Discussion question 303 D1: The textbook provides several examples of community corrections

Reintegration is a part of the rehabilitation. What happens when you have been incarcerated if there is a time when you have served you sentence it is part of the re-entree process to society. There has to be some type of rehabilitation while a offender serves their sentence. To release a ex-offender back into society with out any information on how to live would be a possible problem for society. Their are different ways a person might have help with re-entree. There could possibly be a place to stay when you are set free. Some times they have half way houses that a ex offender can find residence if they don’t have a family to return to. This happens in a lot of cases. Some times there are programs like community service that allow for the ex -offender to give back to society and this also help ex-offender learn how to communicate to citizen. Since they have been incarcerated for a while Some times there are even continued substance programs that will assist a ex-offender who may have had issue of alcohol or drugs. Some times there is even a referral for a ex-offender to obtain steady employment. This can be a great value because if a ex-offender does not have opportunity this could cause a problem that could point the ex-offender back to a life of crime and become a repeated offender. The main objective is to have option for the ex-offender while they are released back into society. Some times there is a opportunity to acquire education or work experience. Being released from prison may also require you to check in with the probation department from time to time. This is also a way that the ex-offender can be free but have assistance while trying to reintegrate back into society. This could be a big challenge for many people and there is assistance while trying to make the adjustment back into society. Some times places like the salvation army or the Good will helps ex-offender find employment.

Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2013). Corrections: An introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Some advantages of probation are that while on probation, offenders are able to maintain a job and families.  They can maintain ties with the community to help overcome some of their difficulties.  Since they are able to maintain jobs, it helps allow them to meet their financial needs. “It is argued that probation allows a focus on the responsibility and role(s) of the members of the community in correcting offenders” (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2013, 8.3).

There are also some disadvantages with probation as well.  Probation has yet to be determined to either be considered punishment or whether it represents some type of rehabilitation.  Depending on the type of offender, probation may never help certain offenders. “It may be argued that the large degree of discretion associated with the practice of probation and with the practice of probation and with the imposition of probation is in itself a disadvantage”. (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2013, 8.3).

Reference:

Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2013). Corrections An Introuction. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

In a practical sense, probation in its varied forms provides the capacity to absorb large numbers of offenders and place them under varying degrees of supervision. Offenders placed on probation do remain in the community. It is argued that these persons do not suffer the physical and psychological deprivations of confinement. Offenders on probation may retain jobs (or look for work), may maintain family and other community ties that may assist them in overcoming their difficulties, may continue to contribute to the support of their families, may continue to meet other financial obligations (incarceration often means that those who depend on the offender must turn to the state for material support, creditors may go unpaid, etc.), may be better able to make restitution to victims, may themselves be able to take advantage of community resources already in place to assist in resolving problems and adjusting to a law-abiding lifestyle, and may suffer less from the stigmatizing effects of conviction.

It is also argued that probation allows a focus on the responsibility and role(s) of the members of the community in correcting offenders. Additionally, it is argued that probation provides a means for dealing with those who have committed less serious offenses, who are one-time or sporadic offenders, who are judged to be relatively stable or more in need of community assistance than incarceration, which generally has severe effects.

From a practical standpoint, probation is more economically attractive than incarceration (Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance, 2010). In the state of California, the cost of incarceration is 40 times higher than placing someone on probation ($129 dollars a day versus $3 dollars a day) (State of California, Legislative Analyst Office, 2009). This is an extreme example, yet the cost of incarcerating offenders is generally recognized to be far greater than the cost of placing offenders on probation (Petersilia, 2008).

Probation most often represents the exercise of a large degree of discretion by criminal justice officials and proximate policymakers. For example, legislatures or other governing bodies provide general parameters for the legitimate use of probation—usually without providing specifics for determining expected outcomes. Prosecutors often utilize probation as a bargaining advantage or tool in plea bargaining, especially when using the tactic of sentence recommendation. Judges may impose probation as a permutation of the sentencing options discussed above and may in general be more concerned with any one or several of the possible advantages discussed above. Judges may be using probation in the practical sense of doing something with the marginal case when jail or prison space is limited or filled, in situations where otherwise he or she would normally impose a sentence of incarceration for the offender. Probation agencies, administratively and through the actions of individual probation officers, may in fact focus more on rule watching, rule enforcement, assistance to probationers, or any other focus deemed appropriate, both agency-wide and for the individual officer and more. Because of this, it may be difficult to ascertain just what the primary aim(s) may be with any individuals or cases, and perhaps with probation in general, in any given jurisdiction or among jurisdictions. The disadvantage lies in having to construct the meaning of “probation” as related to an amorphous set of possible outcomes and possible real-life operations.

Some argue that probation is associated with sentencing disparity (similarly situated offenders receiving dissimilar sentences). Some argue that probation in many cases unduly depreciates the seriousness of the offense, especially when there is a felony conviction that could result in a rather severe sentence of incarceration. Generally, these arguments or perceptions are connected to the issue of equity in sentencing, both in imposition of sentence and in the actual sentence served (known as the “effective sentence”). There are also arguments that when probation is used as a bargaining advantage in plea negotiation, it distorts due process, where the imposition of probation has more connection to the negotiation than to the process established for making subsequent decisions concerning the offender.

Works Cited

Lovell, S. S. (2013). Corrections: An Introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

The bitemark in the picture shown above could be sued in a conviction because you can clearly see where on the persons mouth they apply the most pressure. Also with this picture I notice that you have some teeth shaped differently than others or that eave different impressions. Another thing to consider is that the bottom teeth did not apply as much pressure as the top set did. Finally, I can tell how wide the person’s jaw is or how big of a mouth they have through this bitemark. These factors could help in convicting someone.

Resources

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc

Resources

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.