Recidivism of Criminal Offenders in Us Prisons

Document Type:Coursework

Subject Area:Psychology

Document 1

Throughout my study of literature and other published, works of other scholar’s one of the article I came across is what works in reducing recidivism by Latessa (2005). In his works, the professor has keenly majored on the principles which can resolve the problem of recidivism. For instance professor, Edward identifies four principles that the government and prison administrators should use in order to succeed in reducing the high numbers of inmates who re-offend making the prisons overcrowded (Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005). One of the key strengths of Professor's works is that he recognizes that the problem of recidivism can only be solved if the actors who are working to solve the issue address the key root causes of the problem. For instance, according to Latessa and Lowenkamp, (2005), recidivism reduction programs be implemented focusing on solving unemployment, imparting of knowledge, addressing drug and substance abuse among other risk factors which make inmates get into re-offending behaviors (Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005).

Sign up to view the full document!

Their chances of re-offending after completion of their prison terms is very minimal. Whereas those inmates who have committed major offenses like crime, sexual abuse cases, murder, forced robbery among others have high chances of reoffending once they leave the prisons, and therefore they should be subjected to the recidivism projects (Mitchell et al, 2017). The prison programs end up enrolling large groups of inmates to the programs without considering the risk factors and the impacts of the program on them thinking that they will help reduce recidivism but their interventions fail. Even though the article identifies some key considerations as discussed above in addressing the problem of inmates, re-offending it also has some disadvantages. First and foremost the article doesn't consider the capacity and skills of human resource personnel who work in the facilities as a key principle in solving the problem.

Sign up to view the full document!

According to Langan & Levin (2002), some of the key contributors to the problem. However, one of the major strengths of the article is that it recognizes the role of the external environment, which contributes to re-offending of inmates. Peer pressure of offenders from their peers who are not inmates is one of the key issues addressed, which makes many inmates to re-offend (Langan & Levin, 2002). Moreover, the article addresses the fact that some inmates are sentenced in prisons to serve long terms but they fail to relate the punishment to their wrongful acts. This makes them end up re-offending once they are released from the prisons to the society. Secondly, it acknowledges that all programs should be geared towards behavior change. Contrast In the three articles, I found them having some key similarities on how they address the issue of recidivism.

Sign up to view the full document!

In the three articles, none of the article addresses follow up practices or measures after subjecting inmates to the programs. It is important that if inmates are subjected to the correction programs which aim at empowering them and helping them achieve behavior change, some time should be set for follow-ups in order to ensure that the objectives of the programs are fully achieved. The follow-up programs can be limited to a duration of few months. The articles have generalized the causes of re-offending to be similar, the solutions and even the structures of the programs in prisons. None explains how different offenses like sexual abuse programs can be addressed and whether we need programs tailored to suit women inmates separately from their male counterparts.

Sign up to view the full document!

From $10 to earn access

Only on Studyloop

Original template