COMMUNITY CORRECTION VS INCARNATION

Community Correction Vs Incarnation



Community Correction Vs Incarnation

Introduction

From 1930 to 1972, the United States experienced a relatively stable incarceration rate that hovered between 93 and 137 inmates per 100,000 individuals in the population. However, since the early 1970s, the United States has been in an era of mass incarceration, with currently more than 1.6 million Americans serving time in a state or federal prison. If one adds to this more than 785,000 individuals incarcerated in local jails, the number of people currently behind bars is a staggering 2.3 million people with the figure rising each successive year (Dawson, 2001). This sanction has become so pronounced that since 1972, there has been an unprecedented 600 percent increase in the number of individuals locked up, with more people currently incarcerated than working at both McDonald's and Wal-Mart combined worldwide. Notably, this massive explosion in the inmate population has been a uniquely American phenomenon making the United States the largest incarcerator in the world with an imprisonment rate of 760 per 100,000 populations. The aim for this paper is to compare and contrast the two forms of punishment - community correction and incarceration.

Discussion

Community Correction

Community correction means punishing offenders outside a secure environment but still provide a measure of supervision, also known as extra-institutional punishments, alternative sanctions, or intermediate sanctions. This includes programs such as probation (community supervision, by the Department of Probation, in lieu of incarceration), parole (community supervision, by the Division of Parole, after release from jail or prison), halfway houses (programs that provide supervision and a place for an offender to live), house arrest (requiring the offender to remain in his or her premises during specified time periods), electronic monitoring (an enhanced form of house arrest that requires the offender to wear a monitoring bracelet), fines (money paid by the offender to the state), restitution (money paid by the offender to the victim), asset forfeiture (economic sanctions that allow for the confiscation of property and money that reveal a link to criminal activity), and community service. Courts can mandate other types of programs as part of community-based corrections, including parenting programs, drug and alcohol counseling, driving information courses, therapy, or anger management (Glaser, 1977).

Community-based corrections offer a variety of benefits. These alternatives reduce jail and prison overcrowding, they are more cost effective than incarceration, the treatment programs are more varied, they are less stigmatizing for the offender, and they aid in the re-integrative process of offenders. Servicing offenders in the community limits disruption to the offender's personal life (i.e., job, family, schooling, etc.). Others have criticized community-based programs for their limited effectiveness, for net widening (bringing more people under the control of the criminal justice system), and for possibly putting public safety in jeopardy (Glaser, 1977).

Goals of Community Corrections

The goal of community corrections is to ease institutional crowding in jails and prisons by drawing from the population of convicted offenders less risky to the extramural community. Other goal is to maintain public safety; offenders under supervision should be ...