Unit 5 overview and key concepts

Correctional Methods

Throughout most of history the goal of the criminal justice system has been to penalize offenders. While retribution is a valid goal, many have come to believe that the criminal justice system should do more than simply punish offenders. Proponents of a more complex criminal justice system believe that criminal sentences can do more than punish offenders; they can actually help teach criminals how to conform to society's behavioral expectations. In fact, there is some suggestion that more traditional punishment methods may make criminals more likely to reengage in criminal behavior after being released from incarceration or increase the level of criminality in subsequent crimes. Therefore, responsible members of the criminal justice community need to be aware of sentencing alternatives. Oftentimes these programs are able to simultaneously punish offenders, provide victims with more satisfaction than traditional punishment methods, reduce the costs to the state, reduce the risk of recidivism, all while reducing the costs to society.

Before one can understand how sentencing alternatives work, one must first have an understanding of the different type of sentencing alternatives available. First, it is important for people to have an understanding that alternative programs can be implemented before an offender ever comes before a judge. Responding officers have a tremendous amount of discretion whether to charge an offender, the level of the charged offense, whether to arrest, whether to divert offenders into probation, whether to arrest an offender or issue a summons. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Therefore, it is important to understand that judges and prosecutors are not the only members of the criminal justice system who exercise discretion on offender sentences.

In addition, in many jurisdictions judges have tremendous sentencing discretion. This discretion has actually made incarceration an unusual sentence for certain low-level offenses. The common phrase for supervised sentencing alternatives is probation; however, while the programs may fall under the auspices of the probation department, it is important to understand that there are several different types of sentencing alternatives available. For example, some defendants serve their entire jail sentences, but are able to do so on weekends so that they can continue working or going to school. For other offenders, day reporting is the preferred type of community supervision. Day reporting requires the defendant to provide a supervisor with a detailed itinerary for his day. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). In addition, day reporters may be required to attend certain programs during the day; these programs can be located on or off-site. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). House arrest is an option for other offenders. Individuals under house arrest are frequently permitted to leave the home for specific purposes, and their absence or presence is detected by electronic monitoring and field supervision. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Some offenders are able to escape a criminal conviction entirely by agreeing to defer prosecution and abiding by the law and completing any necessary classes during a certain period of time. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Community service may be one of the oldest sentencing alternatives; rather than facing incarceration an offender is required to volunteer time to projects in lieu of being detained. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Fines are an additional sentencing alternative, but have traditionally been plagued by the fact that they disparately impact offenders from different socio-economic groups. However, day fines, which allow inmates to reduce their days in detention by paying fines are based upon an inmate's gross hourly wage, and are more likely to be used by less-wealthy defendants. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005).

While the previously mentioned options replace incarceration as punishment, they are only one element of today's available sentencing alternatives. One of the major goals of alternative sentencing is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Therefore, many offenders are required to participate in education or treatment programs, which are aimed at reducing their likelihood of re-engaging in criminal behavior. For example, offenders without job skills can receive job training, while offenders with emotional problems can be ordered to attend the appropriate counseling. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005). Because such a huge proportion of crimes are drug-related or committed by addicts, completion of in-patient or out-patient substance abuse programs is often an integral part of an offender's alternative sentencing program. Furthermore, alternative sentencing strives to make an offender personally responsible for their crime. Therefore, mediation and restitution play an important part in alternative sentencing, because mediation gives the victim a voice, while restitution can require an offender to repay his victim. (Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Program, 2005).

After one has an understanding of the different sentencing alternatives available, the logical step is to question whether alternative sentencing is effective. In order to answer that question, many criminal justice professionals look to recidivism rates. "However, limited research is available that compares recidivism rates of offenders released through traditional incarceration to offenders released through alternative sanctions." (Jones & Connelly, 2001). In addition, judges consider issues like criminal history, community ties, and the degree and type of offense when determining whether or not to divert an offender from incarceration, which makes comparing the two groups even more difficult. (Jones & Connelly, 2001).

There is no question that incarcerated inmates experience very high rates of recidivism. Those these rates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the percentage of inmates that re-offend within a relatively short period of time after being released from incarceration ranges from 30% up over 62%. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). There are certain factors that appear to affect recidivism rates, including: age, prior recidivism, race, gender, education, offense, types of custody, disciplinary reports, and time served. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). Therefore, it should be clear that if one of punishment's goals is to prevent future criminal behavior, then incarceration is not successful at accomplishing that goal.

While some studies have demonstrated lower recidivism rates for offenders who were not incarcerated but merely served probation, these findings have not been duplicated. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). On the contrary, the research appears to indicate that alternative sentencing programs are only successful at reducing recidivism rates when treatment services are included as part of those sentences. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). While the findings are inconsistent, the most effective programs appear to have the potential in reducing recidivism rates by close to 20%. (Jones & Connelly, 2001). Even when alternative sentencing does not result in reduced recidivism rates, it does not appear to increase recidivism and results in much lower costs to the community. (Jones & Connelly, 2001).