Community Corrections Program
Community Corrections’ Purpose in the System
The Goals of Criminal Sanctions
Criminal sanctions are designed to fulfill one or more of the following philosophical goals: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution, and (5) restitution. The purpose of deterrence is to make a punishment or the prospect of punishment unpleasant enough to prevent someone from committing a crime in the future. There are two types of deterrence: specific and general. Specific deterrence is designed to prevent the offender from committing future crimes. In order for specific deterrence to occur, no one need witness or be aware of the punishment except the offender. General deterrence rests on the belief that others who are aware of the punishment meted out to another offender will learn a lesson from that punishment and not commit similar acts. In order for general deterrence to be effective, people other than the offender must be aware of the punishment that comes with an offense. Well-publicized “get tough” measures and public shaming (such as being ordered to post a drunk-driving bumper sticker on a car) are attempts at general deterrence.
Rehabilitation aims at changing the offender’s behavior through intervention, assistance or treatment. Because all offenders are, or eventually will be, members of the community, correctional officials should do everything reasonably possible to prepare the offender for life in the community in order to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. Rehabilitation is the historical trademark of community corrections. Group and individual counseling, medical and psychological assistance, substance-abuse treatment, educational programs, and vocational assistance are a few examples of rehabilitation methods.
In contrast, incapacitation does not aim to change the offender’s behavior. The rationale underlying incapacitation is “out of sight, out of mind.” Imprisonment is the purest form of incapacitation (aside from the death penalty) because offenders are locked away from society where they can pose little or no threat to public safety. Although by its very nature, community corrections does not act as a pure form of incapacitation, it does practice the aim of incapacitation to a certain degree. Some community-based sanctions, such as work release or residential centers, partially incapacitate an offender. One purpose of community corrections is to control the offender’s actions so that opportunities to commit crime will be reduced. Reporting requirements, curfews, electronic monitoring, and restriction of movement are ways that incapacitation is put into practice in community corrections.
Like incapacitation, retribution does not aim at changing the thinking of the offender. Sometimes referred to as just desserts, retribution is a form of vengeance or punishment. Retribution is imposed more for the satisfaction of the public than for the well-being of the offender. Many argue in favor of the death penalty based on retributive grounds. Imprisonment with no attempt to offer programs of assistance is also retributive. The fine, which is the most common criminal sanction and a common probation condition, is an example of a retributive sanction, as are stringent reporting requirements.
Restitution aims at restoring, to the greatest extent possible, the situation that existed before the crime was committed. This often is done by literally repaying the victim for his or her loss. Restitution is most commonly employed with property offenses, but it can be employed in certain types of violent offenses. In cases of rape or assault, restitution can be ordered for medical bills. In cases involving vandalism, the offender may be ordered to repair the damage inflicted. Community service work, which is free labor performed for a nonprofit or government agency, is sometimes referred to as “symbolic restitution.” A well-known drug offender may repay his or her “debt to society” by conducting anti-drug lectures at elementary schools. Convicted drunk drivers may repay their “debt” by collecting trash on the highway.
When examining these terms, it is common to mistakenly assume they are mutually exclusive or that there is no overlap. This is not always the case. Criminal sanctions can be both rehabilitative and retributive, serving both as a deterrent and as a form of incapacitation. Being forced to pay restitution, for example, can be retributive and rehabilitative and can serve as a deterrent. Which goal(s) a sanction fulfills depends on the offender. What may seem like harsh punishment to one person may not have the same effect on someone else. To someone who has never been arrested, one night in jail can be a nightmare. To a person who has spent a large portion of their juvenile and adult like in penal institutions, however, the threat of incarceration (while less than desirable) is not very frightening.
In a review of community corrections research in the United States, M. Kay Harris looked beyond the traditional, or dominant, rationales for sentencing and concluded that there are four broader orientations toward community-based sanctions:(1) structured sanctioning policy development, (2) effective correctional intervention, (3) restorative or community justice, and (4) risk control/limited risk management. These orientations simultaneously incorporate a number of dominant sentencing rationales into their framework.
Structured Sanctioning
The primary aim of structured sanctioning policy development is to promote equity and predictability in sentencing. This philosophy is embodied by the concept of structured sentencing, which incorporates deterrence and retribution into its framework. The primary outcome measure of structured sanctioning is the extent to which sentencing decisions conform to the sentencing guidelines set by commissions or boards. Those who work in such structures, including community corrections staff, must be well acquainted with how the guidelines are to be applied.
Correctional Intervention
The primary aim of the effective correctional intervention rationale is to reduce the occurrence of reoffending through risk management and effective treatment. The dominant penological philosophies incorporated are rehabilitation and specific deterrence. Effective correctional intervention embodies the traditional approach to community corrections supervision, which dates to the early history of American probation. Deciding the appropriate method of intervention for a specific offender is key in the correctional intervention framework. A “one size fits all” mentality is not appropriate. For example, the key to one offender’s not committing future crimes might be successful substance abuse intervention, while another’s might be vocational training or formal education.
Community Corrections’ Purpose in the System
The Goals of Criminal Sanctions
Criminal sanctions are designed to fulfill one or more of the following philosophical goals: (1) deterrence, (2) rehabilitation, (3) incapacitation, (4) retribution, and (5) restitution. The purpose of deterrence is to make a punishment or the prospect of punishment unpleasant enough to prevent someone from committing a crime in the future. There are two types of deterrence: specific and general. Specific deterrence is designed to prevent the offender from committing future crimes. In order for specific deterrence to occur, no one need witness or be aware of the punishment except the offender. General deterrence rests on the belief that others who are aware of the punishment meted out to another offender will learn a lesson from that punishment and not commit similar acts. In order for general deterrence to be effective, people other than the offender must be aware of the punishment that comes with an offense. Well-publicized “get tough” measures and public shaming (such as being ordered to post a drunk-driving bumper sticker on a car) are attempts at general deterrence.
Rehabilitation aims at changing the offender’s behavior through intervention, assistance or treatment. Because all offenders are, or eventually will be, members of the community, correctional officials should do everything reasonably possible to prepare the offender for life in the community in order to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. Rehabilitation is the historical trademark of community corrections. Group and individual counseling, medical and psychological assistance, substance-abuse treatment, educational programs, and vocational assistance are a few examples of rehabilitation methods.
In contrast, incapacitation does not aim to change the offender’s behavior. The rationale underlying incapacitation is “out of sight, out of mind.” Imprisonment is the purest form of incapacitation (aside from the death penalty) because offenders are locked away from society where they can pose little or no threat to public safety. Although by its very nature, community corrections does not act as a pure form of incapacitation, it does practice the aim of incapacitation to a certain degree. Some community-based sanctions, such as work release or residential centers, partially incapacitate an offender. One purpose of community corrections is to control the offender’s actions so that opportunities to commit crime will be reduced. Reporting requirements, curfews, electronic monitoring, and restriction of movement are ways that incapacitation is put into practice in community corrections.
Like incapacitation, retribution does not aim at changing the thinking of the offender. Sometimes referred to as just desserts, retribution is a form of vengeance or punishment. Retribution is imposed more for the satisfaction of the public than for the well-being of the offender. Many argue in favor of the death penalty based on retributive grounds. Imprisonment with no attempt to offer programs of assistance is also retributive. The fine, which is the most common criminal sanction and a common probation condition, is an example of a retributive sanction, as are stringent reporting requirements.
Restitution aims at restoring, to the greatest extent possible, the situation that existed before the crime was committed. This often is done by literally repaying the victim for his or her loss. Restitution is most commonly employed with property offenses, but it can be employed in certain types of violent offenses. In cases of rape or assault, restitution can be ordered for medical bills. In cases involving vandalism, the offender may be ordered to repair the damage inflicted. Community service work, which is free labor performed for a nonprofit or government agency, is sometimes referred to as “symbolic restitution.” A well-known drug offender may repay his or her “debt to society” by conducting anti-drug lectures at elementary schools. Convicted drunk drivers may repay their “debt” by collecting trash on the highway.
When examining these terms, it is common to mistakenly assume they are mutually exclusive or that there is no overlap. This is not always the case. Criminal sanctions can be both rehabilitative and retributive, serving both as a deterrent and as a form of incapacitation. Being forced to pay restitution, for example, can be retributive and rehabilitative and can serve as a deterrent. Which goal(s) a sanction fulfills depends on the offender. What may seem like harsh punishment to one person may not have the same effect on someone else. To someone who has never been arrested, one night in jail can be a nightmare. To a person who has spent a large portion of their juvenile and adult like in penal institutions, however, the threat of incarceration (while less than desirable) is not very frightening.
In a review of community corrections research in the United States, M. Kay Harris looked beyond the traditional, or dominant, rationales for sentencing and concluded that there are four broader orientations toward community-based sanctions:(1) structured sanctioning policy development, (2) effective correctional intervention, (3) restorative or community justice, and (4) risk control/limited risk management. These orientations simultaneously incorporate a number of dominant sentencing rationales into their framework.
Structured Sanctioning
The primary aim of structured sanctioning policy development is to promote equity and predictability in sentencing. This philosophy is embodied by the concept of structured sentencing, which incorporates deterrence and retribution into its framework. The primary outcome measure of structured sanctioning is the extent to which sentencing decisions conform to the sentencing guidelines set by commissions or boards. Those who work in such structures, including community corrections staff, must be well acquainted with how the guidelines are to be applied.
Correctional Intervention
The primary aim of the effective correctional intervention rationale is to reduce the occurrence of reoffending through risk management and effective treatment. The dominant penological philosophies incorporated are rehabilitation and specific deterrence. Effective correctional intervention embodies the traditional approach to community corrections supervision, which dates to the early history of American probation. Deciding the appropriate method of intervention for a specific offender is key in the correctional intervention framework. A “one size fits all” mentality is not appropriate. For example, the key to one offender’s not committing future crimes might be successful substance abuse intervention, while another’s might be vocational training or formal education.
well here i am again because this seems to be the only way anyone will listen!since my last post the job search has gone like it is suppose to so THANK YOU FOR THAT!now if only you could do something about people being singled out and treated differently. i realize that everyone has different circumstances that require different rules and rehabilitation but i was not aware that people would be i dont know how to put it maybe picked on or constantly being "singled out" for simple things that others do and are never spoken to about.everyone in the world is different so why look down upon someone else because they listen to music you dont approve of,wear clothes you think are ridiculous,or have hair do's that you would never attempt or have a sexual prefernce that you think is threatening their salvation????it does not seem to me that any of these things should matter as long as noone can hear their music,their clothes arent provocitive,their hair cuts or colors are not gang related and they ARE NOT involved in a same sex relationship with anyone else who is in your program WHY are they being singled out, treated differently and looked down upon?????you say in your description of your program that it's christian based.well if thats the case who are your monitors to judge these ladies?who are you to decide that someone deserves to constantly be rode for every thing they do becase they choose to live their life with a same sex partner and they are so content in this relationship that they dont keep it hidden like some dirty secret?that they speak aloud about the music they love and get told its devil music and a trigger for relapse when its the only thing that may keep them calm. i just think your monitors should have rules so they cant place their personl beliefs upon these ladies and or treat them different because they dont have the tolerence to put up with the gay and lesbian people of the world.anyway im trying to be the voice for these ladies. i received four letters from different women in your program this week with alot of despair over these issues so if at all possible please make some changes so these ladies dont give up and either leave or find themselves locked up again
ReplyDelete