100 word minimum for each paper.. give your feedback(your opinion) on each paper.
At some point an offender will be released from jail or prison and will enter into a type of supervised release. Probation and parole are mandatory in the criminal justice system as they help aid in the overcrowding of the prison system as well as reduce incarceration costs. Currently, 870,000 former prisoners have been released from incarceration into their communities under some form of supervision. With that large of a number it is extremely important that probation and parole agencies are doing the best they can to reduce recidivism. Probation and parole agencies play an important role in the reduction of recidivism. However, if the probation and parole agencies do not treat every offender to their needs, there will be no reduction in recidivism. Probation and parole agencies cannot expect to treat every offender as they are the same and expect the treatments to work efficiently. For example, probation and parole agencies cannot give every offender a substance abuse program if not all the offenders are substance abusers. With that being said, if the offender at hand is an abuser of illegal substances, it is necessary to ensure that the offender gets the proper rehabilitation in order to reduce recidivism. (Alarid, 2019). Probation and parole agencies also need to prioritize offenders getting an education and helping them look for jobs. If the offender can feel like they can better themselves, they will be less likely to take the path of crime again. There is evidence that supports a reduction in recidivism when the offender has gained an education during their incarceration. Correctional education is not just limited to a GED, it can take on the form of vocational training, such as masonry or welding. It is important that probation and parole agencies see that once an offender is in their care, they continue their education. (Hall, 2015).
During this week’s discussion, we will determine what, if anything, can help reduce recidivism for offenders released from incarceration and placed on community-based corrections, whether parole or probation. When trying to reduce recidivism from an individual perspective, some factors to consider are the offender’s mental, physical, and economic stability before and after returning to society. Then when attempting to decrease the rate of recidivism from a correctional perspective, we need to look at the model of community corrections employed, the offender’s original charging instrument, and prior criminal history to help us determine if achieving this goal is possible. In this writer’s opinion, one factor that plays a role in higher recidivism rates is determinate sentencing. Yes, this is contrary to what we read in Chapter 1, where David Fogel suggested narrowing sentences and taking discretion from parole boards through the use of determinate sentencing over indeterminate sentencing (Alarid, 2018). However, just because one was convicted, sentenced, and served their time does not mean that they are rehabilitated and will not violate the conditions of their release or commit a new crime. When deciding if determinate sentencing is better at reducing recidivism than indeterminate sentencing, things to consider are the individual offender’s behavior before, during, and after incarceration to see how they have changed and how they responded to the various services offered them in prison and their respective community corrections program. So, to achieve a significant reduction in recidivism, parole and probation officers/agencies need to focus on the individual offender while maintaining an approach that benefits the victim, community, offender, and the criminal justice system. Each model of supervision that we covered in Unit 1 has its pros and cons. There are undoubtedly aspects of each model that can help reduce the likelihood of rearrest of an offender on community corrections, and combining the best component(s) of each model may be a good option. To determine which approach works best, individual agencies and agents will have to adapt their post-prison supervision plans to meet the greatest need of their clients. To accomplish this, parole and probation agencies and officers will have to apply measures the founders of parole implemented when reforming the old system, where flogging and ball and chains were commonplace in rehabilitating an offender (Alarid, 2018). Whether the reader agrees with the writer’s earlier statement about determinant sentencing, we can surely agree that community corrections help lower the rate of recidivism. In a study conducted by Yukhnenko et al., they concluded that the one and two-year recidivism rates for offenders on community corrections ranged from a low of 5% to 33% and 16% to 41%, respectively (2019). The research further noted a significant increase in recidivism for offenders not placed on a post-prison re-entry program.