What is the justice model of corrections? What factors were associated with its emergence in the 1970s?
Under this particular model, Rehabilitation, if used, should be voluntary. The largest policy impact grew from the need to change from indeterminate sentencing to determinate, or “flat,” sentencing. Under determinate sentencing, a specific crime would carry a clearly identified sentence length, not a broad minimum and maximum and therefore, Parole release would be eliminated. Do you agree or disagree with this model? Explain your reasoning.
Must include in text citation and be in APA 6th edition format.
Justice model of corrections
Student’s Name:
Institution:
Justice model of corrections
What is the justice model of corrections?
The justice model of corrections entails determining sentences to persons found guilty based on fair and justice sentencing policies. The justice model of corrections was developed due to criticism of the rehabilitative penal systems from sections of the society that viewed the system from a diversity of perspectives, thus demanding reforms. The reform agenda arose from the convergence of interest from groups criticizing the rehabilitationism approach (Zalman, 2010). The liberal lawyers agitated for reforms to restoring the due process at the heart of the justice system. Legal practitioners and other professionals adopted the thoughts and the ideas of the liberal lawyers since they were progressive and aimed at correcting the misuse of the rehabilitationism approach. The justice model of corrections proposes reforms to be adopted in filling the gap left upon the abolition of imprisonment.
What factors were associated with its emergence in the 1970s?
Different factors led to the emergency of the justice model of corrections in 1970. The justice model was based on reforms to ensure that the criminal justice system was progressive and anchored on the law’s due process. In this regard, the increased growth of correctional populations inclined to adopt reforms on the sentencing and correctional philosophy. The growth of correctional populations resulted in relative stability (McAlinden, 2011). For instance, in the period 1930 to 1975, the incarceration rate stood at 106 inmates per 100,000 adults in the population. The indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation occasioned the increased incarceration rates in the criminal justice system. After 1975 the incarceration rates rose consistently such that by 1985 the incarceration rates were at 200 per 100,000 adults population. The rates continued to grow to 411 and 445 in 1995 and 1997, respectively, for the state and federal prisons. If the local jails were considered, the incarceration rate would be at 652. By 1998 the adult correctional population in all the facilities (Federal, state, and local correctional facilities) was at 5.9 million, which is 2.9percent of the total population. In this regard, there was a need for reforms in incarceration and sentencing to reduce the high incarceration rates in the interest of stability. The correctional facilities need to have a manageable correctional population to ensure no constraints on the limited available resources.
The justice model reforms were influenced by factors relating to race, ethnicity, and gender in the correctional population, thus making the society unstable. The women population in the correct8onal facilities was relatively low compared to that of their male counterparts, but the incarceration rates for women were higher than that of the women (). In 1980 the incarceration rate for women was at 11 per 100,000 women, while males were at 275. As of 1999, the incarceration rate for women had increased to 59 (436 percent increase), while the incarceration rate for men was at 913 (232 percent increase). Consequently, males from minority groups had the greatest incarceration rate, and the greatest percentage increase in incarceration (Stemen and Rengifo, 2011). For instance, in the period 1980 to 1996, the African American incarceration rate in state and federal prisons rose from 554 to 1574 per 100,000 U.S adults. In the same period, the Hispanic incarceration rates rose from 206 to 609 (196% increase) while whites’ same rates increased from (73 to 193(164% increase. The prison and jail populations in 1996 for African Americans were 6,607 and 474 per 100,000 US adults for males and females, respectively; the white rates were at 944 males and 73 females. The incarceration rates between different races, genders, and ethnicities showed great disparity levels, thus requiring reforms in sentencing and incarceration guidelines.
Additionally, the high correctional expenditures on different programs and activities occasioned the adoption of reforms in the justice model corrections. The high correctional expenditure was occasioned by the consistent growth in the correctional populations. The direct correctional expenditure by the State government rose from $4.26 billion in 1980 to $21.27 billion in 1994 (Aharonson, 2013). The highest amount of funds was directed to supporting the institution and not funding the correctional programs such as community corrections, parole, and probation. Moreover, the percentage of funds allocated to funding the institutions increased with time. In this case, during the year 1980, 80.1% of total correctional expenditure was directed to the institution despite the fact that the parole and probations were increasing with time compared to the prisoners. During 1994, 83.4% of total correctional expenditure was channeled to the correctional costs. During the same period, the funding for the correctional programs was decreased from 19.9 to 16.6 percent. The cost of operating and keeping the inmates in the correctional facilities was greater than the cost of community supervision.
For instance, in 1996, the average annual operating expenditure per inmate in state correctional institutions was at $20,100, while the annual per inmate cost of regular probation and parole supervision was at $200 for probation and $975 for parole. The annual cost per U.S. resident total correctional spending increased from $53 to $103 in 1985 and 1996, respectively. In this regard, there is a need to adopt the justice model of corrections reforms to ensure priorities on correctional spending are effectively and efficiently set while reducing the high expenditure in corrections to ensure that extra money is channeled to other development programs.
Should the rehabilitation model be voluntary?
The rehabilitation model needs to be made mandatory for the persons found guilty in correctional facilities. The rehabilitation model is directed towards treating individuals to desist from engaging in different forms of crimes upon living the correctional facilities. In this regard, the prisoners are subjected to different programs that include training and educational services, substance abuse, and mental health programs (MacKenzie and Lattimore, 2018). The rehabilitation needs to be made mandatory among all the prisoners to ensure that they are sufficiently helped and improved to prevent crime. Therefore, the rehabilitation should be made to be part of the correctional facility operation.
Elimination of parole
I disagree with the fact that parole should be eliminated with the introduction of determinate sentencing. The parole entails the temporary or permanent release of prisoners before the expiry of their sentence on the condition that they will maintain good behavior. The conditional freedom extended to the prisoners ensures that they can be subjected to supervision in the community to integrate them. The parole prepares former prisoners to integrate into society through supervision to ensure that recidivism is significantly reduced. Therefore, parole should persist despite the determinate sentencing that prescribes identified sentence length.
References
Aharonson, E. (2013). Determinate sentencing and American exceptionalism: The underpinnings and effects of cross-national differences in the regulation of sentencing discretion. Law & Contemp. Probs., 76, 161.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Lattimore, P. K. (2018). To rehabilitate or not to rehabilitate: That is the question for corrections!. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 355-377.
McAlinden, A. M. (2011). ‘Transforming justice’: challenges for restorative justice in an era of punishment-based corrections. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(4), 383-406.
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. F. (2011). Policies and imprisonment: The impact of structured sentencing and determinate sentencing on state incarceration rates, 1978–2004. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 174-201.
Zalman, M. (2010). An integrated justice model of wrongful convictions. Alb. L. Rev., 74, 1465.
