In the United States, the Department of Justice set up prisons and corrective facilities to promote correction and rehabilitation of offenders. The correctional system is established primarily to detain federal offenders while offering them rehabilitative services. The criminals are removed from the society for a period that is considered as feasible to transform them.
However, the state may sentence the criminals to death or a life sentence. For this reason, they will serve their penalties to their death. Repeatedly, the prison serves as a punitive institution to those who commit serious criminal offences.
The aim of the facilities is to instill certain values in the convicts through proper punishment, which minimize the likelihood of the released inmates recommitting crime (Mitchell, 2009). Rehabilitative programs carried out in these facilities are aimed at making the convicts industrious citizens.
Personal reform programs such as the educational services that offer the inmates opportunities to develop psychologically and emotionally are required. Therefore, various stakeholders should institute welfare reforms through education and provision of social services to avert recidivism and provide effective correctional programs.
Imprisonment of federal offenders may have been targeted to serve noble purposes, but it has not avoided significant flaws. The current state of these institutions depicts that they are far from effectively serving their intended purpose. Mortifying issues such as overcrowding, abusive conditions, prison violence and recidivism have messily affected the functionality of prisons (Kaduce & Parker, 1999).
The failure of the state to amend the insensitive sentencing procedures and rules has led to the elevated population of inmates. In addition, the policy of confining immigrants has overpopulated these institutions.
On the other hand, the state has failed to invest in prison staff and resources that could elevate the prevailing conditions to tolerable levels. The deprivation of the inmates’ rights to humane and safe internment has deterred the reform progress of these rehabilitative institutions.
Extreme retribution of inmates coupled with cruel restriction procedures has marred the image of the prisons. Prison hardships such as detentions of young offenders in adult prisons imposed has made the corrective programs unproductive. Solitary confinement of inmates has hampered the process of reintegration because it propagates alienation.
Discrimination within the institutions has instituted unequal justice for offenders. The racist and unjust gender based inequity has downplayed the effectiveness of federal justice. In this context, the government has severally failed to protect individuals from violations perpetrated by state and private bodies (Maltz, 2001).
The intolerable conditions in the prisons have not reduced the likelihood of federal offenders to relapse the criminal acts. After inmates serving their sentences, they are expected to act in a manner that does not demand their re-arrest or reconviction. However, often after receiving their retributions, many offenders released will reverse into their previous criminal activities.
The failure of the society to provide for the former inmates’ reintegration and the individual’s inability to meet the people’s anticipation has significantly contributed to recidivism. The prevailing condition in the incarceration centers has elevated the propensity to commit new offenses.
The longer the sentence time served in the prisons weakens the interpersonal bonds and economical relationships (Mitchell, 2009). The detention may present adjustment difficulties such as rejection and absence of employment opportunities for ex-convicts and consequently it creates grounds for their re-offense conduct.
In the United States, the prison corrective programs such as the Pathways Program are primarily aimed at providing intervention measures that target aberrant conduct such as drug and substance abuse.
The state has struggled to provide drug and alcohol free prison units to combat offenses that were committed due to the drug related predicament. Other treatment programs try to address issues such as violent and general felonies. They are focused on reducing idleness, which reduce the levels of distressed inmates (Maltz, 2001).
Education and work programs in the prisons equip the inmates with educational and work skills essential in acquisition of employment and societal reintegration. The programs ensure that the ethical practice learnt through the acquisition of these skills will make the released individuals productive.
The General Education Programs and the Adult basic Education programs provide for core learning skills in subjects such as social studies and literacy. The education program facilitates effective communication between the prison rehabilitation staff and the offender, which develops ideal relationship between them.
Thus, the relationship reduces disciplinary friction. Life-Skills Training programs provide counseling interventions that are essential upon release. Vocational training programs established equips the inmates with the skills and willpower to find employment (Kaduce & Parker, 1999).
Community-based treatment programs are critical to cater for the inmates returning to the society. The progress of released offenders should be monitored closely to avoid recidivism. The offenders can be placed under supervised-release or parole to be monitored by parole officers.
The parole officers must survey and spot any evidence of participation in criminal acts. Any sign of continued criminality should be met with appropriate treatment by the assigned officers. The officers must be articulated to the offenders needs such as drug abuse. In this case, counseling and group sessions are useful in assessing their performance and behavior after the social rehabilitative programs.
The failure of the prison’s correctional programs and even the absence of these programs have contributed to the failure of the offenders to discontinue criminal activities and escape reconviction. The success of rehabilitative programs is attributed to the outcome in terms of the individual fostering a subtle behavior in the society.
Although the general supposition that the correctional institutions programs instills values that lead to behavioral change may not be feasible, minimal changes in personality are imminent. This depends on the nature of the program and the persons running it.
In cases where the offenders had psychological or social problems, which were the express root of their criminal activities, the rehabilitation is likely to diagnose and treat them. This would mitigate the chances recommitment or complete cessation of delinquent activities (Maltz, 2001).
The plan offered by the state through the Transition from Prison to Community should assist the offenders in the process of reincorporation into the society. It is required to provide for the released individuals after serving their full sentence or on parole. The priority of the agency is to oversee change of the corrective procedures, personnel and the administrative policies of penitentiaries.
The organizational functions of federal prisons and the prison rehabilitative programs are crucial in preventing recidivism. They make certain the smooth reentry of the released offender into the society. The supervised transition into the society is necessary in the protection of the public.
This provides for effective use of scarce public utilities while restoring the victims and offenders within the same community. Follow up programs helps to forestall vengeance of the offenders on their victims. The sanctions imposed by the state to eschew the retaliation must be stringent to win public confidence.
The authority must provide support actively to the transition reforms through the harmonization of policies and practices. Transitional accountability plans should give congruent approach to the stabilization of the offenders.
The cooperation amongst members of the public, law enforcement agencies and human service providers facilitates early exposure and detection of violations of rules that govern the restrictive release of offenders.
The uncovering of this information calls for valuable response to guarantee the compliance to the transition laws. Deliberate partnerships should be established and maintained to provide highly effective transitional services for the ex-convicts (Mitchell, 2009).
In conclusion, there should be a paradigm shift of the correctional units to enhance service delivery. In this case, stakeholders of the transitional process should diminish the public threat posed by the offenders returning to the society. The transitional process should be based on adaptable reforms that concern with the mutual interests of the stakeholders.
The transitional policies adopted should be developed to cater for all the offenders released irrespective of their conditions of release. In addition, the strategies used should articulate the level of threat they pose. Furthermore, the transitional measures employed should support the offenders by offering self-sufficiency and independence. The dynamism of the transitional process should be addressed with high significance.
This requires the frequent reassessment and modification of transitional policies to cater for deficiencies faced throughout the reincorporation. The transition process should clearly outline the objectives of the each strategy employed to facilitate effective evaluation and assessment of the progress of the plan.
Efficient reporting of violations under conditional releases should be effected to hasten the revocations of parole and heighten stringency of rules governing the releases. Universal declaration of human rights should be given to ensure unison in impartation of federal rules even to the immigrants.
References
Kaduce, L., & Parker, K. F. (1999). A comparative recidivism analysis of releases from private and public prisons. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Maltz, M. D. (2001). Recidivism. Criminal Justice, 2. Web.
Mitchell, C. (2009). Transition from Prison to Community Initiative (TPCI). Bismarck, N.D.: North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.