What Is The Continuous Promotion Of Prison Reform

The continuous promotion of prison reform is supported by various factors such as socioeconomic and financial issues, concerns of public health, human rights controversy, etc. The cost of imprisonment is substantial when factoring in the dynamics of funds spent on each prisoner. Arguments in relation to civil rights claim imprisonment is a deprivation of the basic right to liberty. Efforts of prison reform attempts to ensure the prisoner’s rights are being protected, while increasing the outlook for social reintegration. An essential component of prison reform includes alternatives to imprisonment such as diversion programs and intermediate sanctions. The process of diversion in corrections can simply be described as an attempt to divert
the offender away from the criminal justice system. Numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States have implemented policies to decrease infiltration of non-dangerous offenders into the system. The “problematic” offenders such as the alcohol/drug abusers, juveniles, and the mentally ill can be deflected by the utilization of police, community, and court-based diversion programs. Statistics display less than 25% of offenses that are reported in the United States actually result in an arrest.
The decision-making power that police officers possess is a prime example of an informal diversion. Though police may occasionally be hesitant to use discretion due to the community deeming their actions as not strict enough, several programs have been established to encourage them to do so. The formal programs are mainly directed towards juvenile offenders as an effort to deter future criminal activity as early as possible. The family crisis intervention approach is an additional example of diversion approaches. Until both parties are questioned, an arrest of both parties typically occurs. Diversion efforts may be possible when an officer can identify a conflicting situation immediately, and attempt to prevent escalation that would have otherwise resulted in an
arrest. Community-based correctional systems that provide forms of supervision and custody are effective diversion attempts, especially for the mentally ill and juvenile offenders. Despite the fact the programs strive towards a partial or total alternative to incarceration, they sometimes do not entirely eliminate the mark of a criminal record. Residential reinforcements and treatment services within the community assist the offender by handling their issues. For example, some jurisdictions have established
“juvenile diversion programs. The program provides adolescents ages eight to seventeen an alternative to the formal Juvenile Court System depending on the crime committed. As the quantity of individuals with mental illnesses in jails continues to grow, mental health professionals and criminal justice advocates emphasize the need to reduce the population via diversion programs, such as community treatment centers. Lastly, court-based diversion programs contribute greatly to alternatives to incarceration. The U.S. Department of Labor largely provides funding to pretrial intervention programs, which require those awaiting trial to report to an assigned supervision officer. The courts contribute to diversion efforts by dismissing pending charges based on circumstances, extension of the pretrial intervention program, or have the defendant return to engage in normal court processing due to poor performance in the program. Court-based diversion programs benefit first-time drug abusers, low-level misdemeanant offenders, public drunks, etc. Traditionally speaking, the use of probation has become the foundation of contemporary corrections by providing protection to the community via supervising probationers while treating the offender. Increasing jail populations and fluctuating philosophical viewpoints sparked the use of technology and different treatment options known as intermediate sanctions, which are correctional programs that occur anywhere between probation and prison. The need for intermediate sanctions is primarily a result of the overcrowding issues in prisons and jails. In the United States, statistics state that there is approximately a ten-year gap between when the crime was committed and the prospective confinement as an adult. Persistent offenders may be subjected to various pre-trial services while they living amongst the community prior to their initial incarceration. Day reporting centers are facilities that monitor and schedule the offender’s activities. House arrest may be issued and the offenders are confined to their own home, as opposed to being confined in a jail cell. Risk management strategies in relation to the processing of offenders are constructed to administer increased surveillance and supervision for those who classify as high risk and cannot be offered less-restrictive options such as the ones mentioned above. The various applications of intermediate sanctions are acknowledged to provide a more substantial disposition as opposed to probation or confinement. Due to the fact that each offender is unique, a continuing sequence of sanctions are available that range from probation to imprisonment in order to provide a range of options. For example, restitution programs may be imposed and require that the victim must be compensated for the crime they endured against them. Crime victims may possibly receive payments towards their medical bills, loss of income, and other various reimbursements. It is role of the probationary authority to determine the amount that the offender can afford, and develop and installment plan if necessary. Intensive supervised probation is another alternative sanction program, which is constructed to provide an increased surveillance of offenders who are classified as “too serious” for typical probation. Typical ISP programs include required participation in treatment programs or employment, strict probation or parole terms, unannounced and random drug screenings, multiple weekly contacts with the supervisor, etc. The debate regarding treatment vs. control has been greatly debated for quite some time. The American Probation and Parole Association have refined a balance approach to ISP programs, which support rigid supervision and conditions practices within the framework of providing more services and higher-quality treatment services. As previously mentioned, there is a noted effort to deter the addicted and mentally ill away from being incarcerated.
“Therapeutic courts” such as mental health, drug, domestic violence, etc., have continued their expansion to help those under these offense categories. Drug problem-solving courts utilize diversion by applying intensive supervision and requiring the offender to participate in court-mandated treatment programs. As an effort to prevent new crime, shock incarceration and sock probation programs are designed to give offenders a preview as to what it is really like to be behind bars followed by a set time of supervised probation. Military style boot camp programs include rough physical labor, specialized education and training, military discipline and drills, counseling and treatment, etc. Boot camps generally require the inmates to enter the program as volunteers, and the incarceration program is a few months. When the offender graduates, they are released either to home confinement, intensive supervision, parole, or to some form of a community correction
program. As the prison and jail populations continue to rise substantially, diversion programs are a necessary tactic as an effort to cease the growing numbers. While police, community, and court-based diversion programs strive to keep the offender out of the system, intermediate sanctions exist as a alternative punishment for those offenders who are not under the typical restrictions of incarceration or probation. In terms of economics, my opinion states that any figures that are less than the average cost to house an offender (over $30,000 per year, per inmate) should be considered if the intermediate sanctions are within safety, social, and judicial compliance. Fines and restitutions technically have a negative cost due to the fact the offender is the one provided the finances. The United States courts collect approximately $1 billion dollars per year. Community service sanctions include anything from cleaning a park to repairing a house can cost an average $2,800 per offender. The cost is much less than incarceration, and the community benefits from the restorative labor. The increased monitoring and supervision associated with intensive supervised probation averages around $3,500 per offender. Aside from financial matters, probation officers benefit due to the fact their case loads are reduced from their typical 100 probationers. The cost of home confinement, i.e. house arrest, averages at $4,100. The house arrest and electronic tracking bracelets assist in not increasing prison populations, while still providing the offenders with some form of confinement. Lastly, boot camps seem to fairly costly at $32,000 per offender. While the amount may be equivalent to the price it takes to house an offender in jail or prison, research indicates this sanction as promising. Through the application of boot camps, there is a possibility an offender’s intention on committing a future crime may be deterred while providing an opportunity to a successful life ahead.