Buy essay on New York and Local Government Problem: Rehabilitative Approaches to Save Government Money

The prevention of crime and rehabilitation of offenders are primary concerns of the modern justice systems and the authorities at the federal, state and local levels. Today, the criminal justice system shifts toward the rehabilitation of offenders and wider use of parole and probation instead of incarceration. In this regard, the high costs of the maintenance of the penitentiary system are one of the major arguments in favor of the wider use of rehabilitative approaches. On the other hand, the effectiveness of prison is extremely low because incarceration does not lead to the correction and improvement of offenders. In such a situation, the authorities of New York focused on the change of the justice and penitentiary system to facilitate the use of rehabilitative approaches.
In this respect, it is possible to refer to the experience of Maryland, which has already started to move toward rehabilitation instead of incarceration (Maryland Moves toward Rehabilitation Instead of Incarceration, 2003). This prison reform was, to a significant extent, determined by the high costs of the maintenance of prison in Maryland, which became unbearable burden for the local budget. At the same time, the effectiveness of incarceration as the means of punishment and prevention of crimes is doubtful. In this respect, it should be said that the modern penitentiary system is often criticized, especially in relation to juvenile offenders. At the same time, prisons remain the major institutions which are used for the punishment of criminals. In actuality, prisons are viewed as the places where socially dangerous criminals can be isolated from the rest of society and it is supposed that they change their lifestyle for better due to the terms they spend in prisons. However, this is exactly where the most serious arguments start. On the one hand, it is argued that prisons are really effective since they guarantee the security of society. On the other hand, there are a lot of skeptics, who argue that prisons are absolutely ineffective and, what is more important, they are even dangerous in a way since they deteriorate the personality of a prisoner and undermine his/her social position. It should be said that both positions are reasonable in a way and both positions may be viewed as quite convincing. Nevertheless, the analysis of the work of prisons can definitely show which point of view is more correct.
First of all, it is necessary to underline that the modern system of criminal justice does not have alternatives that could be effectively applied to prevent criminals from their anti-social activity. At any rate, it is considered to be that due to the functioning of prisons socially dangerous criminals are kept in isolation for the period of time which, according to the existing norms, is sufficient to “correct” his/her behavior and meets the existing legislation.
At the same time, it is necessary to underline that such an approach to prison and criminals proves the fact of the domination of the idea of punishment over the idea of correction and improvement of criminals, making them change their lifestyle. Obviously, prisons primarily serve to the isolation which is viewed as the most effective measure that can prevent criminals from committing crimes.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of prisons is very doubtful. In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the major goal of the criminal justice system and the penitentiary system is not just the punishment of an individual for a crime, but it is rather a correction of an individual’s behavior and lifestyle in order to stop any anti-social activity. Ideally, prisons are supposed to serve to such a transformation of a criminal due to which he/she could be easily integrated in the normal life of society. However, the actual results of prisons work are quite the contrary. To put it more precisely, prison terms criminals serve in prisons often produce a profound and extremely negative impact on their further social life. In fact, instead of the integration to the normal social life and changing an individual’s behavior for better, prison terms actually lead to the isolation of an individual even after the release from the prison. In such a way, it is obvious that prisons do not fulfill one of its major functions defined by the modern criminal justice system – the correction and preparation of an individual to the normal social life. In fact, incarceration does not lead to the reduction, at least consistent reduction, of crimes (Rehab or Incarceration, 2010).
In this respect, it is extremely important to say that prisons have a dubious negative effect. Firstly, prisons do change the attitude of society to an individual. In fact, society traditionally has a lot of biases against people that served their terms in prisons. In other words, people naturally are anxious that people released from prisons may be dangerous and are a serious threat to their life and well-being. Basically, it is the result of the public image of prisons and attitude of the mass audience to them. People often believe that it is only criminals that can be released from prison and, therefore, they are socially dangerous. At the same time, such an attitude of the public to former prisons is apparently the evidence of the ineffectiveness of prisons’ work since society does not feel safe even when people are released from prison.
However, the apprehensions of society are, to a certain extent, justified since prisons really produce a negative impact on an individual. In this respect, it should be said that an individual, being sentenced to a prison term, serves it in the environment of other criminals. Moreover, such environment produces a negative impact on the personality, especially young criminals. In fact, it is possible to estimate that prisons often turn to be places where people acquire new criminal experience, instead of changing their lifestyle.
Moreover, the negative impact of prisons on inmates is particularly significant in relation to juveniles. At the same time, inmates can change their life and they do not need to serve a term in prison for this purpose. In this respect, Cose (2010) lays emphasis on the fact that juvenile offenders can change their behavior patterns and lifestyle even more efficiently than adults but it is necessary to use rehabilitative approaches instead of incarceration. What is meant here is the fact that incarceration is not a solution to the problem of rising crime rates. This solution is absolutely ineffective. Therefore, rehabilitative approaches may become an effective alternative to the traditional incarceration in relation to offenders, especially juvenile offenders. The use of rehabilitative approaches contributes to the formation of positive models of behavior in juveniles as well as adult offenders. What is more important, rehabilitative approaches help offenders to get integrated into the normal social life, whereas incarceration leads to their exclusion from the society and breaks up normal social relationships of offenders.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that prisons do not work and, therefore, they cannot be an effective means of prevention of crimes. At any rate, they do not work effectively and, instead of the correction of a criminal through punishment and assistance to his/her integration into the normal social life prisons contribute to the growing isolation of an individual from the rest of society and susceptibility to negative impact of other criminals during the prison term. In such a situation, the wide introduction of rehabilitative approaches in the modern justice systems at the federal, state and local levels can tackle the problem of growing crime rates. Moreover, it is important to remember about the costs of the question. What is meant here is the fact that the penitentiary system needs substantial financial resources, whereas its effectiveness is questionable. In such a situation, the introduction of the rehabilitative approaches can save costs because rehabilitative approaches do not involve the permanent supervision over offenders and maintenance of penitentiary facilities and the staff. As a result, rehabilitative approaches can become an effective alternative to incarceration not only in financial terms but also in terms of crime prevention.