Hunter et. al (2016) state that the correctional population in the US has got people that are under community supervision in public prisons and jails. Over the last years, the penitentiary population has risen from around million in 1980 to almost seven million in the year 2011 with the most, around 70 percent being under community corrections supervision. In 2011 the rate of people under correction supervision decreased by almost 1.5 percent marking the third year progressive decrease in the correctional population (Hunter et al., 2016, p.1310). Out of nearly seven million individuals under correctional supervision in the US currently, only 30 percent are held in jail. The remaining percent is therefore maintained and supervised by the community.
The idea of community corrections creates three assumptions. One is that most of the individuals who violate the law are non-violent. The individuals have just broken the law that leads them to be held in jail, but they don't have to be necessarily isolated from the community. Community supervision would probably be adequate, and it helps the offender to restore back their relationship with the community and their family. The second assumption is that community sentence aims to correct morals that are significantly connected to the reason for the offender finding themselves in trouble so that the risk of repeating the same offense in the future is reduced (Jonson & Cullen 2015, p.530). It means that the correction programs can be accessed in the community than in jail, making it easy for the offenders to get the required help and as well subsidize expenses with their cash. The last assumption is that the individuals held in jail transform more efficiently if they get supervision after release than without any supervision.
Goal and Purpose
The community corrections programs aim to prevent future offenses through surveillance, reduce crowding in jail and cost, offer rehabilitation to the offenders and community integration and handle offenders needs through restorative justice. It's clear that building jails and prisons to hold the whole offense population is expensive and there are legal limits on the same to define the number of prisoners that can be kept in a single jail (Hunter et al., 2016, p.1311). The community corrections programs, therefore, aims to reduce the crowding in the prisons by drawing from the crowd the people who are predicted to be less violent in the community.
Surveillance is an essential goal of the community corrections programs because the security of the public is a significant concern. To ensure that the public safety is maintained offenders remain under supervision and are assessed to find out the rate of risk they pose when they participate in community programs (Duwe, 2015, p.561). The offenders who are very dangerous to the community or themselves are eliminated from the community programs and held in jail until they become less violent to themselves and others. For those in the community program, close supervision by the trained community officers is done to ensure that they comply with the court orders and violations are taken seriously.
Handling some of the trouble that is significantly related to criminal behavior and frequent engagement in criminal justice is an essential objective of community corrections programs. Some of these problems include substance abuse and addictions, parenting problems, and mental illnesses, lack of adequate education, uncontrolled emotion and developing of disabilities. Community entry goal helps the individual adapt the former healthy life with their family and community and retain back their regular responsibilities (Tonry, 2017, p 14). Restorative justice works on the assumption that offenses harm the society and that at times there are persons involved. Corrective judgment, therefore, takes the responsibility of insisting that the offender repair the damages to the victims.
Community Corrections Programs in the United States.
According to Jonson & Cullen (2015), the program mostly applies community punishment sentence to the offenders. It is described to be society supervision of the convicted under court outlined orders for a specific time when the judge can decide to change the rules for non-compliance. The invention of this kind of supervision was by a shoemaker from Boston by the name of John Augustus who sacrificed himself to help the convicted offenders. Starting in 1841 with his cash Augustus gave an assurance to the court that the condemned would come back if left in his hands (Jonson & Cullen 2015, p. 560). Probation emerged a formal procedure in 1878, 30 years after he started his job. By the year 1900 probation transmitted to other nations as the first sentence for people involved with any offense.
Altschuler et al. (2016) indicate that Probations continue to be a significant suction for crimes. Almost 60 percent which is four million of practically seven million adults are recently under supervision that is correctional on parole. The responsibilities of probation officers have transformed gradually over time. They are involved in the collection of data for the lawyers to decide the suitable probation for the offenders. They monitor the states of the person concerned with the punishment and ensure that court orders are followed during the probation period (Altschuler et al.2016, p. 34). The officers have a specific number of times to contact the offenders either through phone calls, one-on-one and visits at the households. They refer the offenders to specialists for personal and crowd counseling on specific subjects as drug abuse and education on right parenting. This type of program is very crucial in the mentorship of the offenders behavior and character because they are supervised by the probation officers. Its a method that can highly reduce the population in the prisons and mold better kind of persons from the offenders by transforming them.
Day Reporting Centers
Lindquist et al. (2015), explains that this type of supervision happens hand in hand with probation. Unlike in punishment where the probationers are required to report once in a month or once in every three months, indicating each, day reporting needs that the probationers check in three to six days every week for around five months. Some reporting days may be just checking in while other days may involve outpatient t treatment and classes (Lindquist et al., 2015, 23). This type of probation aims to offer probationers accessibility to health care, and investigate the individuals that have prior gone against the probation terms example ones who keep abusing drugs. According to Mathur & Clark (2014), the program functions on a character change model of stages where the first step is rigorous. For instance, drug tests are accorded to the offenders randomly for around five times in a month in the most critical stage. As the offender continues to get along with the program successfully their freedom state increases with age and the investigation reduces (Mathur & Clark 2014, p. 730). The program also has partnered with local organizations and healthcare facilities to offer onsite services to handle education, counseling, and employment.
Day reporting is a program that significantly applies in the recent days, unlike many other reentry programs. The plan was earlier employed in the England while first such program opened in the United States in 1986 in Massachusetts. The design of the program is meant for people who are almost to be discharged from the prison or have approached their parole, and they do not require the individual to reside in the program but rather report in the centers every day and prepare for the next days job. The kind of services offered to the participants of the day reporting programs, however, vary with the clients and characteristics of the program. In the past ten years, the program has been seen to grow substantially. Many nations are now considering opening more day reporting centers and a large percentage of these programs opened after 1991. Most of those that bagun before 1991 give greater emphasis on the provision of treatment and services than the newly opened ones. While the primary purpose of the daily reporting programs is to provide treatment to the offenders, the secondary objective is to reduce crowding in the prisons and jails. There are phases in which the program operates from higher to lower levels of control based on the progress in their treatment and the level of compliance with the court orders by the offender. Most of these programs last for five to six months.
Tonry (2017) says that the program is an order by the court where offenders work in unpaid jobs for the advantage of the society. The program profits the culture via the offenders using their time jobs that are not desired. The program may be applied in different applications for example with probation or with diversion. It provides an option for offenders who are poor and cannot afford monetary suctions and can also apply for wealthy offenders whose monetary resources are so huge that asking them for cash as a punishment is not effective. (Tonry, 2017, 12). In community service, offenders work for forty to a thousand hours before they complete their service. The program has therefore benefited many faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations and homeless shelters (Lindquist et al., 2015, 38). Lack of cooperation in the documentation of the time, the hardship of ensuring orders are followed at the job, and the need to show that the work has been completed in court are some of the reasons why this program is not utilized to the maximum. The program, however, is used to make the offenders always busy with unpaid work and make them feel for their offenses. If utilized to the maximum, it can be one of the best ways to mold the offenders character. The community work also is beneficial and it reduces the burden of the rest of the community members. Hence, any member of the community will try their best to avoid committing such crimes that can lead them to this type punishment hence reducing crime rates.
Intensive incarceration programs
According to Gill & Wilson (2017), the camps are designed with a specific target to offenders of between 17 to 24 years. The middle-aged adults have violated the law which can lead to their imprisonment of up to 1 year and therefore the program provides them with free chance to use ninety to hundred and eighty days in a harsh condition before they are transferred to supervision in the society. The technique uses a model of destroying and rebuilding a person's behavior, physical fitness, work, and focuses on changing an offender to a responsible being and keep them off from future offenses (Gill & Wilson 2017, p.341). The program started in 1983 and within ten years over seven thousand wrongdoers were in the schedule in thirty states. This type of correction program is very useful because molding the character of a young adult is much easier than when they grow older. It helps prevent the offenders from getting into trouble in the future, realize themselves and get to be the role models in the society.
Lindquist et al. (2015), indicates that this facility is a less protection facility in which offenders can live a healthy life and do their jobs as they get supervision from the authorities. Offenders are enabled to work, adapt to freedom, and save money for independence living by a six to twelve-month stay in a halfway house. The program allows the offenders to have access to the community services which can help them handle substance abuse, job interviews, and budgeting (Lindquist et al., 2015,...
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the thesishelpers.org website, please click below to request its removal:
- Essay Example: Discrimination African Americans Face in Education and Healthcare
- Law Essay Example: A History of American Law
- Essay Example on Xenophobia in South Africa
- Essay Example on Three Main Sociological Perspectives: Conflict, Functionalist, Symbolic
- Book Review Example. Terrorizing Women: Feminicide in the Americas
- Factors Affecting Womens Participation in Politics: A Comparative Study of Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda
- Conclusions about Police Corruption and Misconduct - Essay Sample