Rehabilitation Programs Essay Research Paper Deterrence is

Rehabilitation Programs Essay, Research Paper

Deterrence is a view that is used in hope that it will discourage other from committing illegal acts. The idea is that rehabilitation is intended to restore offenders to a constructive role in society. Many prison throughout the United States have been experiencing the problem of over crowdedness. Developments such as probation, parole and indeterminate sentencing are provided to help in deterrence. The programs must aim to change those who want to change. This kind of program would provide skills and replace the sense of hopelessness that many inmates have. However evidenced shows that rehabilitation program do not substantially reduce recidivism.

Almost all Judges sentence in the hope that the offender will be rehabilitated, when rehabilitation programs are at a minimal or none existent. The problem is trying to determined weather intensive pre-release planning, housing, employment, or aftercare program effect the offender adjustment back into society. Some believe that if we want to rehabilitate criminals we must do more than just send them to prison; for instance, we could give them a chance to acquire job skills; which will improve the chances that inmates will become productive citizens upon release. The problem is trying to determine under what condition do pre release programs work if they work at all.

Hypotheses

This study will analyze whether intensive prerelease planning for housing or employment affect the ex-convict to adjustment back into society. This study has been design to measure four hypotheses:

The higher pre-release-planning programs the more likely the ex-convict will find placement for housing and employment.

The more intensive prerelease housing and employment the more likely ex-cons will adjust to society.

Those who serve less time have prerelease training, and participation in aftercare program, are less likely to re offend.

The more time the inmate’s serve with no prerelease training the less likely they are to adjust to society and find housing and employment.

The argument against those who serve less time, have prerelease training, and participate in after care programs are more likely to adjust to society is a strong argument.

Griffith and Hiller measure the effectiveness of in prison treatments follow by residential after care in reducing recidivism and improving parole out comes. Griffith study was extended to community based programs and Griffith & Hiller’s Hypotheses are: (a) individuals who completed both prison and community based components of treatment (b) completed prison based treatment but did not complete aftercare and (c) belonged to an untreated match comparison group. (Griffith 355) All Griffith analysis is based on a three-year program. Griffith & Hiller ’s hypothesis is very close to my hypotheses which states: Those who serve less time, have prerelease training, and participation in after care programs a more likely to adjust.

There are a number of methods that Griffith & Hiller used to help parolees. After the parolees meet a certain set of qualifications they are monitored for three months in residential aftercare. Gender, age education level, criminal history and recidivism risk are variables used to measure the cost effectiveness these variables are used to help determine how much it will cost to house offenders.

One fact I forget to measure was the cost of providing housing and employment for offenders after release. In my design I did not include any of these factors. Griffith included: Personnel, rent, utilities, contracts, administrative overhead, food, health care, and state paid benefits like insurance (Griffith 358). The researcher included resources that the program provides court services supervision counseling and referrals to education vocational and employment services.

As a result those who did not receive in prison treatment or after care is less costly and less likely to adjust (Griffith 361). However high risk parolees are more like to adjust after completing the programs, against those who do not enter the program and those low risk offender who do not complete the program.

Conversely, those who were married and employed, arrest deterred subsequent violence (Smith 1992 p. 685) In contrast to the article stated above, Berk, Campbell, Klap, and Western researched and examined the same topic, using the same data. In the Milwaukee and Dade county experiments, there are suspects who are “good risks” and suspects who are “bad risks.” An arrest may benefit victims of good risks and harm victims of bad risks (Berk 1992, p.699). The findings in each of the regions studied suggest that individuals subject to informal social controls are “good risks” and individuals not subject to such control are “bad risks.” Good risks seem to be deterred by arrest, while bad risks are more likely to repeat offend. The key “risk” indicators are employment status and marital status (Berk 1992 pp. 700-702).

“The more intensive prerelease housing and employment the more likely ex-cons will adjust to society” A second Hypothesis developed from the idea that some people are socially acceptable or do not they take part in society. Employment status and marital status are indicators, and do not directly measure the strength of social attachments.

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать