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
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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).
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...
Greenwood, P., & Zimring, F. (1985). One more chance: The pursuit of promising intervention strategies for chronic juvenile offenders. (Research Report). Pittsburgh: Rand Corporation.
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
Drago, F., Galbiati, R. & Vertova, P. (2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American law and economics review, 13 (1), pp. 103--130.
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
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.
It has been argued that the diversion of low risk, non-violent offenders of minor crimes justice system in the treatment and community-based interventions to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior (Whitehead and Lab, 2001).
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
As the current prison structures and sentencing process continues to neglect the issues that current offenders have no change will accrue to prevent recidivism. The issue with the current structure of the prison sentencing process is it does not deal with the “why” the individual is an social deviant but only looks at the punishment process to remove the deviant from society. This method does not allow an offender to return back to society without continuing where they left off. As an offender is punished they are sentenced (removal from society) they continue in an isolated environment (prison) after their punishment time is completed and are released back to society they are now an outsider to the rapidly changing social environment. These individuals are returned to society without any coping skills, job training, or transitional training which will prevent them from continuing down th...
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
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Crime & justice in America: An introduction to criminal justice (2nd ed.). Waltham, MA, USA: Anderson Publishing (Elsevier).
A common focus of rehabilitation states that “criminality is a disease that can be cured”. The theory states that many offenders who are let into rehabilitation are usually treated with medical or drug treatments. The rehabilitation sentencing theory is mainly only given to children and or first-time offenders and not repeat offenders because they obviously have not learned from their past mistakes and have no hope left. The mentality is to find people who are capable of being cured and are able to get another chance in life. Finally, restorative justice is the theory of rehabilitating the victims and not the offenders. While rehabilitation mainly focuses on the offender, restorative justice focuses on getting the offender and victim together to be able to change and address the damage that was done. The goal is to remove the harm done to the victim by having them work together in the hope of
It’s quite evident that one can hardly tell which of these principles of effective intervention are more effective or important than the other when it comes to community corrections. Nonetheless, the best results can only be obtained if these principles are applied together; by reinforcing one principle with the others (Anstiss, 2013; Cullen & Gendreau, 2011).