabilitation is considered successful when a prisoner does n...
73). This model is designed to give convicts the control to decide if they serve on low end of the range of years or the high end of the range of years. The responsibility is on the inmate to take part in and complete the rehabilitation programs within the prison successfully, or spend a longer time in prison for failure to do so. One of issues with this sentencing model is that not all convicts want to change their behavior, and often end up serving most of, if not the entire sentence. This model leads to severe overcrowding, which affects the quality of life and the rehabilitation programs within the prison. “The core problems of an increasing prison population will result in administrative release compelled by overcrowding rather than an individualized and measured assessment” (Perrin, 2010). The mixing of violent and nonviolent offenders makes it difficult to distinguish who deserves to be released, and who should remain in
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
One of the most commonly used classification systems for offenders is the combination of risk assessment and need assessment. The combination of these two systems of classification is rather new. The earliest types of classification focused mainly on offender risks by using custody classification and separating prisoners into minimum, medium, and maximum security (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Early risks assessments appeared to only focus on historical factors that did not tend to change over time. A supplement of the classification was introduced with the original needs assessment system. The needs assessment was meant to offer information relevant to treatment (Van Voorhis et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the needs assessments were rarely used for the purposes of locating treatment. The introduction of models that combined the two assessments was paramount because it opened assessments up to the idea that factors change over time that influence offenders.
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2008). Criminal Justice in America (5th ed.). : Thomson Learning.
In researching this topic two theoretical philosophies were prominent, Risk-Needs- Responsivity and Good Lives Model- Comprehension. The Risk-Needs model is the oldest of the two and also provides some basic framework for the Good Lives Model. The RNR model was introduced by Andrews and Bonta in 1990 and states that if the dynamic risk factors associated with violence and crime are addressed and treated, then levels of risk, as well as recidivism, will decrease (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). This theory stemmed from an attempt to more accurately assess risk levels of offenders by measuring factors associated with crime and violence such as personal relationships, substance abuse, and antisocial traits. This has led to
Siegel, Larry J., and John L. Worrall. Essentials of criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013.
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
There are better ways to punish criminals and protect society than mass incarceration. The state and local governments should be tough on crime, but “in ways that emphasize personal responsibility, promote rehabilitation and treatment, and allow for the provision of victim restitution where applicable” (Alec, 2014). The government also succeeds in overseeing punishment but fails to “…take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities.” (Morris, 2002: Pg. 1 and 2). Alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing circles, victim offender mediation, and family conferences, can successfully hold criminals responsible while allowing them a chance to get “back on their feet”. Research has proven that rehabilitation has lowered the rate of re-offenders, reducing the crime rate, protecting communities and also saves a lot of
Different programs have diverse impact in reducing the rates of recidivism. Effective programs that help in reducing the rates of recidivism concentrate on three main problems that affect offenders in prison and after their release. They include substance abuse, employment and education services. There emerges a need for most programs to address these issues as they are the most rampant and likely to push the offenders to perpetrating the offence once again.
Such an assumption does not refute that some criminals make their own personal choices to break the law but rather it argues that these personal choices are usually caused by certain factors which contribute to criminal behavior. Rehabilitation programs are therefore based on such perspectives where the various correctional programs are designed to deal with criminal enforcing behavior. For example counseling programs could focus on the behavior that led to the criminal offender committing the offense while educational programs could focus on how to change negative behavior to positive behavior. Correctional programs in prison facilities are therefore important in reducing the recurrence of criminal behavior as well as reducing recidivism among probationers and parolees (Barkan & Bryjak, 2009).
This objective rests on the assumption that there was some factor going into why the crime was committed in the first place, and that that factor can be either fixed or eliminated. There are many different approaches to rehabilitation including therapy, education, or some combination of the two. Generally the rehabilitation process begins with addressing the problems which led to criminal behavior, and then helping inmates find other ways to solve those problems that do not include criminal
Harrison, K. (2010). Dangerous offenders, indeterminate sentencing, and the rehabilitation revolution. Journal Of Social Welfare & Family Law , 423-432.