|
Time to Dig Out
27 December 2006
by Michelle Calderon, staff writer for AnaiRhoads.org
AnaiRhoads.org - Changes, especially major changes, are hard to implement. The Criminal Justice System is faced with a tremendous amount of pressure from many groups in its role and effectiveness in preventing crime and making people feel safe in their environment. While changes in one area, the Correctional facility may seem to minimize or focus on only one issue, the remaining major players within the system, political leaders, as well as citizens are affected. First of all, these types of changes require money. Money is not easily available. Proposals need to be prepared and approved. Whether the money comes from taxes, donations, investments, or a shift in budgeting (minimizing one area’s funding, such as school programs to shift those funds to the new project), there will be people who will oppose. Taxpayers, and those receiving funding that will have them sacrificed for the new program, will not all be happy. Victims of crimes and those who want tougher sentencing will likely approve.
However, suppose a proposal to reduce funding for the State’s department of corrections was introduced to the public. Many reasons exist such as a reduction of crime, a downward reduction of the majority of the criminal population (suppose from 15-25 which commits the most crime), a get touch policy (programs and rehabilitation do not work) and many more reasons exist. With this in mind, people that would oppose a reduction would be citizens from a more economically depressed community (the poor, the needy, and the uneducated-which tend to live in more crime-prone neighborhoods). Many professionals (criminologists, psychologists, and others) that feel that by depriving criminals of a way to get their minds off things (such as taking away certain privileges: TV, books, etc) would experience stress within prison settings, possibly creating more violence and prison riots. Victims of crimes may also oppose the reduction of funds. Political parties and legislative bodies who strongly believe in rehabilitation may also oppose the reduction of funding.
There seems to be many sacrifices to the reverse expenditures for corrections to help dig their way out of a fiscal problem. First, as mentioned above, there are the taxpayers who are one of the first suggested solutions when it comes to funding. Another step is to take other funding from other agencies and transfer those funds to fixing the problem corrections is facing. Again, there is a sacrifice (a viewpoint) and opposing goals will conflict with the “new” goal that the criminal justice system is trying to achieve. Still, there are more parties involved such as those (political and/or non-political parties) who believe in the get tough policies in handling criminals. These groups feel the offenders need punishment, not rehabilitation and certainly, the least amount of privileges that funding will provide.
The composition of citizens in the USA is growing in a variety of ways, including population size. Diversity is bound to cause more conflicts. Technology and other new changes in society have changed the dynamics of interaction as well as capabilities in many areas: crime just being one and most important in this discussion. The rights of individuals, and the demanding need for criminal agencies to keep track of these changes, have also changed the course of criminal justice organizations. There will always be some type of situation that a working criminal justice official will not expect nor will he/she be trained or be prepared to provide the best solution. In other words, criminal justice workers will face an ever-changing challenge to the many spontaneous situations that were not clearly predicted by the Criminal Justice System. Change will be the main dynamics of the future.
In reality, most offenders will be let out back into society. Population size of prisons also provides a good indication of overcrowding issues that the system now faces. In the future, this will still be an important method for deciding changes in the corrections department. The building of new prisons, restoration of existing ones, additional units, or buildings added as well as introduction of new methods of rehabilitation or leisure for criminals will be issues in today as well as in the future. The costs will obviously be more due to many economic factors. Funding will remain the key factor in determining if any changes will occur. Opposition should be expected.
Inevitably, these changes must occur. The population will grow and criminals will commit crimes. While no solution now currently exist to stop criminals, the criminal justice system must rely on laws and existing correctional methods of solving these problems. Researching theories and experimentation are all important aspects of predicting how to handle future criminals, society in general, as well as the growing ambiguity in what the future has in store for society. Prediction is necessary for preparation. This can only be done through funded research.
Worst-case scenario will be no funding available to implement or keep up with these changes. One solution is to revert to the old ways of running prisons, have offenders/criminals provide services that would in turn lead to a profit, perhaps enough to dig the corrections field out of the dilemma they are facing. Rights issues will then become an issue at this point. As a result, criminal courts will be backed up by such cases, still leading to taxpayer’s money for court and legal fees.
The best-case scenario is for approved funding to be implemented: given from taxpayer’s money or from substitution from another funded source. This is possible if the budgeter is familiar enough with the system and efficient in finding ways to come up with the money without sacrificing citizens. For example, in California, there is a surplus of money (untouched) that is for the purpose of providing medical treatments to victims of crimes (including orthopedic and chiropractic treatments). The criterion needed to qualify is for the victim to have absolutely no other source of income and medical treatment: whether through insurance or medical (government help). The criteria is so strict and specific, most people cannot qualify. A good candidate to allocate such types of surplus funds would be needed by the correctional department in their hour of needs.
Realistically, since the allocation of these funds have not been implemented to support the problem, the work involved may be too challenging or the money not enough to cover the costs needed. It is still worth pursuing rather than staying at a dead-end position. This goal may be a long-term goal that will fluctuate depending on the length of time involved doing the research.
Currently, different interest groups conflict in their views about the issue the criminal justice faces, particularly, corrections. While votes may currently be the most reliable source form of consensus in decision-making, votes alone by the majority will not make everyone happy. There will be voices to be heard and controversial issues that can present a major problem.
The only thing that criminal justice agencies can provide to the citizens involved is the reality that offenders need to be locked-up and/or punished. Some offenders need rehabilitation in order to function back into society with minimal probability of recidivism. Additionally, offenders need to be treated with dignity or else, society itself will face not only monetary but also moral consequences of too much get tough policing.
Criminal justice agencies can only provide realism to a pessimistic and many times, paranoid world. Communication of hard-to-face truth about the reality of human nature is the only thing criminal justice agencies can truly provide to the citizens of the world. The rest is a symbiosis of opportunities for the world educating into a more sophisticated society that is able to be more independent and able to comeback and face the many challenges of life.
Back
|
