issues in criminal justice discussion
REDEFINING THE Criminal Justic SYSTEM PHYLLIS BACK, CJ Historically, the judicial system, law enforcement, and corrections have each had separate goals and visions for achieving the united mission of safety and justice within the criminal justice commtinity. Today, it appears that these goals have hindered the original intent or purpose of those goals. Progressing into the second decade of the 21st century, the criminal justice system has realized that to achieve its ultimate mission—public safety—for its citizens, it must be united in redefining its goals and visions. This approach requires a profound across-the-board collaboration in a manner that thus far has not been broached.
JANUARY i FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANjails The contemporary criminal justice system must respond in a proactive rather than a reactive man- ner to provide both the necessary and immediate sanctions for the convicted, and at the same time ensure that victims' needs are addressed respectfully. One way to achieve this is to implement a program tor the sole \ purpose ot sharing information about all new arrests. This information includes:
• Family history and background.
• Delinquent offenses.
• Previous encoun- ters with the law.
• Prior convictions.
• Probation or parole mandates.
• Work history • Education Stable living condifions.
The strategy is to share this information during an inmate's entire involvement with the criminal justice system. For the data program assessment, an offender would be evaluated annually and i continuum ot care established and shared with ' every participating agency—^beginning at pretrial, following through to the completion ot any mandated requirements of post-release sentencing. All informa- tion pertaining to treatment interventions, including an offender's progress and failure with his or her treatment plans, is entered into the data program. It an offender relapses or reotfends, the data are updated and the con- tinuum is reestablished to help redirect as needed.
Legislative Approaches The criminal justice system needs legislative support tor sentencing practices such as habilitation, rehabilita- tion, restoration, and réintégration. Criminal sanctions that lack intervention and prevention strategies are not a deterrent trom future criminal activity. Creating laws that mark people as criminals tor the remainder of their lives denies former imnates the opporttinities available to other citizens.
To address these issues, legislators and officials estab- lished the Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP) in 2006.
The tocus of PSPP is not only to allow ex-oftenders to return to the community as productive members of society, but also to improve public safety. (See "Public Safety Performance Project.") It laws continue to limit ottenders' opportunities tor employment (including selt-employment), education, and housing, the criminal justice system is only fostering further criminal behavior. As mentioned, laws should not be dehilitative; otherwise, the interests of public safety are ultimately defeated. Policymakers of the 21st century must re-examine the purpose and outcomes of such laws. Possible affirmative actions include:
• Providing restricted driver's licenses to ex-offenders.
Relying on a triend or family member or even public transportation is not always an ettective option. Aside from the fact that public transportation is limited in many areas, it is unavailable in most rural regions.
An ex-offender's probation or parole is violated when he or she tails to appear on time tor a meeting, and many employers require that employees have reliable transportation.
• Allow criminal justice agencies access to the juve- nile records (treatment) ot adult ottenders. Although expunging a juvenile's record once a teenager reaches legal adulthood is currently part ot the justice system, it is detrimental to the intervention and rehabilitation methods of the now-young adult who is still involved with the adult criminal justice system.
• Establish local reentry courts in every local jurisdic- tion. Reentry courts prevent a probation violator's case trom becoming backlogged in the court system hy providing swift and immediate sanctions for technical violations. Reentry courts also provide an alternative to jail while inmates await a preliminary hearing. Such alternatives allow ex-offenders to remain at home, stay employed, and continue to pro- vide income to support their families.
• Establish reentry probation officers (RPOs) in every local jurisdiction. RPOs provide stringent but realistic requirements tor ex-ottenders as part of a pre-release transition plan tailored to individual needs. RPOs collect information ahout an offender's specific needs (such as medical, mental, and disability services) and help direct that individual to the appropriate resources. In addition, RPOs work with employers, educational institutions, and public housing authori- ties, therehy helping ex-ottenders ohtain employment, work to achieve a high school or general education diploma, and secure stable living conditions. RPOs also engage family members in an ex-ottenders' reen- try plans before release.
AMERICANJails JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 • Remove criminal convictions from any records visible to employers and financial and educational institu- tions if an ex-offender has successfully completed reentry probation; been established in the commu- nity (i.e., obtained housing and employment); paid all debts to the courts, community, and victims; and not lapsed into criminal behavior for six years.
This enables former inmates to seek employment that increases financial stability. Ex-offenders could perform tasks currently prohibited by law, and apply for credit to buy a home, receive a personal loan, or become self-employed. In addition, they could apply for Federal grants to pursue a college education.
• Change current stipulations that legally prohibit ex-offenders from securing a home in public hous- ing. Public housing (Section 8) regulations are cur- rently too stringent, and in many cases are the only affordable housing option available to ex-offenders.
Many ex-offenders' families also live in public hous- ing developments, and for some it is the only viable option after losing their primary financial contribu- tor because of incarceration. Future public housing options should distinguish between violent and nonviolent ex-offenders.
• Review policies and procedures that determine whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor, and which degree. The classification process for felony and misdemeanor crimes should be given in-depth consideration and review because many nonviolent crimes are considered felonies on the first or second offense.
Some States are now proactively working to correct legislative decisions to enable ex-offenders opportuni- ties that were previously unachievable. New Hampshire, a State commonly known for having a low crime rate in comparison with other States, enacted Senate Bill 500 (SB 500) on June 30, 2010. The goal of this bill is to reduce recidivism among probation violators and reduce taxpayer spending on correctional costs. "SB 500 will accomplish the following:
• Focus supervision on high-risk offenders by reducing the length of supervision for low-risk offenders.
• Enable probation officers to employ short, swift jail sanctions for minor probation violations, when per- mitted by judges at sentencing.
• Establish a seven-day residential intermediate sanc- tion for minor parole violators and a designated 90-day parole revocation facility to re-engage parole violators in treatment and with supervision.
• Ensure that everyone leaving prison receives at least nine months of supervision.
• Require nonviolent offenders to serve no more than 120 percent of their minimum sentence.
• Furthermore, New Hampshire's policy changes are projected to generate savings that could be reinvested in drug treatment, mental health services, and rapid drug testing—three areas to which the State currently allocates no State funding to the community through the Department of Corrections. The majority of indi- viduals in prison and jail have either mental health or addiction disorders (or both), which has been asso- ciated with homelessness, joblessness, family dys- function, crime, and recidivism" (Justice Center, The Council of State Governments [CSG], 2010).
Chief Justice John Broderick further states.
Without available State funds for drug tests, intermediate sanctions to quickly respond to minor violations, or contracted drug treatment in the community, probation and parole officers have few tools beyond revocation. This law will make a dif- ference not only in terms of public safety outcomes, but also in families restored and lives saved.
(Justice Center, CSG, 2010) SB 500 is a landmark bill that comes to the forefront not because of the need to find ways to reduce correc- tional populations, but as a byproduct of serious Federal, State, and local budget cuts that have produced a ripple effect across the Nation. Nonetheless, other States (including those with a much higher crime rate, such as California and Florida) might consider following New Hampshire's proactive lead in response to a national concern.
Law Enforcement Following the events of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, every level of law enforcement realized how extremely detrimental it was not to share information with other agencies. Today, law enforcement has made great strides not only in ensuring that current data are shared interdepartmentally, but also that they are collaborating on new information-sharing strategies.
The accomplishments of multijurisdictional agencies have created an awareness of how the incorporation of community-oriented policing (COP) programs is not only necessary but extremely effective. COP programs have successfully brought members of a community together in a united mission for public safety.
Community-oriented policing is defined as col- laboration between the police and the community that identifies and solves community problems.
Ideally, such collaboration helps develop better relationships and mutual understanding between police officers and community members, which in turn helps in solving community problems. (RAND Organization, 2003, p. vii) COP programs create an awareness of the diverse needs within a community, thus enabling law enforce- ment to better understand and respond to individual and group needs of the citizens by using a proactive approach. These programs actively engage citizens and create relationships with sectors of the community, such 10 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANJails as minorities and juveniles, who may have an inaccurate perception of police officers. Erom their earliest origin in the early 1960s, COP programs have made great strides in building relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The creation of these relationships has:
• Communicated a department's goals and interest in its citizens.
• Broken down barriers such as racial disparity.
• Protected property.
• Provided a broader understanding to meet the needs of victims.
• Reduced the number of violent crimes.
• Improved public safety overall through problem solving.
In addition, partnering with other groups or individu- als in the private sector is a contemporary and proactive method of crime prevention that has true potential for improvements and continues to provide public safety.
This method has also proven to be a successful business venture because it allows law enforcement executives, command staff, and departmental managers to redirect the resources that would otherwise be consumed by these logistical tasks.
There also are positive consequences for the courts.
Eor example, the backlog of court dockets would be reduced, thus giving prosecutors, district attorneys, and courts the opportunity to focus more on criminal cases and better meet victims' needs. It would also ensure that sentencing goals are imposed to meet both traditional and contemporary theories of jurisprudence. Ultimately, the greater the success of crime prevention and interven- tion programs like COP programs, the greater the public safety will become for an entire community.
Criminal Sentencing Although violent crime rates have decreased over the past two decades, the public's view is seriously distorted, largely because of the media perspective that criminal justice is too lenient and stiffer sentences should be imposed.
The criminal justice system needs to revise its meth- odology of retribution to improve public safety and the outcomes of the criminal justice system. No longer can warehousing inmates be considered an appropriate and stand-alone resolution through retribution. Eor the 21st century, rehabilitation, restoration, and réintégra- tion must replace the criminal justice theory of retribu- tion. Euture forms of retribution must be derived from research that holistically evaluates the short- and long- term outcomes of the goals and mission of the criminal ...restorative justice continues to gain support as a realistic and rational intervention.
justice system. The results of such research, new approaches, and insights, will be based on broad evidence-based deci- sion making, beginning with law enforcement and permeating the judicial system and correc- tional facilities, and extending into the post-release support systems for offenders (Schmalleger, 2012).
Euture restorative justice practices will require politicians to educate their constituents about how current sentencing practices have failed and how an over-inflated issue can be corrected. Among a growing number of correctional policymakers and practitioners, victim advocates, court officials, and law enforcement officials, restorative justice continues to gain support as a realistic and rational intervention.
At its best, restorative justice truly represents a unique way of responding to crime through more active involvement of crime victims and the com- munity. It goes far beyond the traditional liberal and conservative positions of the past by identify- ing underlying truths and joint interests of all of those concerned about crime policy in a democratic society. (Umbreit, n.d) Although a relatively new concept for sentencing goals, restorative justice equally advances the contem- porary and future criminal justice goals of merit as they apply to evolving values in the crinriinal justice system.
Corrections Although violent crime rates have decreased, incar- ceration rates have tripled over the last 30 years. Because of this, an extraordinary amount of tax revenue is consumed by the criminal justice system. Public agen- cies and political entities are only now recognizing the necessity of increasing public awareness. To successfully accomplish this, it has become necessary to collaborate with the media. This may be done by:
• Creating a variety of public service announcements to educate the community about the criminal justice system and its struggles to provide successful long- term results for public safety. Information on the action recourse plan of the criminal system should be included.
• Covering nonprofit, for-profit, local, and State meet- ings that discuss sentencing alternatives and their success rate compared with current practices.
• Interviewing criminal justice officials from all levels about their goals for improved public safety, how they plan to improve tax revenue expenditures, and how ineffective traditional sentencing practices will be upgraded. In addition, officials can discuss changes to their goals and mission, what approaches need to 12 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANjails be taken, why the success of offender réintégration programs is so vitally important to future generations, and overall anticipated results for public safety.
It may come as no surprise that the general public has no comprehension of corrections and how it correlates with the goals and mission statements of most correc- tional facilities. The characteristics of corrections are defined as:
• Something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate; emendation.
• The act of correcting.
• Punishment intended to reform, improve, or rehabili- tate; chastisement; reproof.
• Usually, corrections. The various methods, as incar- ceration, parole, and probation, by which society deals with convicted offenders.
• A quantity applied or other adjustment made in order to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or the solution of a problem.
{Dictionary.com, 2011) Commonly, the terminology in almost any correc- tional facility's mission statement discusses the respon- sibility to:
• Confine an awaiting or convicted offender.
• Ensure public safety.
• Provide adequate access to medical and mental health services.
• Provide treatment through habüitafion, rehabilitation, education, and job training.
• Provide réintégration programming to return an offender to the community having gained new skill sets, and assistance with having identified appropri- ate support systems in the community to facilitate the transition from incarceration and the ability to live as a productive citizen.
All of these goals exemplify the actual definition of corrections and incorporate the purposes of sentencing.
However, the way correctional agencies translate and carry out these goals can be as varied as the levels of jails and prisons within the criminal justice system. In the 21st century, the ultimate goal of law enforcement, courts, and corrections should be the successful réinté- gration of offenders into the community.
To realize the maximum potential of réintégration, reentry programming must be incorporated into the final phase of the sentence of every offender sentenced to a term of no less than six months of confinement, because removal from society for this amount of time significantly breaks down or destroys any pro-social relationships in the community that the former offender had. Studies have shown that criminal sentences of more than two years of incarceration have a negative impact on prisoners when they are released and return home. Consequently, the incapacitation sanction without réintégration services inadvertently increases the risk of recidivism or the likelihood of ex-offenders committing a new crime.
It is important for both the public and the criminal justice system to acknowledge that few if any people choose to live a life of crime. In most cases, engaging in crime is the consequence of an offender's environ- ment. A large percentage of offenders live in lower socioeconomic conditions. Also, it is no surprise that for these offenders to survive or compete with peers, they engage in criminal behavior. Once incarcerated, offend- ers become even more disadvantaged because they are further denied socially acceptable options to establish prosocial relationships, gain employment that provides income above the living wage, and assist with familial responsibilities. Reintegration through reentry program- ming during incarceration not only provides an opportu- nity for offenders to reconnect with these aspects of life, but it can also introduce positive resources and tools to which an offender has not previously been exposed.
Reentry and the benefits of offender réintégration were introduced and defined by President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union Address:
"If prisoners released back into society can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime" (Bush, 2004).
Continuing to support offender reentry programs, the Obama administration has appropriated Federal funding for réintégration initiatives for State and local govern- ments. These initiatives will develop strategies instru- mental to creating partnerships with a variety of other social service agencies. Reentry programming strives to provide the education and training that society has thus far failed to provide. As reentry programming is further researched and improved, revised versions will incor- porate essentially every sector of society associated with effectively reintegrating an ex-offender into his or her community.
Understanding that successful reentry programs can- not be achieved solely by experts in the criminal justice field, a massive collaboration of social welfare agencies and community officials across the United States must continue to provide effective reentry programming to inmates both pre- and post-release from jails and pris- ons.
These programs are research based and validated by theory. Because the long-term goal of inmate reentry programs is their continuation beyond release, they will continue to be integral to improving public safety that is both cost effective and reduces tax expenditures.
As previously noted, crime prevention through offender reentry programming must be research-based and community-specific. Thus, it should be understood that not all communities have the same resources or need to fight crime and reduce recidivism rates. Various types of crime affect communities with different demo- graphic variables to different degrees. To create success- ful programs for offenders, all of these variables should be considered.
AMERICANJaUs JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 13 Programs are typically developed on the basis of the current understanding of the dynamic risk fac- tors associated with recidivism, the typical needs of offenders, and the challenges they encounter upon their release from prison. Programs vary according to the recidivism risk factors and the type of social integration challenges they are designed to address. Many programs focus on specific challenges confronting offenders, such as the correction of cognitive thinking errors, addic- tion, drug abuse, codependency, or unemployment.
Likewise, many offender réintégration programs have been designed to deal with specific catego- ries of offenders, such as chronic offenders, drug addicted offenders, young offenders, mentally ill offenders, or dangerous sexual offenders. (Griffiths, Dandurand, & Murdoch, 2010, p. 6) Reentry programming is prevention through inten- sive intervention. Therefore, the possibility of future success for reentry programs to accomplish their goals of réintégration and productive citizenship must rely on supporting partnerships between:
• The entire criminal justice community.
• Legislative bodies at the local level.
• State and Federal governments.
Public Safety Performance Project PSPP helps States advance fiscally sound, research-based policies and practices in sentenc- ing and corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable and control corrections costs.
The project carries out these objectives by:
• helping States collect and analyze data—who is admitted to their prisons, how long they stay, who returns—and the implications of cor- rections practices for public safety and State budgets.
• improving States' understanding of how their existing policies, practices, and outcomes for dealing with criminal offenders compare to those of other States; and encouraging States to use the best research available to advance reforms that will reduce crime and recidi- vism, and deliver a solid return on taxpayers' investments.
PSPP also helps State officials and others share state-of-the-art knowledge and ideas through policy forums; public opinion surveys; multi-State meetings; national, regional and State-level meet- ings; and online information.
Source:
The Pew Charitable Trusts Organization.
Sentencing and corrections.
Retrieved from www.
pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=356 • Social welfare agencies.
• The community workforce.
• Educational institutions.
• An offender's family (familial or extended), friends, and religious organizations.
• The community at large.
Conclusion Public safety is a concern for every citizen in the United States. It is, however, the responsibility of our government to establish laws, statues, and ordinances that respond to such concerns and provide appropri- ate safety nets via our Nation's criminal justice system.
Legislation proposed to improve public safety in the 21st century should be responsive to research that supports long-term success, and consideration must be given to all productive and/or consequential outcomes that would either promote or diminish the effects on society. Once such laws are codified, established courts, law ertforce- ment, and corrections agencies at all levels should work to enforce them. These branches of the criminal justice sys- tem must actively engage the collaborative involvement of all sectors of society associated with the public welfare (public and private) and the community at large.
Once these partnerships have joined forces, the entire criminal justice system will see improvements in crime reduc- tion through intervention and prevention and realize a significant cost savings that would otherwise be spent on a stumbling criminal justice system that mirrors today's faltering situational status. • References Bush, G.
W.
(2004, January 20).
2004 State of the Union Address (White Paper). Retrieved from http://www.americanrheto- ric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2004.htm Griffiths, C. T, Dandurand, Y, & Murdoch, D. (2010, September 13). The social réintégration of offenders and crime prevention (Research Report). Retrieved from www.public- safety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/soc-reint-eng.aspx#s2 Justice Center, The Council of State Goverrunents. (2010). New Hampshire enacts law to reduce recidivism and generate savings.
Retrieved from www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/ arvnouncements/new-hampshire-enacts-law-to-reduce- recidivism-and-generate-savings RAND Organization. (2003). The police responsibility to commu- nity-oriented policing in a diverse society (Policy Brief). Los Angeles, CA: RAND.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal justice today:
An introductory text for the 21st century (11th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NY:
Pearson Education.
Umbreit, M. (n.d).
Restorative justice.
Retrieved from http:// law.jrarik.org/pages/1954/Restorative-Justice.html Phyllis Back, CJM, is Programs Director at the Albemarle- Charlottesville Jail in Charlottesville, Virginia. She can be reached [email protected].
14 JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2013 AMERICANJaUs Copyright of American Jails is the property of American Jails Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
