An Alternative to Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders Essay

Community department of studys is a mountain chain of substitute(a) punishments for unprovoking offenders. There argon two basic company department of studys models in the United States. In the first model, integrated conjunction department of corrections plans combine sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion with a variety of alternative sanctions and countersignature and probation options. In the sustain model, some offers have instituted syllabuss in which punitory officials whitethorn direct already decryd offenders into alternative sanction programs and countersignature and probation options.Both models argon designed to help reduce prison overcrowding and be less dear(predicate) alternatives to prison. Widespread go upment of community correction programs in the United States began in the late 1970s as a way to offer offenders, peculiarly those leaving jail or prison, residential work in halfway ho hires. The first put in community correction prog rams began in Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota as fly projects with very little government-funded support.They diverted non flushed offenders in selected pilot project argonas from jails and res publica prisons into local anaesthetic alternative punishment programs. These programs allowed approximates to sentence offenders to a community-based punishment rather than jail or prison. Rehabilitation programs were the favored punishment option. In the late 1980s, prison systems across the country began experiencing sincere overcrowding of facilities. The overcrowding litigated as a catalyst for lawmakers to develop cutting options for sentencing felonious offenders. nineteen conveys have now enacted conglomerate community correction programs.Community correction programs stand many communities with local punishment options as an alternative to prison or jail. These sanction programs be lower cost alternatives to increased prison and jail construction, based on the cost per offender. They provide local apostrophizes, reconcile departments of corrections, and state parole boards with a broad undulate of correctional options for offenders nether their jurisdiction. The goal is to match the appropriate punishment with the crime. Community corrections programs argon integrated sanctioning strategies which seek to achieve the spargon-time activity goals The offender is punished and held accountable. macrocosm safety is protected.Victims and local communities bring restitution from felons who blend in their present jobs and/or in restitution programs. Community service work increases.Collection of court costs and fees increases due to contractual agreements with offenders who remain in their present jobs. Eight states have adopted comprehensive Community chastisement Acts which create a network of correctional programs for specific types of offenders.The acts create mechanisms by which state funds are granted to local governments and community agenci es to bring forward local sanctions in lieu of prison or jail. While no two state programs are alike, a comprehensive community corrections program in the main includes the following elements A locally integrated criminal justice system which supports a network of de centralise or centralized correctional programs for specific types of offenders. For instance, in Minnesota, local community corrections informatory boards composed of county sheriffs, chiefs of police, prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, probation agents, and different local officials create comprehensive correction plans to improve the administration of justice at the local level.The plans detail the various options of punishment in the community which are available to judges and other criminal justice officials when sentencing offenders. These integrated systems generally include restitution programs for nonviolent offenders. Offenders wages are applied directly to restitution, court-ordered fines and fees, and room and board. Placement in the work programs usually lasts from three to six months. Programs are administered by local governmental or nonprofit agencies at the county or regional level, and are funded by the state under a single system which provides for local punishment options.Funds are provided contractually or directly depending on the involvement of nonprofit agencies. Sentencing guidelines for local, district, or regional judges prescribe a uniform sentencing structure with a variety of punishment options for offenders. They differ from unequivocal sentencing by targeting alternative punishments for the non-violent offender population.The punishment authorized under sentencing guidelines is generally tailored for the crime and applies to all similarly-situated felony offenders. For example, judges must follow a rating system based on the severity of the offenders crime, the frequency of violations, and the nature of the crime. Rating scales are adjusted periodically by sentencing commissions to reflect statewide sentencing patterns.Non-violent crimes have the lowest criminal rating, allowing judges the broadest range of sentencing options. In contrast, judges must impose very specific sentences for violent or serious crimes. Serious or violent felons sentenced to prison receive very little if any good time credit, and must serve a specified term while in prison. Responsibility for community correctional service is delegated to local units of government. This joins sentencing and punishment in unitary administrative level, with incentives for the most efficient use of local and state correctional resources. A post-prison release program, operated through a parole or probation system, is an integral theatrical role of a local community corrections treatment system. Community corrections sanctions whitethorn include24-hour residential programs which provide a structured animation environment for offenders who require command when not working or facial expression for employment Non-residential drug and alcoholic drink treatment programselectronic monitoring of offenders placed on home detention (offenders must wear bracelets that allow parole officials to monitor their movement) Diagnostic evaluation and counseling ordered by the court as part of a pre-sentence process Pre-trial intervention which provides close supervising and support services to selected offenders prior to trial Community service programs twenty-four hour period reporting centers where offenders are required to discuss the progress of their job lookup and daily activities with parole officials and Mandatory genteelness programs.There are some(prenominal) key elements to an integrated community-based correctional program Collaborative long range planning by local and state law enforcement officials to reduce the use of prisons for felony sentencing Coordinated use of local and state correctional resources A state funding mechanism to ensure a local l evel of correctional services and Ensuring public safety in community correction facilities. nonpareil of the goals of sentencing guidelines is to match the community sanction with the offender.The types of offenders which are considered for community sanctions include the following Offenders who might benefit from prevention services, and are of criminal activity in the future school drop-outs, urban youth gang members, and juvenile offenders with tuition disabilities. Prevention services could include mid-night basketball leagues, big brother programs, particular(prenominal) education programs, and other activities. Offenders who might benefit from early intervention services. This meeting is generally composed of first time offenders.Early intervention may reduce their chances for committing future crimes. They generally require services related to education, work-skill development, and capacity abuse and alcohol counseling. Offenders who might be eligible for diversion prog rams. This classify is basically those people in jail or prison who may safely be diverted to alternative programs and services. They generally are second or third time offenders who have failed on probation and have been convicted of a number of non-violent horrors. Under Californias three strikes law, they could face life imprisonment if their first two felonies are violent and/or if the third felony is violent.The goal of sentencing guidelines is to match target offender groups with the appropriate community sanction. While in that location are some variations among state sentencing guidelines, most establish punishment by the severity, frequency, and nature of the crime pull. For example, in Michigan, if an offender is arrested for burglary and has a antecedent drug arrest, state sentencing guideline ratings provide a range of sentencing options from alternative community corrections to up to a 24 month prison sentence. The community correction option allows the judge to se ntence the offender to a secured community-based substance abuse treatment program for six months, followed by a short probation period.The judge has the discretion to drive from an array of options. On the other hand, if an offender is convicted of a serious felony and has previous non-violent felony convictions, sentencing guidelines provide that alternative community corrections is not an option, and require a minimum 24 month prison sentence. While offenders sometimes break up the terms of a community correction sentence, so far there is no evidence that the offenders currently entering these programs are a endangerment to communities. evaluation studies are currently randomly tracking offenders who participate in community correction programs to determine the success or failure of the programs. The cardinal states which have enacted comprehensive community correction laws require a cleared local implementation strategy that targets specific offender populations, and seeks to match their needs with the correct community sanction and service, before state funds are dispersed. Several states have also enacted on-going performance evaluation reviews to identify riddle areas and fine-tune sentencing options.The other four states do not offer financial incentives or disincentives, although local implementation strategies are closely monitored by state legislatures. Four of the 8 states also offer formula-based incentives which require community agencies to develop comprehensive, integrated long-range community correctional plans. The greater local resources and services available under the plan, the higher the state funding.Most local plans are coordinated at the county level and identify all available community treatment programs, including prevention and intervention programs, training programs, and diversion programs. Local plans must include data detailing how the community correction programs are evaluate to reduce commitments to prison. The formu la grants include a disincentive for sending definite kinds of felons to state prison, in the form of a per-diem fee which is deducted from the local grant.Grantees are also required to monitor offenders for possible parole violations after they transact the community corrections program. lah has the oldest state name camp program in the country. The Intensive Motivational Program of preference punitory handling ( doctor) has as its goals Provide an alternative to long-term incarceration for youthful first- and second-time offenders. sheer costs without undue risk to public safety.Develop participants self-discipline, self-confidence, self- keep, item-by-item responsibility, and respect for others. In order to participate, an offender must meet the following eligibility criteria phallic and female offenders under the age of 40 serving sentences in state prison. First time felony offenders committed to state custody for 7 days or less for an offense with parole eligibility. Second-time felony offenders who have not previously spent time in state prison and who have been committed to state custody for 7 years or less for an offense carrying parole eligibility. No offenders with bang-up felony charges, numerous outstanding misdemeanor charges, outstanding immigration detainers, mental or physical health problems, history of assaulting behavior or escape, overt homosexuality, sex offense against a child or any violent sexual offense, or absence of post-release plan.In 1987, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections began operating a 136-bed multitude-style boot camp program at the medium-security Hunt Correctional Center (Up to 20 female slots are also available at the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women these inmates are bused to the boot camp daily). The 90- to 180-day program uses a three-phase hail to promote its philosophy of discipline and treatment. Regular program activities include military drill and ceremony training, physical training and organized recreational activities. preaching programs include a re-education therapy class that requires participants to evaluate their beliefs and values, substance abuse education classes and activities, and prerelease (life skills) preparation. Extra duty or incentive physical training are required for minor disciplinary infractions. More serious infractions may way out in reduction in rank, additional duties, or, in some cases, expiration from the program. About 55 percent of participants graduate from the program.On release, all IMPACT parolees are assigned to 3 months of intensive parole supervision where, in addition to the regular conditions mandated for all parolees (maintain employment or full-time educational training), they must satisfy the following requirements a minimum of 4 face to face contacts with a supervision officer each week, adherence to a curfew, snow hours of unpaid community service work and random drug and alcohol screenings. Af ter 3 months, supervision standards are gradually relaxed.Depending on individual performance, at the conclusion of this period, the parolee will continue receiving intensive supervision or is placed in regular parole supervision. According to the Multi-State Evaluation of Shock Incarceration report to the National Institute of Justice, Louisiana is one of three states whos program results in lower recidivism rates relation to comparison groups. Failures are more often for technical violations of parole than for new crime violations. It is estimated that each 100 inmates completing the program result in a cost savings of $750,000 to the state (Nieto, Marcus Feb. 1996).REFERENCESTravis Hirschi, and David Rudisill, An Evaluation of California Probation gift Program, Vol. 1 Commitment Reduction and Probation Subsidy A Summary of for sale Data, Center on Administration of Criminal Justice, University of California at Davis, (Davis), 1977.Probation/ war cry Survey, Corrections Compend ium, The National Journal for Corrections, August, 1994.U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. A Survey of Intermediate Sanctions, Washington, D.C. September, 1990, and Nieto, Marcus, California Research Bureau, The Changing Role Probation In Californias Criminal Justice System, April, 1996.Peters, G.T., Intermediate Sanctions A password of Illustrative Programs. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Washington D.C. 1990.Stone, Susan and Fulton, Betsy, Achieving Public Safety Through Rehabilitation and Reintegration The Promise of a New ISP, Presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Science Conference. Kansas City, Missouri. 1995.Nidorf, Barry, Chief Probation Officer, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County, Varied Uses of Electronic Monitoring The Los Angeles Experience, Edited by John Ortiz and William Selke. Intermediate Sanctions Sentencing in the 1990s. Anderson Publishing Company, 1995.Bourque, Blair, Han, B, Hill, Mei, and Sarah, M,. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. An Inventory of Aftercare Provisions for 52 Boot Camp Programs. NCJ 157104. Washington, DC. January, 1996.Nieto, Marcus, California Research Bureau, Community Correction Punishments An Alternative to Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders, Sacramento, CA., February, 1996.