The sentencing and recidivism reduction policy explores the major issues inherent in the current legal system of the United States of America. The problem consists in the fact that the current situation triggered the increase in the number of criminals. This naturally led to an increase in the number of recidivists and government building more prisons (Marion & Oliver, 2012). On a bigger scale, this kind of update is overpriced and unnecessary. This policy also has a great impact on the legal system of the US because the national government should abstain from turning state crimes into federal offenses. This means that the crimes that can be reviewed at the state level are taken to the federal court. The policy demands that certain support should be provided for criminal offenders (recidivists in particular) and novel approaches to the criminal justice reinvestment should be implemented.
Consequently, these approaches would help the state jurisdictions to address recidivism way more thoroughly and reevaluate the issue of helping recidivists to turn back into the community in several meaningful and profitable ways. The agenda formation process of this policy is based on the flexibility of using the funds that are available to the federal jurisdiction. Essentially, this means that local governments should have access to federal resources. Therefore, any necessary treatment or mental health services will be available to the local criminal systems. When it comes to the adoption of the policy, the legislation is dotty about bringing rigidity into the process of sentencing (Duwe & Clark, 2011).
At the same time, one of the key advantages of this policy is that it supports the Second Chance Act. The major objective of this initiative is to assist the former prisoners to re-enter into the community safely. The secondary objective is to reduce recidivism. This would trigger a series of events that would include increased public safety and the elaboration of innovative approaches to the process of dealing with the continuously increasing number of people released from jails. The process of the implementation of this substantive policy is connected to an important issue. Adequate state policy should be developed concerning mentally ill individuals. Consequently, it is imperative to address the growing importance of assisting these individuals (U.S. Senate, n.d.). Congress is in charge of resolving this problem.
The evaluation of the policy allowed me to draw several conclusions. First, one should perceive this policy as an answer to the federal legislation to the increased awareness regarding the requirements of the state research (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). Second, there is a strict necessity to address the issue of dealing with mentally ill prisoners. Third, the policy is closely related to federal legislation and provides extensive support to the states. One of the key objectives of the government is to partner with the state administrations to resolve the issue of mentally ill inmates. Third, the policy is aimed at improving court practice, enhancing the training methods (there is a limited number of professionals working in the area), and providing sufficient monetary support to the administrations. The latter will ultimately allow the government to develop and implement innovative programs intended to minimize the number of recidivists and maximize the number of former prisoners who were able to reenter the community successfully and efficiently.
References
Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2011). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), 271-296.
Mallicoat, S. L., & Gardiner, C. L. (2014). Criminal justice policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
U.S. Senate. (n.d.). Web.