Alternatives to Incarceration

Incarceration is a grossly ineffective rehabilitation tool. As noted by Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin (2011), there is very little evidence that prison sentences reduce recidivism and at least as much data which substantiates that incarceration actually has a criminogenic affect. Accordingly, prison terms should only be imposed upon offenders if it can be reasonably articulated that placing a certain individual in prison will produce better results than any other non-custodial option. While the case for incapacitation can easily be made against violent offenders, there is no scientific reason why most non-violent offenders should receive prison terms rather than non-custodial sanctions. The authors concluded that non-custodial sanctions for non-violent offenders are equally or more effective than prisons at reducing recidivism (pp.48S-53S). One option that begs exploration has been employed in the State of Florida. Therein, judges have the option of sentencing persons convicted of certain felonies to probation without adjudication of guilt, with the record of arrest being essentially “expunged” upon successful completion of the probation term. Researchers found that those without official “felon” labels upon the completion of their probation terms were far less likely to recidivate into crime as those who were forever branded as felons. This same conclusion regarding criminal labeling has been reached in numerous studies of both juvenile and adult offenders (pp.55S).

Peak (2010) noted that the notion of “shock” probation/parole hinges on the concept that a short stay in prison will essentially deter the offender from future criminal activity. Given the data presented by Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin (2011), this idea seems ill-advised and futile. Currently, the U.S. prison system boasts a recidivism rate of 67.5%. Thereby, one can logically conclude that time in prison is hardly “shocking” anyone. In fact, even a short stay in prison only exposes the offender to high-risk criminogenic factors which make it more likely for him/her to reoffend (pp.53S). Nonetheless, the advent and implementation of programs such as “shock” probation/parole convey that administrators have become aware that the contemporary corrections model is inadequate. It appears as though they are making small steps in the right direction and realizing that prison terms are not a viable solution for controlling recidivism and maintaining budgets.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L. & Nagin, D. S. (2011, September). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48 S-65 S. doi:10.1177/0032885511415224

Peak, K. J. (2010). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.