CJ 300 Final - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

The final paper for this project, a case analysis....

Description

Reforming for Rehabilitation: Repeat Offenders and Recidivism NAME CJ-300 Research Methods for CJ Professor Robb F. Watkins Southern New Hampshire University

Outline I. Introduction A. Repeat offenders (Related to the trend of diversion to non-prison, rehabilitative sanctions)

B. General information about repeat offending, what types of offenders reoffend, etc (Setting the stage) C. Effects of reoffending (How it plays a larger role and impacts the criminal justice system and society) II. Literature Review A. French, Fang, & Fretz (2010) 1. Summary 2. Themes and Relationships 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methodology B. Lawrence (2013) 1. Summary 2. Themes and Relationships 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methodology C. Lievesley, Winder, Norman, & Banyard (2018) 1. Summary 2. Themes and Relationships 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methodology D. Terry & Abrams (2017) 1. Summary 2. Themes and Relationships 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methodology E. Zhang & Zhang (2005) 1. Summary 2. Themes and Relationships 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methodology III. Methodology A. French, Fang, & Fretz (2010) 1. Research Design 2. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodology 3. Methods Impacting Validity 4. Ethical Considerations B. Lawrence (2013) 1. Research Design 2. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodology 3. Methods Impacting Validity 4. Ethical Considerations C. Lievesley, Winder, Norman, & Banyard (2018) 1. Research Design 2. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodology 3. Methods Impacting Validity 4. Ethical Considerations

D. Terry & Abrams (2017) 1. Research Design 2. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodology 3. Methods Impacting Validity 4. Ethical Considerations E. Zhang & Zhang (2005) 1. Research Design 2. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methodology 3. Methods Impacting Validity 4. Ethical Considerations IV. My Research Question: What changes can be made to the criminal justice system in sentencing, corrections, probation, and parole to help prevent repeat offending and reduce recidivism rates? V. Conclusions and Future Directions

Introduction Repeat offending is a type of recidivism, which is when someone who was previously incarcerated commits another crime, commits the same crime, or returns to prison for some other reason, such as a parole violation. Repeat offenders are people who have already been convicted of a crime, served their time or been released from prison, and then offend again. They are

arrested again and usually convicted again and return to prison, probation, or parole, which contributes to high recidivism rates. However, there has been a recent trend in criminal justice to reduce sanctions for various crimes and divert offenders from prisons to community programs, in order to rehabilitate offenders, prevent repeat offending, and reduce recidivism rates. Since 2009, at least fifteen states have reduced mandatory minimum sentencing and at least seven have changed mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders in particular. Some states, like California, have even added “performance incentive funding” to pay local governments for successful community supervision programs for offenders, which has led to a 33 percent decrease in probation revocation in California. Since 2007, over one half of states have found ways to address probation rule violations without sending violators to prison, and over twenty states use graduated sanctions for these violations. Moreover, forty-five states have added sentence credit laws and at least twenty-six have added or expanded earned-time credits since 2007, to reduce the amount of time people spend in prison. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2013, eight states have begun to require post-prison supervision, to help offenders return to the community (Lawrence, 2013). Therefore, the problem of repeat offending effects this diversion and sanction reevaluation trend, and this trend effects repeat offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the nine-year recidivism rate in the U.S. is about 83 percent for state prisoners, and the one-year rate is about 44 percent. It is important to note that repeat offenders are not always arrested for the same crime each time, for example, 77 percent of drug offenders were arrested for a non-drug related crime within nine years of their release from prison. Moreover, not every former inmate is equally likely to reoffend. Younger offenders are more likely to reoffend; 90 percent of offenders aged twenty-four or younger when

they were released were arrested again within nine years, 51.8 percent within the first year, compared to offenders aged forty or older when they were released, 76.5 percent of which are arrested again within nine years, and just 37.8 percent within the first year. Furthermore, property offenders are the most likely to reoffend, 50.8 percent within the first year and 87.8 percent within nine years, ahead of drug offenders, 42.8 percent and 83.8 percent, respectively, public order offenders, 40.8 percent and 81.9 percent, respectively, and violent offenders, 38.9 percent and 78.7 percent, respectively (Alpher, Dunrose, & Markman, 2018). Thus, repeat offending is a significant problem in the criminal justice system. Moreover, repeat offending doesn’t just impact the criminal justice system and the offender. With the exception of arguably “victimless” crimes like drug abuse, every time an offender reoffends, another person is victimized, so repeat offending leads to increased victimization and impacts many lives directly. Repeat offending also impacts the economy indirectly. Prisons cost states a great deal of money; nationwide, states spend over $60 billion on prisons each year. Repeat offending leads to more prisoners, which means a greater cost for governments, as well as fewer tax-paying workers to stimulate the economy. Finally, repeat offending impacts prisons and other prisoners, as it contributes to overcrowding and spreads resources thinner across a greater population (Zoukis, 2014). This makes it much more difficult to properly rehabilitate prisoners and may increase their likelihood of reoffending again. It is clear that repeat offending is a big issue facing the criminal justice system, and because all types of offenders can and do reoffend, there is no one specific solution. Instead, there must be a series of changes across the criminal justice system, from sentencing, to corrections, to parole and probation. Literature Analysis

Article One Summary The article by French, Fang, and Fretz (2010) provides an economic evaluation of a prerelease substance abuse treatment program conducted by the Community Education Centers in New Jersey. It explains the effect of the program in reducing recidivism, as well as the economic and net benefits of the program (French et. all, 2010). Specifically, the researchers highlight the increasing expense of incarceration in the United States; in 2005 the country spent $204 billion to house prisoners, and that number had increased 81 percent in the ten years prior to this study. The researchers discuss the issue of prison overcrowding and the effect of substance abuse on exacerbating this issue, particularly with regards to repeat offenders; 81 percent of offenders with five or more convictions have used drugs (French et. all, 2010). It follows, then, that successful substance abuse treatment programs for offenders could save the government money. The researchers tested this assertion by estimating the economic benefits of substance abuse treatment over a one-year post-release period for a group of offenders who had received treatment compared to a group that had not received treatment (French et. all, 2010). Themes and Relationships The article highlights several apparent themes. First, substance abuse treatment programs may increase the amount of time an offender goes without being rearrested after they are released from prison. The researchers found that the group that had received treatment went and average of 37.23 days longer without being rearrested within the one-year evaluation period. The treatment group went an average of 295.98 days without rearrests, compared to an average of 259.93 days for the control group (French et. all, 2010). Second, substance abuse treatment programs may reduce the likelihood that an offender will be rearrested, reconvicted, and

reincarcerated. In the post-release period, 35.80 percent of the treatment group was rearrested, 25 percent was reconvicted, and 21.02 percent was reincarcerated. Compared to the control group, 47.85 percent of which were rearrested, 36.71 reconvicted, and 29.87 percent reincarcerated, offenders who received substance abuse treatment were 12.05 percent less likely to be rearrested, 11.71 percent less likely to be reconvicted, and 8.85 percent less likely to be reincarcerated (French et. all, 2010). Finally, the effects of the substance abuse treatment program in reducing recidivism translated into economic savings. In the one-year evaluation period, the treatment group cost an average of at least $41 less than the control group on rearrest costs, $103 less on reconviction costs, and $3,028 less on reincarceration costs. This group also cost an average of at least $496 less in victim loss costs and $630 less in wage loss costs. This means that the substance abuse program may have saved an average of at least $4,307 per offender on costs related to criminal activity, though the savings may be as high as $6,200 per offender, on average (French et. all, 2010). Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods The researchers used quantitative methods to study group of 176 recently-released offenders who received pre-release substance abuse treatment compared to a control group of 395 recently-released offenders who did not receive this treatment, from 2000 to 2001 in New Jersey. They used bivariate and multivariate analyses to quantify the differences between the groups with respect to rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration. The use of multivariate analyses allowed researchers to examine a variety of factors at once (French et. all, 2010). The researchers used a mixture of state and national averages to estimate the costs of various outcomes in order to estimate the economic differences between the treatment and control groups. However, using some national averages as opposed to the averages of the state in which

the study was conducted, though necessary because averages for the costs of arrest, conviction, and victim loss for New Jersey were not available, may skew their results (French et. all, 2010). Furthermore, the researchers note that their analysis is limited, as they were not able to study the economic impact of the pre-release substance abuse treatment program on other fiscal areas, like employment, health care, and education. Thus, there may be other economic benefits to the program that are not examined in this article (French et. all, 2010). Finally, the generalizability of their results may be limited, as most participants in the pre-release substance abuse program lived in an urban setting, and the results may have been different in a rural location (French et. all, 2010). Article Two Summary The article by Lawrence (2013) examines recent trends in criminal justice regarding sentencing and corrections. The article explains justice reinvestment, the process of collecting data and analyzing the factors influencing prison populations and costs, then developing policies to address those factors (Lawrence, 2013). This process has been occurring across the United States; at least twenty-seven states have made justice reinvestment reforms. Based on the data they have collected, states have adjusted sentencing laws, made changes to community supervision programs, found new ways of responding to parole and probation violations, placed a newfound emphasis on addressing offenders’ needs, and paid increased attention to prisoner release and reentry (Lawrence, 2013). The researcher provides a description of various changes to state laws and new state programs, and also discusses the efficacy of these programs (Lawrence, 2013). Themes and Relationships

There are several themes apparent in this article. First, many states have made changes to their sentencing policies, reducing sentences and diverting offenders to other, non-incarceration programs. Between 2009 and 2012, twenty-four states have changed their offense classifications and penalties, including diverting lower-level drug offenders to treatment and community programs and lowering penalties for the possession of small quantities of drugs, and at least fifteen states have reduced their mandatory minimum sentences since 2009 (Lawrence, 2013). There has also been a trend toward finding new responses to probation and parole violations. Over twenty states have begun to use graduated sanctions, with non-prison sanctions to respond to technical violations, which allows probationers and parolees to remain in the community and develop a sense of stability. In Arkansas, this resulted in a 15 percent decrease in probation revocations and a 30 percent decrease in parole revocations (Lawrence, 2013). Finally, there has been a new emphasis on addressing offender needs and helping them through release and community reentry. At least thirteen states require that an offender’s needs be assessed before sentencing, and at least thirty-eight states offer earned-time credits for inmates who participate in educational courses, vocational training, and treatment programs. Moreover, between 2010 and 2013, eight states passed laws requiring a period of post-prison supervision to provide transitional support services and assist offenders in community reentry (Lawrence, 2013). Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods In this article, the researcher conducts a meta-analysis of various initiatives across the United States. The researcher catalogs laws passed by state legislatures and new programs enacted by different states, related to various trends in sentencing and corrections. The researcher also discusses the results of these laws and programs in reducing recidivism. This meta-analysis allows the researcher to draw information from a variety of programs and sources and highlight

the efficacy of many different programs at once, and to make policy recommendations based on the results of these state initiatives (Lawrence, 2013). However, the researcher compiles information about general trends and about state programs that have been successful but does not address whether some state programs have failed to adequately address recidivism or if some may have even exacerbated the problem (Lawrence, 2013). Moreover, as a meta-analysis, the results of research have been synthesized, but no new research has been done. This creates an essential framework for future research but does not provide any definitive information about the possible results of synthesizing the various state programs and addressing the problem of repeat offending from multiple angles within the same program (Lawrence, 2013). Article Three Summary The article by Lievesley, Winder, Norman, and Banyard (2018) discusses a series of interviews with repeat offenders serving short prison sentences of under twelve months in the United Kingdom. It explains how offenders view their prison sentence, their odds of recidivating and feeling “set up to fail,” as well as how they view themselves and their needs, and how they negotiate their identity after being labeled as a repeat offender (Lievesley et. all, 2018). All of the men interviewed had already served at least four sentences previously, and many of them were certain they would go back to prison again. Essentially, they felt they were serving a life sentence in installments (Lievesley et. all, 2018). Themes and Relationships This article relates to the problem of repeat offending because all of the men interviewed were repeat offenders (Lievesley et. all, 2018). They discuss why they have been repeatedly imprisoned and why they continue to recidivate, and several themes become apparent. They feel

that prison does not adequately rehabilitate them, particularly as they are ineligible for educational and drug treatment programs due to the brevity of their sentences, which causes them to question the purpose of prison. Many of the men are released from prison, only to become homeless and reoffend out of necessity. They note the need for support with housing, drug addiction, healthcare, and moral support (Lievesley et. all, 2018). Moreover, many of the interviewees note the cumulative effect of multiple sentences in negatively impacting their relationships, stability, and opportunities (Lievesley et. all, 2018). The article also discusses the impact of being labeled as an offender and carrying around a criminal record. Four of the participants explicitly noted employment discrimination and prejudice related to their criminal record, and others explained how their old friends will not associate with them because of their previous drug addiction. Overall, they express feelings of hopelessness and a sense of inevitability that they will return to prison (Lievesley et. all, 2018). Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods The researchers used a qualitative methodology. They interviewed eight adult male offenders who were serving a sentence of less than twelve months in a United Kingdom prison at the time of the study, and who had served at least one short sentence prior to their current sentence. The interviewees ranged in age from twenty-four to thirty-seven, and they were all white. The small and relatively homogeneous sample may make the results of this study difficult to generalize (Lievesley et. all, 2018). The researchers conducted a series of one-on-one semistructured interviews in 2014, each of which lasted 0.5 to 2 hours, the results of which were then analyzed using the IPA method. This method treats interviewees as experts of their own situation. Conducting one-on-one interviews is advantageous because interviewees may reveal things they may not have disclosed in a group interview setting and treating the interviewees as experts

allows an analyst to understand how subjects define their own experiences and construct their own meanings (Lievesley et. all, 2018). Article Four Summary The article by Terry and Abrams (2017) discusses the results of a series of interviews with formerly incarcerated young men who had recently exited the juvenile justice system and were at high risk of reoffending. The researchers found that there were two distinct groups within their sample, a group they called “On the Road to Desistance” that made a series of micro-level decisions within their everyday lives to separate themselves from negative influences, and a group they called “Running in Circles” that made decisions to reduce, but not discontinue, their criminal involvement to avoid being rearrested. (Terry & Abrams, 2017). Between 75 and 90 percent of incarcerated juveniles are eventually arrested as adults. The researchers endeavored to understand how formerly incarcerated young adults make decisions about crime, what strategies they use to navigate challenges and avoid rearrest, and how these strategies differ between those who successfully avoid rearrest and those who continue to reoffend (Terry & Abrams, 2017). Themes and Relationships The researchers identified several themes in this article. First, many members of the first group, “On the Road to Desistance” made internal changes, but also decided to make changes to their outward appearances as a part of their desistance experience, changing the way they spoke, changing their hair and clothing, and covering their tattoos, in order to more effectively disassociate from their gang-ties and reduce the negative impact that being labeled as a former offender or a “thug” had on their social life and employment prospects. Members of the “Running in Circles” group, however, were much less willing to make these outward changes,

even though they acknowledged that some aspects of their appearance, like gang-related facial tattoos, created significant difficulties for them (Terry & Abrams, 2017). Many of the inter...