Whether Recidivism Exists or is Made Up by Prison Officers - Essay Example

? Whether Recidivism Exists or is Made Up by Prison Officers of the Introduction Recidivism is a critical aspect of the Criminal Justice System, and refers to repeated or habitual criminal behavior. Recidivism particularly denotes the return to crime or repeating an undesirable behavior after serving a prison or jail sentence, or after an individual has been treated or trained to eliminate the negative behavior. “The rate of recidivism usually refers to the percentage of the prison population with more than two previous convictions” (Ramdhan & Bissessar, 2011, p.2). Four different ways of measuring recidivism include reoffense, rearrest, reimprisonment, and technical violation. When ex-prisoners on supervision after release commit a new crime, they are reincarcerated for a technical violation before they are convicted of the new crime. This is termed as reoffense because it uses the new offense date, rather than the date of conviction; and it indicates how soon after release the offender commits a new crime. Recidivism is one of the causes for the increasing numbers of offenders in prison. The population in prisons over which state and federal correctional authorities have jurisdiction was recorded as 1,617,478 prisoners by mid-2009 (West, 2010). Nearly all those in prison are released eventually, hence balancing public safety and ex-inmates’ requirements is a challenging task. The rates of recidivism are high, particularly among young, black men, indicating that the United States criminal justice system is dysfunctional. It is crucial to reduce recidivism and reintegrate ex-inmates of all races, by research addressing the individual-based and environmental predictors of recidivism. Jails are used for a shorter period of incarceration for relatively minor crimes as compared to prisons, hence their distinctive role and structure permits increased interventions preventing future criminal activity (Center for Therapeutic Justice, 2000). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate recidivism among offenders. Recidivism Among Prisoners Prison-focused studies (Langan & Levin, 2002; Mears, Wang, Hay and Bales, 2008) have reported that two-thirds of prison ex-inmates were rearrested within three years of post-release, indicating a high measure of recidivism. The highest rates occurred during the first year. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2009 report based on the study by Langan and Levin (2002) indicates prisoner demographic characteristics including gender, race, origin, and age, besides criminal record, types of offenses leading to the incarceration, and the outcome of length of stay in prison on possibility of rearrest. According to the BJS Report (2009), released prisoners with the highest rates of recidivism included “robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)” (BJS, 2009). 2.5% of released rapists were re-arrested for committing another rape within 3 years; similarly 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were again arrested for the same offence. The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had mounted up 744,000 arrest charges within 3 years of release, and 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment (BJS, 2009). A 15-state prison recidivism study revealed that within the first year, 44.1 percent of exprisoners were rearrested or a new offense, with the number rising to 59 percent by the second year and 67.5 percent cumulatively by year 3. One jail study (Lyman & LoBuglio, 2006) revealed that greater likelihood of rearrest was associated with a longer criminal history as well as younger age. Among the individual-level risk factors for recidivism are poor criminal record, length of prison time, and type of offense. Further, black ex-prisoners have markedly higher recidivism rates than their white counterparts (Jung et al, 2010). Racial Disparity of Prisoners as a Variable in Recidivism Most incarcerated men are recidivists, and a disproportionate number of them are black (Sabol, Minton & Harrison, 2007). Racial disparity in recidivism rates among jail ex-inmates was studied by Jung, Spjeldnes & Yamatani (2010), and recidivism rates and survival time: period from release date to rearrest were examined. The study sample was composed of 12,545 male ex-inmates released from Allegheny County Jail in Pennsylvania during 2003, who were tracked for three years. Recidivism rates were compared across race using chi-square tests, and survival time was analyzed. The evidence indicated that “the overall recidivism rate was 55.9%, and black men recidivated at a significantly higher rate than white men” (Jung et al, 2010, p.81). Survival analysis also revealed racial disparity in recidivism, that black men recidivated in a shorter time frame than their white peers, with the covariates of age at release and length of stay in jail controlled. Interaction effects of race and the covariates were found to be considerable. There were implications on research, policy and practice. The increasing incarceration and recidivism rates in the United States marked by wide racial disparity are acknowledged as social and economic burdens that should be reversed (Pew Center on the States, 2009). 25 percent of the world’s prisoners are in the United States prisons and jails, although the U.S. comprises of only 5 percent of the total world population (Sabol et al, 2007). The U.S. aggregated corrections costs increased from $12 billion in 1987 to $49 billion in 2007; out of this $20 billion were spent on jails and local criminal justice (Hughes, 2006). Every year, there is a cyclical flow of an estimated 12 million people in and out of nearly 3,500 U.S. jails. In 2008, of the 785, 556 individuals in jail, 42.5 percent were white men, 39.2 percent were black men, “even though of the total U.S. population only about 6 percent were black men and 28 percent were white men” (Jung et al, 2010, p.81). More than 97 percent of prison and jail inmates are eventually released and need to reintegrate into their communities (Sabol & Couture, 2008). Jails are usually larger than prisons, more structured and closer to offenders’ homes, with a rapid turnover of inmates, several of whom are never convicted. On the other hand, prisons are more violent and chaotic, and the inmate population originates from a large area. Numerous jail inmates flow in and out of jail, at the same time increasing their criminal activity and their recidivism until they are incarcerated in prison. Hence, effective jail and post-jail interventions can prevent people from going to prison (Roman & Chalfin, 2006). Drug Courts and Recidivism “Substance abuse and drug-related crime continue to be significant factors that rob communities of their security and their resources” (Bean & Nemitz, 2004, p.172). Combating drug use and lowering crime has been ineffective, being ill conceived and politically driven. Reducing the rate of drug consumption is directly related to reduction in criminal behavior. An environment of accountability is necessary to overcome an addict’s denial and promote engagement in the long process of recovery. Effective outcomes can be achieved through frequent drug testing, immediate sanctions, and availability of drug treatment. So far, this method is followed only on a small scale, mainly in drug treatment courts. Hence, the challenge is to apply this effective approach in specialized programs to the entire system of criminal justice supervision, from pretrial release to the completion of the sentence. A study was conducted to determine whether with retroactive application of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment, the reduction in prison sentences for offenders had an impact on the recidivism rate for those offenders. Offenders’ sentence lengths were reduced by 20 percent, enabling them to return to the community in advance of their originally scheduled release date, raising the possibility of causing risk to public safety. However, the evidence indicates that offenders whose sentence lengths were reduced in compliance with the above Amendment, did not indicate higher recidivism rates as compared to another group of crack cocaine offenders who had been released prior to the Amendment becoming effective, and who had served their full prison terms. Both groups had significant similarities in “selected factors measuring offense conduct, offender demographic, and original sentence characteristics” (Memo, 2011, p.11). In this recidivism study of cocaine users released from prison, it was found that the offenders in both the groups reoffended at similar rates and in similar ways. Among those who reoffended “the ratio of new arrests to revocations, mix of new crimes, and timing of recidivism are all comparable” (Memo, 2011, p.11). Two factors related to increased recidivism are higher criminal history category and younger age. These features were found within both groups in comparable numbers. The researchers concluded that the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant difference in recidivism rates of the two groups, despite the early release of one group for whom the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment had been applied retroactively. Among the impediments to eliminating drug use, myths regarding drug testing and treatment will have to be overcome; and political vision and leadership will be required. Community corrections and treatment professionals need to adopt performance management goals pertaining to reducing recidivism, and hold themselves accountable for achievement of those goals. Correctional resources will be required to be allocated also for monitoring and assisting former offenders who are already back in the community. Although the initial investment will be high, the eventual returns will be extensive, state Bean and Nemitz (2004). Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders “Sexual offenses are among the crimes that invoke the most public concern” (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005, p.1159). The causes of recidivism among sexual offenders have been identified through various research studies. The major predictors of sexual recidivism are found to be deviant sexual preferences and antisocial orientation, in the case of both adult and adolescent sexual offenders. Violent recidivism of any type is related to antisocial orientation to a large extent. Treatment for recidivism should be targetted on some dynamic risk factors such as sexual preoccupations, and general self-regulation problems. Common variables addressed in sex offender treatment programs include psychological distress, denial of sex crime, victim empathy, and stated motivation for treatment. According to Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005) these variables have little or no relationship with sexual or violent recidivism. Typically the observed sexual recidivism rate is 10% to 15% after 5 years, but the rate is much higher for some offenders (Harris et al, 2003). It is essential to identify the characteristics of persistent sexual offenders, to understand this highly troubling behavioral disorder. This is also essential for the formulating administrative policies directed toward high risk sexual offenders, in relation to treatment, civil commitment, community notification. Without identifying distinct predictors for subgroups such as rapists, exhibitionists and others, and focusing on mixed groups of sexual offenders, the findings were remarkably consistent. For 70% of the individual findings, “the amount of variability p_.05 across studies was no more than would be expected by chance” (Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005, p.1159). Additionally, studies showed that there was consistency within categories of predictors, with almost all of the variables being significant, for example, sexual deviancy, and history of rule violation; or nonsignificant such as general psychological problems, and clinical presentation. However, substantial variability across studies remain to be explained; but research studies are getting closer to identifying the constructs that are related as well as not related to recidivism among sexual offenders. The findings will prove useful “to promote effective interventions and just social policies for sexual offenders” (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005, p.1159). Rehabilitation is Crucial for Preventing Recidivism As compared to adult correctional facilities, juvenile correctional institutions generally place greater emphasis on rehabilitation. A wide range of habilitation and rehabilitation services are provided through education and training programs. Identifying the outcomes from these programs alone is difficult, because they form a part of a larger set including cognitive therapy, substance abuse treatment, education and training. Earlier studies have experienced difficulties in getting participants to complete the program once started. The high drop-out rates reveal poor implementation of the program or participants finding it unappealing (Bushway & Reuter, 2002). Lee (2009) raises the question whether repeat offenders are more blameworthy than first-time offenders. In the United States the most important determinants for punishment for a crime are the seriousness of the crime and the offender’s criminal history. Punishment is for the purpose of rehabilitation. Hence the three rationales for reform are deterrence of the offender by taking them into custody , incapacitation or imprisonment, and rehabilitation through interventions towards returning the individual to lead a lawful life in the community. Impact of Employment on Rehabilitation The relationship between crime and employment is a complex one. For an individual, they can be substitute or compelementary activities. Usually poor communities offer a low level of job prospects and financially unrewarding criminal opportunities. In such situations, crime rates may depend more on a fundamental set of social and individual characteristics, rather than on employment. However, a strong negative relationship exists between employment and crime. Thus, communities where criminal activities especially violent crime are heavily concentrated, reveal high levels of unemployment. “Increasing employment and the potential for employment for individuals and communities that are currently at high risk of persistent joblessness may have a substantial preventive effect on crime” (Bushway & Reuter, 2002, p.198). Therefore, crime prevention programs should include agendas with the purpose of increasing employment. The above view is reiterated by Uggen (2000, p.529), who states that “sociologists have increasingly emphasized “turning points” in explaining behavior change over the life course”. Thus, employment can be considered as a turning point in the life course of criminal offenders. The evidence from earlier research is inconclusive because the outcomes of employment have been biased by selectivity in the samples studied, and vague because age as a variant was not taken into consideration. This study provides more refined estimates using specific event history models to analyze a national work experiment for criminal offenders, in relation to assignment to the program, eligibility for, and current participation in the experiment. Age was found to be a significant factor in affecting the rate of self-reported recidivism. Thus, those over the age of 27 years were indicated to be less likely to report crime and arrest when provided with marginal work opportunities, and would reveal higher rates of recidivism when such opportunities were not provided. Among young participants in their teens and early twenties, the research study intervention of providing jobs had little effect on crime. “Work thus appears to be a turning point for older but not younger offenders” (Uggen, 2000, p.529). To shift more poor people out of crime, the Weed and Seed program is a Job Corps project that incorporates three steps in individual-level programs. First step is accomplished by relocating youth from their neighborhood to an environment promoting prosocial ways of living. Next step is achieved by providing substance abuse treatment at most of the Job Corps centers. The last step is accomplished by supporting the development of bonds between the at-risk individual and the program leaders, the use of wide job networks built up by Job Corps, and the actual education and training carried out by at the centers (Bushway & Reuter, 2002). Other programs such as Gatreaux and Moving to Opportunity achieve the first and third steps simultaneously by moving families to the suburbs from the inner city. Women with advanced substance abuse problems are not eligible for the program. Crime appears less attractive to the at-risk individuals because the density of offenders in the network declines. Mentoring was the most significant part of the Quantum Opportunities Program, providing students with an older role model helping to redirect their attention towards their education (Bushway & Reuter, 2002). Multisystemic Therapy Programs for Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders Multisystemic therapy (MST) is considered as a promising treatment approach with the necessary components for the safe and effective treatment of youth in psychiatric crisis in the community. This therapeutic model is both comprehensive and individualized for treating juvenile offenders, and is effective in engaging families in treatment. Further, it is suitable for the comorbid conditions of youths presenting psychiatric conditions, and has demonstrated long-term reductions in antisocial behavior, as well as decline in institutional placements for chronic and violent juvenile offenders. MST is concurrent with Bronfenbrenner’s social ecology model, viewing individuals as a part of a complex, interconnected system including individual, family, and extrafamilial factors, and dysfunction in one system of the interconnected network can result in juvenile delinquency and behavioral problems. The ultimate objective of multisystemic therapy is to empower primary caregivers with skills and resources to independently address the difficulties in raising youth with behavioral problems and “can empower the adolescent to cope with family, peer, school, and neighborhood difficulties” (Johnson & Helms, 2002, p.378). According to Bondeson (1994, p.228), the essential factors that contribute to successful rehabilitation of ex-offenders include effective treatment and training, meaningful employment, living in satisfactory housing, and improvement of the individual’s financial situation. The criminal justice system empowers prisoners to live normal lives in the community after their release. The system also continues to monitor and support those on probation and parole. Conclusion This paper has highlighted recidivism, examined racial disparity reflected in a comparatively larger proportion of African Americans in prison, discussed recidivism due to drug abuse, and sexual offenders’ recurrent encarceration. Further, the paper investigated the importance of rehabilitation of ex-prisoners through various measures such as providing employment and multisystemic therapy programs besides other supportive interventions to support their return to living normal lives in the community. Rehabilitation programs focused on helping individual prisoners are found to be effective in reducing recidivism. At the same time, in poor communities where wide-spread poverty and unemployment create criminals, large-scale employment programs can empower the entire community. Further, projects such as the Weed and Seed, Moving to Opportunity, and Quantum Opportunity help prevent poor youth from taking to crime, and to pursue a worthwhile, productive life. Policy makers should get large numbers of people moving in the right direction, supporting one another. The government requires that poor neighbourhoods should implement a range of initiatives intended to alleviate poverty. Bushway and Reuter (2002) support this view, adding that employment outcomes of some of the community members help to cause spillover effects and positively influence other people in the neighborhood, inspiring them to emulate their peers. It is concluded that interventions providing employment and empowerment at the grass-roots level in poor communities and other vulnerable groups, will go a long way in preventing the high levels of crime and recidivism. --------------------------- References Bader, S. M., Welsh, R. & Scalora, M. J. (2010). Recidivism among female child molestors. Violence and Victims, 25(3): pp.349-362. Bean, P. & Nemitz, T. (2004). Drug treatment: What works? New York: Routledge. BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) Report. (2009). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011 from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1134 Bushway, S. D. & Reuter, P. (2002). Labor markets and crime risk factors. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh & D. L. Mackenzie (Eds). Evidence-based crime prevention. New York: Routledge. Center for Therapeutic Justice. (2000). American Jails – “There is a difference between prisons and jails and it does make a difference”. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011 from: www.therapeuticjustice.com/programPDFs/JAILS%20are%20not%20prisons.pdf Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2002). Family-based crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh & D. L. Mackenzie (Eds). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge. Chapter 3: pp.22-55. Hanson, R. K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6): pp.1154-1163. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D, et al. (2003). A multi-site Comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15: pp.413-425. Hughes, K. (2006). Justice expenditure and employment extracts, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Johnson, J. J. & Helms, J. L. (2002). Treatment in institutions: Mental health needs of incarcerated youth. In N. G. Ribner (Ed). The California School of Professional Psychology handbook of juvenile forensic psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 18: pp.367- 388. Jung, H., Spjeldnes, S. & Yamatani, H. (2010). Recidivism and survival time: Racial disparity among jail ex-inmates. Social Work Research, 34(3): pp.181-189. Langan, P. A. & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011 from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf Lee, Y. (2009). Recidivism as omission: A relational account. Texas Law Review, 87(3): pp.571 -586. Lyman, M. & LoBuglio, S. (2006). Whys and hows of measuring jail recidivism. Paper presented at the Urban Institute Jail Reentry Roundtable. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011 from: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/docr/pdfs/jail_recidivism.pdf Mears, D. P., Wang, X., Hay, C. & Bales, W. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46(2): pp.301-340. Memo (Memorandum). (May 31, 2011). Recidivism among offenders with sentence modification made pursuant to retroactive application of 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment. United States Sentencing Commission, Washington, D.C. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011 from: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/z_Personal/AJohnson/Elements/111031_Crack_Recidivism.pdf Peters, C. S. & Myrick, S. (2011). Juvenile recidivism – Measuring success or failure: Is there a Difference? Corrections Today, 73(1): pp.32-36. Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, D. C: Pew Center on the States Publications. Ramdhan, S. & Bissessar, L. (2011). Recidivism. Germany: GRIN Verlag Publications. Roman, J. & Chalfin, A. (June 2006). Does it pay to invest in reentry programming for jail Inmates? Paper presented at the Urban Institute Jail Reentry Roundtable, Washington, DC. Retrieved on 12th November, 2011from: http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/publications/does-it-pay-to-invest-in-reentry-programming-for-jail-inmates Sabol, W. J. & Couture, H. (June 2008). Prison inmates at midyear 2007 (NCJ 221944). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D. & Harrison, P. M. (June 2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006 (NCJ 217675). Bureau of Statistics Bulletin. Spohn, Piper, Martin & Frenzel. (2010). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1): pp.149-176. Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67: pp.529-546. West, H. C. (June 2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009 – Statistical Tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved on November 12th, 2011 from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200 Read More