Understanding Prisoner Re-Entry and the Role of Restorative
School
Benedict College**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
CRIMINAL J CJUS649
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
9
Uploaded by CoachGull3649
Analysis: Prisoner Re-Entry and Restorative JusticePrisoner Re-Entry and Restorative Justice Annicia S. Walton11/30/24CJUS646: Community CorrectionsDr. Christopher Sharp
Discussion of the History and ContextThe history of the re-entry of correctional prisoners really did begin in the late 19th andearly 20th centuries, which had undergone considerable transformation regarding the perspectiveof crimes and their respective sanctions. It was during these times when parole was introduced inAmerica. Parole is a system whereby prisoners who have served portions of their terms may bereleased early under certain conditions. It was the inspiration mostly of one of the most famousprison reformists of his era, Zebulon Brockway.(Duwe, 2017) He believed that offenders couldchange and be rehabilitated. He realized the mere punishment of the individuals was notsufficient but thought that a system needed to be in place where one could return to society afterserving time in prison.With his vision, Brockway advocated for a system that would pave the way for ex-inmates to be gradually introduced back into their communities, thereby giving them ample timeto adapt and build skills for life outside the prison walls (Brockway, Zebulon Reed, 2014). Hisideas were embraced and practiced in several correctional facilities throughout the country,subsequently leading to the development of parole systems that would facilitate this integration.As the mid-20th century neared, rehabilitation and reintegration indeed began to giveground as priorities. The "get tough on crime" movement gradually gained favor in countries,especially in the United States, focusing more on heavier sentences with longer lengths. Thisattitude change made such supporting measures toward re-entry and rehabilitation the ones often
not taken into account. While many of these programs were designed to help people get backinto society, funding and interest in them was reduced, creating a gap between the intent ofreform and the actual criminal justice policy at the time(Luna, 2022.). The strict lawenforcement and punitive measures being emphasized added to the difficulties former inmateshad in trying to put their lives together after serving time.In the 1970s and 1980s, U. S. criminal justice policies began to shift away fromrehabilitation and toward punishment, in large part because of the War on Drugs. This was an eraof three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, and the numbers of people being sentto prison grew. The thought was that harsh punishment would discourage crime, but it did notreduce recidivism. The financial burden of mass incarceration became apparent, and a newinterest in rehabilitation and structured re-entry programs to help former inmates reintegrate intosociety successfully began. Restorative justice, born from indigenous cultures, emerged as acomplementary approach that focuses on healing rather than punishment, allowing offenders andvictims to communicate (Lattimore, 2022). Political changes and increased public concern aboutthe cost of incarceration spawned supportive policies such as the Second Chance Act in 2007,which emphasized rehabilitation and community services for former offenders.Discussion of the External Forces on Policy and IdeologyRestorative justice programs have their roots in various indigenous cultures of the world. Most of the indigenous cultures used to deal with crime and conflicts through community-based approaches, emphasizing the need for healing and restoration rather than punishment. In such approaches, the emphasis was on repairing the harm caused by wrongdoing, which usually
involved direct engagement between the offender, the victim, and the wider community. The concept of restorative justice began to take shape in a modern context in the 1970s when, among other times, more and more people expressed their dissatisfaction with the traditional criminal justice system and its perceived lack of serving the needs of victims from crimes committed (Pavlacic et al., 2021). Today, practices in restorative justice, like victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing, can take place in a number of environments such as schools, communities, and correctional systems. Although the main goals of restorative justice and re-entry programs may differ, they both embrace a fundamental understanding that a more complete approach to criminal justice can improve results for offenders, victims, and society as a whole.Over the last few decades, political factors influencing how we respond to prisoner re-entry have undergone significant changes. Public perceptions, political beliefs, and laws have all played important roles in shaping this shift. For example, the "tough on crime" approach was prominent during the 1980s and 1990s and eventually resulted in the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Cloud et al., 2022). This act contained very punitive measures to deal with crime and therefore contributed to the rapidly increasing incarceration rates throughout the United States. However, as these high costs-social and economic-of mass incarceration became clearer, rehabilitation and successful reintegration of offenders started to gain importance. A milestone in this transition is the Second Chance Act of 2007, which aims at providing support for ex-offenders through services such as job training, substance abuse treatment, housing assistance, family programs, mentorship, and victim support. This Act marked a definitive shift away from pure punitive policies, reflecting the growth of
awareness in society itself that such an approach needed supplementation with more rehabilitative elements.Social dynamics and public opinion have great bearing on policies put in place by the legislature. In democracies, politicians often take up issues that strike a responsive chord with thepublic or cause widespread apprehension, as quantify by public opinion surveys and research. A strong example is the direct file policies that are mandatory for juvenile offenders in Florida. Partof this movement has come from increased public fear regarding juvenile crime, and specifically the idea of youthful offenders as "superpredators." Following a study by Florida State University, which found that the public were increasingly concerned about juvenile delinquency. The results of this study led policymakers to enact rigid mandatory direct file policies, which demonstrates how public opinion can directly affect legislation. Although the public supported these policies at the time, the long-term consequences have proven to be highly problematic, particularly as it has become clear that the "superpredator" hypothesis was largely based on fear rather than any actual evidence. Further studies overturned this hypothesis and showed that this nightmare was not real (Hanes et al., 2012). Mandatory direct file policies, although being very popular at one time, have since been considered some of the most damaging laws affecting youthwith detrimental repercussions and ineffective against crime reduction.This case demonstrates an important understanding: although public opinion and societal influences can be large driving factors for policy, the success and sustainability of those policies rely on their basis in evidence-based facts and real-world applicability. The sustained evolution
regarding policy and crime and punishment has introduced a sea change to the correctional system, gradually shifting away from a solely punitive model to one focused on rehabilitation and positive outcomes for all parties involved.Summary and RecommendationsThis paper seeks to discuss how correctional practices and community justice havechanged throughout the years. The concept of how crime is dealt with and punished has changeda lot, starting with the establishment of parole. When offenders were discharged from prison,they were released into the care of a person who was supposed to take care of them andreintegrate them into society. It was meant to be supportive, guiding them back into theircommunities without further difficulty. But then came the changes, evolving to a focus on beingmore punitive in nature, based on policies and three-strike laws begun in California that calledfor greatly enhanced sentences for recidivist offenders, shifting the emphasis from rehabilitationto punishment.Recently, there has been a subtle shift back to a focus on community justice that leansmore toward rehabilitation rather than punishment. Another important development in this moveis the restorative justice program, which marks a sea change in the way society approaches crimeand punishment. Instead of punitive measures, the restorative justice program brings the victimand offender into communication in an effort to heal the injury and understand, rather thanpunish.
Political considerations in terms of how these changes in correctional policies come aboutare no different from how the POST C initiative affects law enforcement and correctionalpractices. For instance, how many are paroled and what programs are provided for them beforethey can be deemed to have violated their parole and be sent back to prison depend on politicalwhims. Corrections is one field that seems to be in constant flux and often at the mercy of publicopinion and voter behavior.Even as there has been an increase in the trend toward community safety, the problemspersist. In Massachusetts, for example, parolees commit crimes anew, while the Office of PublicSafety plays down these statistics to give the best picture about community safety. Anotherdisturbing trend is the increased offense of parolees resisting arrest. This increase underlinessystemic problems of inability to charge effectively those on parole and probation, which raisesconcerns about accountability and the overall effectiveness of the justice system.Ultimately, correctional systems should focus on community safety rather than appealingto political gain or financial interests by allowing communities to prosper without the specter ofcrime. As such issues continue to evolve, appreciation of the interrelationship between politicaldecisions and community justice will be critical in framing a more effective yet balancedcorrectional framework.References
Brockway, Zebulon Reed. (2014, August 17). Social Welfare History Project. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/corrections/brockway-zebulon-reed/Cloud, D. H., Garcia-Grossman, I. R., Armstrong, A., & Williams, B. (2022). Public Health and Prisons: Priorities in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Annual Review of Public Health,44(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071521-034016Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-release outcomes. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250476.pdfHanes, M., Administrator, A., Mulvey, E., & Schubert, C. (2012). Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court: Effects of a Broad Policy in One Court. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/232932.pdfLattimore, P. K. (2022). Reflections on criminal justice reform: Challenges and opportunities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09713-5Luna, E. (n.d.). Reforming Criminal Justice Volume 4: Punishment, Incarceration, and Release Editor and Project Director. https://academyforjustice.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_4.pdfPavlacic, J. M., Kellum, K. K., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2021). Advocating for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices: Examining the Overlap between Restorative Justice and Behavior Analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00632-1