Document Sample
Corrections Powered By Docstoc

   History of Corrections 1-1
        Officer Marc Gray
Officer Lawrence Hayes Esquire

   Detail the role of punishment in dealing
    with criminals.
   Discuss the principle of deterrence in
   Discuss issues surrounding restitution.
   Explain the concept of isolation in
   Analyze the concept of reintegration as it
    relates to corrections.
   Community Service
   Community-Based Institutional Treatment
   Deterrence Recidivism
   Direct Victim Restitution
   General Deterrence
   Habitual Offender Laws
   Incapacitation
   Intermediate Sentence
   Justice Model
   Punishment
   Rehabilitation
   Reintegration
   Restitution
   Retribution
   Specific Deterrence
   Corrections are the 3rd major
    component of the American criminal
    justice system. As with the components
    of law enforcement and the courts, the
    nation’s correctional system does not
    exist apart from the influences of
    society. Our society determines how
    the concept of corrections is defined and
    the manner in which our correctional
    system functions.
   As the attitudes of the general population
    about crime change, the definition of
    corrections and guidelines under which its
    components operate also change. For
    example, in response to the public’s
    concern with the nation’s crime problem,
    Congress and State Legislatures have
    created habitual offender laws. The result
    of these statutes has been the incarceration
    of repeat offenders for lengthy prison
    terms. Thus, society’s reaction to the
    problem of crime has had a direct influence
    on the manner in which our correctional
    systems function.
   Once an offender is found guilty of a
    criminal act, our judicial system imposes
    criminal sanctions regulated by statue in
    order to punish the offender. Punishment
    is society’s use of negative sanctions to
    discourage deviant behavior.
   The criminal justice component that has
    the primary responsibility for carrying out
    society’s punishment of offenders is
    corrections. The ultimate purpose of
    imposing criminal sanctions is to punish
    deviant behavior, to protect society, and
    to maintain the social order.

   The specific type of punishment
    which different jurisdictions impose
    on criminal offenders reflects the
    philosophy of punishment held by
    the majority of the jurisdiction’s
   American society is culturally diverse.
    Communities consist of many different
    groups having different beliefs, values,
    and attitudes. Because of this cultural
    diversity, there are a number of theories
    on punishment that influence our
    correctional system, theories that are
    often in conflict with each other.
   For example, the theory of retribution
    found in the early Tailon law of “an eye
    for an eye” is in direct conflict with the
    theory of rehabilitation.
   There are 6 major theories of punishment that
    not only influence our judicial sentencing
    practices but also the manner in which our
    correctional system operates. The major
    theories of punishment are retribution,
    deterrence, incapacitation, restitution,
    rehabilitation, and reintegration. Although
    some of these theories represent opposing
    views of punishment, all of them reflect the
    manner in which our correctional system
    operates daily. The degree of influence these
    theories have on the correctional system is
    determined in great part by the beliefs of the
    general population in each jurisdiction.
   Factors that influence the community’s
    beliefs are prison overcrowding, fiscal
    limitations, and lack of personnel. The
    philosophy of punishment of the
    majority of citizens and operational
    realities such as prison overcrowding
    determine how a specific correctional
    system operates.
   There is 1 major factor related to punishment
    that applies to all 6 theories of punishment;
    punishment is a relative term. What one group
    considers punishment, another group may not
    consider punishment. For example, not
    everyone considers a stay in jail to be a major
    depravation or punishment. Some members of
    society such as certain homeless skid-row
    drunks, consider time in jail as an opportunity
    to receive a warm bed and 3 meals a day.
    Different people have different views on which
    punishments are more severe than others do.
    For some, a fine is preferable to the loss of
    freedom, the shame, and the social burden that
    may be involved in spending time in jail.

   In order to understand the
    operation of the nation’s
    correctional system better, it is
    important to explore different
    theories and rationales of
   The concept of retribution is one of the
    oldest reasons for criminal punishment
    in recorded human history. It is a
    practice based on early Tailon Law and
    supports the concept of “an eye for an
    eye,” also known as “law of equivalent
    retaliation.” Historically, retribution
    meant revenge or retaliation, a very
    humanistic reaction to crime.
   In the book of Deuteronomy in the Old
    Testament of the Bible, the ancient belief is
    clearly stated: “Life shall go for life, eye for an
    eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
    foot.” People harmed by crime want to hurt the
    offender in revenge for the suffering. In early
    societies, crime victims or their family members
    and/or representatives exacted swift and rapid
    punishment on the offender. Frequently, the
    victim of the crime was allowed to either select
    the method of punishment or to physically
    punish the offender. Retribution as a theory of
    punishment contends that the punishment of an
    offender should be in the same manner that the
    victim suffered.
   Although retribution was more prevalent
    in ancient life, it remained a major goal of
    the courts until the nineteenth century
    prison reform movement. This movement
    felt that the role of incarceration was not
    to retaliate against the offender but to
    reform the offender of the social ills that
    caused his criminal misbehavior. The
    ultimate goal is to reintegrate the
    offender back into society as a useful and
    productive citizen. Imagine the pendulum
    on a clock as it swings from the
    retribution side in early history towards
    the rehabilitation side during the
    nineteenth century reform movement.
   “Curing” the offender’s social ills became
    the major goal of sentencing and
    incarceration. This shift towards
    rehabilitation caused a major
    restructuring of the prison systems to a
    “corrections” philosophy. Prison systems
    became Departments of Correction, and
    detention facilities for juveniles became
    “reformatories.” “Rehabilitation became
    the dominant goal of sentencing and the
    criminal justice system until the reforms
    of the 1970’s when incapacitation and
    retribution began to surface once again.
   The modern concept of retribution evolved into
    the justice model of punishment. This theory of
    punishment comes from the “law of just
    deserts.” This means that the punishment
    imposed on an offender should be equivalent or
    equal to the seriousness of the crime. In other
    words, the “punishment should fit the crime.”
    A central element of this philosophy is that
    offenders are responsible for their crimes.
    Andrew von Hirsch in his 1976 publication
    Doing Justice states that criminals should be
    punished for the crimes they have already
    committed and not for what they might do in
    the future. He suggests that the offenders
    should set the example of what happens to
    those who break the law.
   Retribution focuses entirely on the
    crime itself, rather than on the
    offender’s needs or needs of the
    community. Therefore,
    punishment of retribution is
    deserved, justified, and required
    because of the unacceptable and
    illegal behavior or criminal act of
    the offender.
   The central feature of modern retribution
    is that the sentences imposed on
    offenders should be in proportion to the
    seriousness of the criminal act. It comes
    from the belief that the criminal in some
    way profited from the criminal act and,
    therefore, must repay society. This
    theory holds that someone who illegally
    infringes on the rights of others does
    wrong and deserves blame and
    punishment for their action.
   Due to the public’s growing concern with the
    nation’s crime rate, there is increased interest
    in retribution as a motivation for criminal
    punishment. This increased interest reflects a
    law and order philosophy regarding the
    operation of the nation’s criminal justice
    system. In the U.S., the state is the
    instrument or agent authorized to carry out
    both the victim and society’s need for revenge
    and retribution. It is the judicial system’s duty
    to impose a just sentence on the offender, and
    the correctional system’s responsibility to carry
    out this punishment.
   Since criminal offenders infringe on the
    rights of individuals or society as a
    whole, the just deserts model focuses
    on incarceration as the primary tool of
    punishing offenders. Incarceration
    deprives the criminal of his/her rights by
    means of removing the offender from
    society and placing him/her in jail or
    prison. The ultimate form of retribution
    is capital punishment, the taking of the
    offender’s life.
   Now, the pendulum is shifting away from
    rehabilitation towards retribution as society
    applies its influences on it selected officials,
    seeking vengeance against those who go against
    society’s norms. Incapacitation and retaliation
    are the contributing factors of the “get tough”
    attitude of lawmakers and judges. Many states
    created “three strike laws” that sentence
    offenders long sentences with no opportunities for
    early release. Because of this mentality, the
    nation’s corrections system faces prison-over-
    crowding problems. The community reacted to
    this problem by building new prisons and seeking
    alternatives to sentencing.
   The basic theory of deterrence is that punishment
    sets an example for what can happen when one
    disobeys the law. Using punishment to convince
    people that criminal behavior is not worthwhile,
    believers in deterrence feel that punishment
    should prevent or discourage crime through fear
    of the consequences and should act as an
    example to potential criminals by incarcerating
    offenders to prevent them from committing
    further criminal acts. Thus, the overall goal of
    deterrence is the prevention of crime. Since
    deterrence aims at reducing the crime rate, it is
    an extremely popular theory of punishment.
    There are two types of deterrence: general and
    specific/individual deterrence.
   General deterrence is the idea that
    punishing criminals will set an example for
    other potential criminal violators. General
    deterrence seeks to influence or affect the
    future behavior of people who are not yet
    arrested but may be tempted to commit
    crimes. In order for the general deterrence
    approach to work, the public must be
    aware of the punishment for specific
    crimes. If potential criminals do not know
    what the consequences are for convicting a
    crime, they will not be deterred from
    committing crimes.
   In order for general deterrence to be
    effective, the punishment for a specific
    crime must also be severe enough so that
    potential offenders will fear the penalties
    imposed by society. Therefore, punishment
    that is too lenient might encourage criminal
    behavior because the offenders do not fear
    the penalty and view the benefits of
    committing a crime as outweighing the
   Serious questions have been raised about
    whether or not deterrence actually works.
    There is very little evidence to support
    the belief that severe punishment can
    really influence criminal behavior and
    prevent crime. In recent years, state and
    federal legislation have increased the
    penalties for certain crimes, resulting in
    longer and more severe criminal
   During the same time that these
    penalties have increased in the
    U.S., the violent crime rate has also
    increased. Some researchers have
    found that for certain types of
    crimes shame and social rejection
    are greater crime deterrents than
    fear of legal punishment. General
    deterrence, therefore, may not be
    effective in preventing crime.
   However, there are supporters of
    deterrence theory. For example, Cesare
    Beccarua in his essay “On Crimes and
    Punishments” writes, “The purpose of
    punishment should be to deter crime, not
    to obtain revenge from an offended
    society. It is not the severity of
    punishment, but the certainty and
    swiftness that will result in deterring
    crime.” Many present day criminologists
    feel that the inadequacies in our criminal
    justice system have resulted in the loss of
    the “severity, certainty, and swiftness”
    needed to serve as a deterrent to crime.

   Specific or individual deterrence,
    on the other hand, refers to the
    effect of punishment in
    preventing the single offender
    from committing additional
    crimes. This type of deterrence is
    concerned with changing the
    behavior of convicted criminals or
   Specific deterrence is usually achieved
    through incarceration since the
    offender cannot commit additional
    crimes while incarcerated. The basis
    of this form of punishment is a belief
    that a long prison sentence of
    payment of a large fine will keep and
    offender from committing another
    crime. Specific deterrence is an
    attempt to reduce recidivism by
    keeping criminals from committing
    further criminal offenses after release
    from prison.
   One of the major criticisms of our criminal
    justice system is that it has not been
    effective in reducing recidivism and thus
    has not been able to keep offenders from
    repeating criminal behavior. Research
    has shown that severe punishment alone
    has not been effective in convincing
    offenders never to repeat their illegal
    actions. In fact, research has shown that
    being in prison actually raises the
    offender’s potential for recidivism, rather
    than deterring future crime.
   No deterrence has met with criticism as
    much as the death penalty or capitol
    punishment. Capitol punishment has never
    proven to be an affective deterrent for
    criminal activity. A 1995 survey by Patrick
    Murphy, “Death Penalty Useless,” polled
    police and sheriff administrators in the U.S.
    regarding the death penalty and murders in
    their jurisdictions. Murphy reported that
    82% of the sheriffs and police chiefs felt
    that killers did not weigh the possible
    penalties before committing the crimes.
   Other surveys back their findings. Franklin
    Zimring and Michael Laurence reported in
    “Death Penalty, Crime File Study” that “the
    actual probability that a murderer will
    receive a death sentence is quite low and
    the risk of being executed is even smaller,
    about 1 per 1,000 killings in 1984.”
    However, surveys still suggest that as
    much as 61-85% of the public supports the
    death penalty.
   The basis of the incapacitation theory of
    punishment is that crime can be prevented
    if criminals are physically restrained in
    either jail or prison. The purpose of
    incapacitation is to protect society and its
    citizens from criminals. It reflects the old
    “lock them up and throw away the key”
    approach to punishment. The justification
    for incapacitation is that it isolates
    convicted offenders from society by
    restraining them in prison and preventing
    them from committing further crimes.
   Although incapacitation usually
    implies incarceration in jail or
    prison, the criminal justice system
    has begun to use alternatives to
    imprisonment. One of the more
    promising techniques is the use of
    house arrest monitored
    electronically by telephones and
   The concept of incapacitation is different from
    retribution. The purpose of retribution is to
    punish the offender, to get revenge.
    Incapacitation, on the other hand, requires only
    restraint and isolation from society, not
    punishment. Incapacitation makes it
    impossible for the offender to commit further
    offenses against society. Incapacitation is also
    directed at the offender who is likely to commit
    further crimes. Due to its selective nature, only
    criminals who commit certain types of crimes
    are sentenced to incarceration. If
    incapacitation were a general policy, all
    offenders would be incarcerated.
   Incapacitation was a popular method of crime
    control in English and American history.
    England regularly banished its errants and
    undesirables to Australia and the U.S. Early
    American folklore often refers to local sheriffs
    giving undesirables a choice of leaving town or
    jail. Other forms of incapacitation made it
    physically impossible for thieves to steal as
    their hands were cut off. If they had no hands,
    they could not steal again. Castration of sex
    offenders is once again in the public spotlight
    and has been offered as a solution to prevent
    rape. Like retribution, incapacitation is a
    reactive response by attempting to judge future
    human behavior. Society confines offenders
    not only for what they have done but also for
    what they might do in the future.
   There are a number of major problems associated
    with this theory that keep it from being truly
    effective, prison overcrowding being the biggest.
    The serious offender population is growing much
    faster than our ability to build prisons to house
    them, and correctional systems do not have the
    prison space to incarcerate all offenders for the
    full term of their sentences. A second major
    problem with the theory of incapacitation is the
    fact that most offenders sentenced to prison are
    eventually released back into society where many
    of them commit new crimes. As the problem of
    prison overcrowding increases, the actual length
    of time that sentenced offenders spend in prison
    decreases; most criminal offenders actually spend
    less than one-third of their sentenced in prison.
    They are released early because they are given
    credit for statutory good time or gain-time.
   The public has become increasingly concerned
    with the early release of criminals and
    recidivism. One response to the problems
    associated with prison overcrowding and early
    release of offenders has been the passage of
    habitual offender statutes. Habitual offender
    statutes allow the courts to sentence
    defendants who have committed two, three, or
    more serious offenses to extended terms of
    incarceration, even for life.
   The argument in support of these new laws is that
    criminals who have not learned from their past
    mistakes and who continue to commit crimes should
    be isolated from society in order to protect the
    public. Recent research has shown that a small
    number of offenders are responsible for a large
    number of property and violent crimes. Therefore, it
    stands to reason that if these individuals are
    sentenced as habitual offenders, the crime rate
    should go down. The primary limitations in
    effectively applying this habitual criminal approach
    is prison overcrowding and the lack of resources to
    construct and staff new prisons. Another major
    problem with habitual offender laws is that they are
    circumvented by prosecutors and plea-bargaining
    arrangements. Prosecutors are eager for
    convictions, and defendants are eager for lesser
    sentences. Like capitol punishment, there has been
    no evidence to show that habitual offenders laws act
    as deterrence to crime.
   The concept of restitution is very old, dating back
    to primitive civilizations. Under the Talion laws, a
    person who suffered injury or loss of property was
    entitled to a fair and just compensation that did
    not exceed the original injury or loss. The early
    Law of Moses required fourfold restitution for
    stolen sheep and fivefold restitution for cattle.
    The Code of Hammurabi demanded as much as
    thirty times the value of the damage caused by
    the offender. When it became obvious that
    restitution was more for punishment than equal
    compensation, a tariff system was used to set the
    limits of compensation.
   Restitution relies on the belief that offenders should
    pay back in equal value the victims and the state for
    losses resulting from crimes they committed.
    Historically, the desire for compensation or repayment
    was as great as people’s thirst for retaliation, and
    crime victims have often felt that the American system
    of criminal justice has totally neglected them.
   Crime victims not only suffered financial loss because
    of the crimes but also the cost of treatment of the
    injuries. In contrast, the criminals my receive free
    medical care and legal representation provided by the
    public. The concept of victim restitution fell into disuse
    when victims lost their central role in the criminal
    justice process, and the governments defined crimes as
    offenses against the state, rather than offenses against
    individual victims.
   Crime victims not only suffered financial
    loss because of the crimes but also the
    cost of treatment of the injuries. In
    contrast, the criminals my receive free
    medical care and legal representation
    provided by the public. The concept of
    victim restitution fell into disuse when
    victims lost their central role in the
    criminal justice process, and the
    governments defined crimes as offenses
    against the state, rather than offenses
    against individual victims.
   In the 1960’s, the concept of
    restitution as a punishment theory and
    sentencing practice returned to
    general use in the U.S. In its simplest
    form, restitution now means
    repayment by the offender to the
    victim who has suffered some form of
    financial loss as the result of the
    offender’s crime. In its modern use,
    two forms of restitution are employed
    by the courts in imposing sentences:
    direct victim restitution and restitution
    to society in the form of community
   Restitution, therefore, means that convicted
    offenders must pay back their victims for their
    personal losses, repay the criminal justice
    system for the costs of processing their case,
    and reimburse society as a whole for any
    disruption they may have caused the state. In
    many states, restitution is a pretrial diversion
    alternative. In this application, restitution is
    not a sentencing alternative but rather a
    procedure for diverting the offender from
    further prosecution. When restitution is used
    as a sentencing alternative by judges, victim
    compensation and/or community service is
    usually ordered as a condition of probation.
   There has been considerable controversy
    about the use of restitution as a
    punishment alternative for criminal
    offenders. Supporters of the program
    argue that restitution focuses needed
    attention on crime victims. When used as
    a pretrial diversion tactic, restitution helps
    the judicial system cope with its increasing
    caseload by means of lowering the number
    of cases that actually go to trial. In
    addition, the use of victim compensation
    and community service sentences is much
    less expensive than the cost of
    incarcerating offenders in jail or prison.
   Critics of restitution argue that most
    criminal offenders cannot afford to pay
    victim compensation, and as a result, these
    sentences do not help the victims of crime.
    Studies of restitution programs have shown
    that the use of this sentencing alternative
    has not reduced recidivism. Offenders
    given this type of sentence were as likely to
    commit future crimes as offenders given
    either prison sentences or other forms of
    non-incarceration sentences. The only
    population that appears to have been
    positively affected by community service
    sentences has been juvenile offenders.
   The rehabilitation theory of sentencing and
    corrections focuses on the treatment and
    resocialization of the criminal offender. A goal of
    rehabilitation is to restore an offender to a
    constructive place in society through some form
    of vocational, educational, or therapeutic
    treatment. Proponents of rehabilitation feel that
    society has failed the criminal offender in some
    way, rather than vice versa. The rehabilitation
    model maintains that a person becomes a
    criminal because of social conditions such as
    disorganized neighborhoods, poverty, poor
    schooling, and dysfunctional families. According
    to this concept, the correctional system is not
    punishing offenders for their crimes; rather, they
    are being treated or rehabilitated by the
    correctional system. The rehabilitated offenders
    are expected to eventually return to society as
    productive and law-abiding citizens.
   Rehabilitation seeks to bring about basic
    changes in offenders and in their behaviors.
    The primary goal of rehabilitation, therefore, is
    to reduce the number of criminal offenses
    through changing the behavior of criminals.
    Under the rehabilitation model, if the offender
    is considered a danger to the community, and
    the crime that he/she committed is severe, the
    judge will remand the offender to a secure
    treatment facility such as a prison or jail. If the
    crime is less severe, and the offender presents
    no serious danger, the judge will frequently
    remand the offender to a community treatment
    program as a condition of probation.
   The rehabilitation model of sentencing and
    corrections was very popular during the 1960’s
    and 1970’s. During that time, the focus of
    attention in corrections was on treatment and
    education. Resources from psychological and
    counseling services such as drug rehabilitation
    and sex offender treatment, vocational training,
    skills workshops, high school equivalency classes,
    and college programs were used in prisons in an
    attempt to provide offenders with the skills that
    they needed to successfully reintegrate into
    society. Supporters of this theory suggest that if
    convicted offenders are provided with meaningful
    alternatives and careers they will not return to a
    life of crime.
   A basic assumption of the rehabilitation
    model is that offenders should stay in
    correctional custody only until the time
    that they are “cured” and ready to
    return to society. This model relies on a
    prediction of the future needs of the
    offender and not on the severity of
    his/her current offense. As a result, the
    intermediate sentence became the
    preferred sentencing method as it
    allows the judge to set minimum and
    maximum terms for offenders.
   The correctional system and parole
    board can release offenders once they
    are considered rehabilitated. Another
    argument in support of intermediate
    sentences is that offenders do not know
    exactly when they will be released.
    Since their release date is unknown,
    they make more of an effort to
    participate in treatment programs with
    the intent to make a good impression on
    the authorities and, as a result, turn
    their lives around.
   However, there are problems associated
    with the basic concepts of the
    rehabilitation model. First, psychology
    and the social sciences are not able
    either to identify the causes of criminal
    behavior or to tell when someone has
    been truly “rehabilitated” and is ready
    to return to society. As a result, most
    correctional rehabilitation programs
    have no specific guidelines or rules to
    govern the release of offenders.
   As prisons continued to become overcrowded,
    the resources of the criminal justice systems
    are unable to increase their rehabilitative
    programs to keep up with the increase in the
    offender population. Therefore, the opportunity
    to provide rehabilitation programs decreases.
    Finally, and most importantly, research has
    shown that rehabilitation is not working. It has
    not reduced the recidivism rate; up to 90% of
    offenders released from treatment-based
    prisons commit additional crimes upon release.
    The fact that rehabilitation programs are failing
    to reduce crime has turned the public’s
    sentiment away from rehabilitation and towards
   Reintegration is the newest theory of punishing
    offenders and has as its basic objective the return
    of the criminal offender to the free community
    with restored education, employment, and family
    ties. As a modification and extension of the
    rehabilitation model, it attempts to compensate
    for the weaknesses of that theory. The
    supporters of reintegration, like those who
    support the rehabilitation model, believe that
    criminal offenders do need help. Reintegration
    supporters maintain that criminal behavior is the
    result of the offender’s failure to blend into or
    integrate properly into society. It is this view of
    criminal behavior that separates the reintegration
    theory from the rehabilitation theory.
   The reintegration approach stresses a
    community-based institutional treatment,
    one wherein the offender can be assisted
    in a more “natural” surrounding so that
    he/she can adjust better to a free society
    when released from custody. The
    community-based approach uses
    resources such as community social
    agencies and correctional halfway houses
    to assist released offenders make a
    proper transition and adjustment back
    into society. Supporters of this approach
    feel that contact with positive elements in
    society is what is necessary for the
    treatment of the criminal offender.
   The use of reintegration programs has
    helped to ease some of the problems
    associated with prison overcrowding. The
    use of community-based correctional
    institutions for the less dangerous offender
    population has allowed the resource-
    starved “prison” correctional institutions to
    focus on the hard-core, dangerous criminal
    population. Maximum security prisons that
    house hard-core and dangerous criminals
    are very reluctant to include any
    rehabilitation program that provides
    offenders with contact with the public.
   Economically, halfway houses and other semi-
    institutional correctional facilities are far less
    expensive to build and service than are prisons,
    and in general, the cost of maintaining
    offenders in reintegration programs is far less
    expensive than the cost of incarcerating an
    offender in prison. Many community-based
    programs require the offender to reimburse the
    state for their housing expenses, thereby
    lessening the financial burden on the
    government and community. Additionally,
    communities are more likely to accept a
    community-based correctional facility housing
    less dangerous offenders in their neighborhoods
    as opposed to a maximum-security prison
    housing dangerous and violent offenders.
   The reintegration theory has won increasing
    acceptance, and such programs continued to grow
    until the presidential election of 1988. In that year,
    Republican presidential candidate George Bush
    made prison sentencing and reintegration a key
    issue in his campaign. Many feel that this issue
    contributed to his victory over Democrat Michael
    Dukakis. In the Bush campaign, he used the case of
    Willie Horton, an offender from Dukakis’ home state
    of Massachusetts who murdered a citizen while out
    on a work release program, to make the point that
    Dukakis was “soft on crime” and supported liberal
    work release programs in his home state. The
    success of this political tactic made other politicians
    reluctant to support reintegration programs. Thus,
    political reaction to reintegration remains the major
    problem in the increased use of the reintegration
    approach in sentencing and corrections.
   Once the offender has been found guilty
    of a criminal act, the judicial system
    imposes criminal sanctions regulated by
    statue in order to punish the offender.
    The criminal justice component that has
    the primary responsibility for carrying out
    society’s punishment of offenders is
   Recidivism is repetition of criminal
    behavior, also known as further violations
    of the law by released offenders. Since it
    is the goal of the criminal justice system
    to rehabilitate the offenders, recidivism is
    an indicator that the system or offender
    has failed.

   Electronic monitoring is a low cost
    alternative to incarceration used by
    the criminal justice system to
    incapacitate the convicted