Criminal Rehabilitation
Criminal rehabilitation refers to trying to morally and psychologically improve someone in order to prevent them from reoffending. Probation has been determined to be the most effective method in rehabilitating, especially youth. “Probationers have a significantly lower violation rate than do parolees. Intensive probation supervision is associated with lower recidivism rates for youths under age eighteen (Clemens Bartollas, 2017, p. 182).” Programs such as house arrest, intensive supervision and even restitution are monitored by the probation department. Probation is meant to help guide the offender down a positive path while keeping them in the community. The probation program was created in order to provide structure in the person’s life, in turn, helping them to be a productive member of society. The benefits of community programs outweigh the negative. Both rehabilitation and institutionalization have recidivism but those rates run higher with those who have been incarcerated in a prison. Rehabilitation and education are the key to person’s success within the community.
The new policy that needs to be entered will eliminate the mandatory sentencing without the evaluation of the severity of the crime. No offense is the same as the next; hence, why I believe that no two offenders should automatically have to receive the same sentence. The new policy should remove mandatory minimums for any crime that is considered non-violent in nature. Most often, those who have committed non-violent crimes will benefit from a treatment program of some sort, oftentimes drug treatment centers are what need to be sentenced.
Reassessment and Review
Through much research, I have been unable to find a program which is trying to stop mandatory sentencing all together or at the very least, for non-violent crimes. The First Step Act which I spoke about was a good start as it gives baby steps for those who are affected by the mandatory sentencing. However, this is not eliminating any real time off of these sentences they have received. I bring up Cynthia Shank again who was never involved in her boyfriend’s crimes, although she was aware of them. She knew he sold drugs but she never did, nor did she ever use. Here she is sentenced to 15 years in prison for something someone else did. Although she has never claimed she was not guilty of the crime she was committed of, everyone can agree that 15 years in prison was a bit too harsh of a punishment especially since she was arrest nearly five and half or six years after the incidents. At this point, the offender was a productive member of society, making better choices with a family at home. All of this should have been considered by a judge in the courtroom, the day she was sentenced.
My goal essentially is to remove all mandatory sentencing and if we cannot do that than at a bare minimum remove all non-violent offenses from the list of mandated sentences. Just like everyone has the right to a fair trial, they should also have the right to fair sentencing based on their particular case. The severity and details of the case as well as their threat to society and the community should be taken into account by a judge during a sentencing hearing. Many judge’s and even prosecutors do not agree with some of the sentences that have been handed out and they have even become verbal about their concern.
When you ask others why they lean towards mandatory sentencing, the most common response I have received is that it helped to remove a lot of the biased decisions. I in turn have to point of that although the judges are no longer making the biased decision, we have prosecutors that have set biased sentences for specific crimes. These prosecutors have no regard for the severity or circumstances that relate to each individual case. So, I ask them again, do you still agree that mandatory sentencing is our greatest asset against biased decisions? I have yet to get a solid response back.
We as a community can fight and put the word out that we need change but politicians and the United States Congress really needs to step up as they are the ones that have the power to make a change. Just as they created and passed the First Step Act they need to come together and agree upon a mandatory sentencing reform policy. This is unfair and unjust to our communities and country as a whole.
