Reintegration of Criminals into Society and Related Issues

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The Claim in Defense of the Interest
The Reasons for Searching for the Answer
Strata of Society Involved
Additional Questions
Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
Preliminary Research
Works Cited

Research Question (RQ): What are the difficulties of reintegration of criminals into society, and how are these difficulties correlated with various approaches to reintegration assistance?

The Claim in Defense of the Interest

There are numerous issues that criminal justice has to deal with. First of all, there is always a chance of a mistake. Secondly, there are numerous cases of punishment being too severe for the deed. The problems of reintegration are one of such “extended” punishment issues. An example is the influence of criminal background on job opportunity: this policy is understandable, but its mechanics are often deficient. The American Bar Association has collected more than 45,000 regulations of this kind that make little or no sense: for example, prevent a criminal from getting the job as a hairdresser or even voting (Dewan par. 10). In other words, the practice of criminal justice is far from perfect. What is more, there are so many nuances to it that occasionally people need to be protected from the damage (direct or collateral) that it induces.

Rehabilitation efforts are an attempt to rectify the damage that criminal justice does to people and to society. The success of these efforts varies. The fluctuations of the interest in rehabilitation that took place throughout the past century testify to it. Indeed, as the society rejected both the overly-optimistic idea of the possibility of rehabilitation for all and the pessimistic mantra “nothing works,” criminal justice started to realize that something must work but not always and not with everyone (Phelps pp. 36-37). In this light, it is reasonable to attempt to correlate the reasons for the reintegration difficulties and the ways of its facilitation and find out what works in different situations. To analyze the mechanism of rehabilitation system, this research will study the reasons for the difficulties in reintegration, the methods of facilitating it, and the relationship between the two aspects.

The Reasons for Searching for the Answer

I am interested in finding the answer for several reasons. First of all, I am curious about the system of rehabilitation in its variety. Secondly, I am interested in not just learning about this system but gaining insights into its mechanics its principles of work. Thirdly, rehabilitation is admittedly a difficult issue that is not facilitated by modern society, and I am interested in finding out if the measures taken by criminal justice are adequate. I might find imperfections and illogical correlations that could indicate the directions of improvement, but primarily I am interested in creating a coherent image of the rehabilitation system for myself and anyone else who is willing to study it.

Strata of Society Involved

If I expected to make a breakthrough in the understanding of the rehabilitation system, I would say that the people who can benefit from this research are those who had suffered from the actions of the justice system. Since I am not certain that this is going to be the case, I believe that the research could be of interest to criminologists and those involved in the rehabilitation system (both as the facilitators and the rehabilitated). In my opinion, to help a mechanism function, you need to understand its inner workings. This is exactly what the research is aimed at.

Additional Questions

The obvious questions that the RQ incorporates are: what are the reasons for the difficulties in reintegration and what are the ways of its facilitation? These questions are often answered by research, but the attempts to link them appear to be rare (although my preliminary research cannot indicate that there have been no such attempts). Other questions can be phrased as follows. Is there an approach to every rehabilitation issue? Are all the reasons equally significant? Are there reasons with many approaches? Is such a phenomenon caused by their significance? As can be seen from the questions, the research is aimed at determining the relationship between the problem and the remedy. As a result, the eventual question may be spelled as follows: is the rehabilitation system development logically aimed at eliminating the problems with the help of suitable remedies?

Personal Beliefs and Prejudice

I do not believe that there is a particular kind of prejudice I bring into the project. I do not believe that my religion can be of any consequence. I have to admit that my humanist views may have led to the open-mindedness with which I regard criminals, but I would not say that I go to extremes in my love for humanity. I have never had a truly negative experience with the criminal world, which may explain my open-mindedness. Also, I have to admit that my view on ethics is bordering on the pluralistic one: in other words, I am ready to agree that there are “many truths rather than one single truth” (Chauhan and Srivastava 10). Still, I believe that these facts liberate me of prejudice rather than impose bias.

Before developing the working knowledge, I already had some information from reputable sources about the rehabilitation processes and issues, which is why for the time being, I do not encounter any information that could change my stance on the issue. One of my opinions on the matter that could change in the near future can be phrased as follows: I suppose that rehabilitation systems are reasonable and humane. Also, I think that occasionally the two features contradict each other and require finding a balance. An example of such balance is the diversion programs. Baltimore City’s Specialized Prostitution Diversion Program has shown high rates of reintegration (even though it is hardly a panacea), which makes its application humane. Still, there are a number of restrictions on participants’ eligibility: for instance, the offenders who are on parole are not eligible (Shdaimah and Bailey-Kloch 289-295). Thus, the Program is reasonable.

Preliminary Research

The term “rehabilitation system” is a self-coined one: it encompasses all the measures that are aimed at rehabilitating criminals. In other words, it is not only comprehensive rehabilitation programs but, for example, federal laws directed at removing the job opportunities limitations or public opinion work. I use the terms reintegration and rehabilitation interchangeably, but it may not be accurate since rehabilitation technically has two aims: reintegration and recidivism avoidance, even though the two aspects can be regarded as interconnected (Harding 169).

Reintegration is a complex phenomenon that is usually customized for a situation, but it typically presupposes the achievement of social stability (Shinkfield and Graffam 29). The necessity of rehabilitation is recognized nowadays; the key reason for the reintegration problems is the stigmatization, but other difficulties include the lack of education, financial problems, substance issues, mental issues, and other complications (Burchfield and Mingus 109; Shdaimah and Bailey-Kloch 290). As for the ways of rehabilitation, the most popular ones appear to be prison and diversion programs. They are developed for various groups of offenders, for example, depending on the crime or the gender (Cobbina 210; Burchfield and Mingus 109; Marlow and Chesla 17). These programs are comprehensive in nature, but they are aimed at the criminal, not the society (that is the key reason for reintegration problems). The fact will be further studied to find out the reasons behind it that are based on research, but at this stage, it appears to be explained by the balance between humane decisions and reasonability (feasibility).

Works Cited

Burchfield, Keri B., and William Mingus. “Sex Offender Reintegration: Consequences Of The Local Neighborhood Context”. American Journal of Criminal Justice 39.1 (2012): 109-124. ProQuest. Web.

Chauhan, Balraj, and Mridul Srivastava. “The Importance Of Ethics In Criminal.” VIDHIGYA: The Journal Of Legal Awareness 4.2 (2009): 6-18. Academic Search Complete. Web.

Cobbina, Jennifer E. “Reintegration Success And Failure: Factors Impacting Reintegration Among Incarcerated And Formerly Incarcerated Women.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49.3 (2010): 210-232. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web.

Dewan, Shaila. “The Collateral Victims of Criminal Justice.”The New York Times. 2015. Web.

Harding, R. “Rehabilitation And Prison Social Climate: Do ‘What Works’ Rehabilitation Programs Work Better In Prisons That Have A Positive Social Climate?”. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 47.2 (2014): 163-175. ProQuest. Web.

Marlow, Elizabeth, and Catherine Chesla. “Prison Experiences And The Reintegration Of Male Parolees”. Advances in Nursing Science 32.2 (2009): 17-29. Ovid. Web.

Phelps, Michelle S. “Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs.” Law & Society Review 45.1 (2011): 33-68. ProQuest. Web.

Shdaimah, Corey, and Marie Bailey-Kloch. “Can You Help with that Instead of Putting Me in Jail? Participant Insights on Baltimore City’s Specialized Prostitution Diversion Program.” Justice System Journal 35.3 (2014): 287-300. ProQuest. Web.

Shinkfield, A. J., and J. Graffam. “Community Reintegration Of Ex-Prisoners: Type And Degree Of Change In Variables Influencing Successful Reintegration”. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 53.1 (2009): 29-42. Sage Journals. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!