There have been various failed and accepted rehabilitative and treatment programs within the criminal justice system. Although the main purpose within the criminal justice system is to provide protection to the innocent and delivering justice, officials must also rehabilitate those who have wronged. Treating offenders with humanity and giving them the opportunities to right their wrongs will help their futures as reentered civilians. Some highly influential programs are work release programs, sex offender management programs, and shock incarceration programs. Work release programs are great ways for offenders to slowly reenter into society and be reminded how to be a responsible and independent employee. Sex offender management programs, also
…show more content…
Work release programs include inmates who are nearing the end of their sentence and allow the inmate to hold regular jobs among the average population (Berk 2007). There are many positives to work release programs. The inmates can return home with additional savings and a job in full swing, instead of “gate money”. Gate money is what an inmate gets when leaving prison and returning to the community. In Indiana, inmates will receive a few different items. They will get weather appropriate clothing if necessary, and if no family can pick them up they will receive a bus ticket to the stop nearest to their residence. Inmates will also receive $75 (Indiana Department of Corrections). Work release programs provide the inmates with the opportunity to go home with employment can boost the inmates’ self-worth, and show their families how much they are trying to reenter into society with poise and a rehabilitated …show more content…
One study found no significant rate of recidivism when comparing those in the work release program to those who did not partake in the program. The only significance in this study was their reoffended crimes. Those who did not participate in work release came back for serious felonies, and those who were part of the program came back for less serious misdemeanors (William Bales, Catie Clark, Samuel Scaggs, David Ensley, Philip Coltharp, Alexa Singer, Thomas Blomberg 2015). Although this study did not satisfy the need for a lower recidivism rate, another study had. A study from Robert Jeffrey and Stephan Woolpert in 1973 showed that there were fewer post-release arrests of inmates who participated in work release program from their county jail in comparison to inmates who did not contribute (Bales et al 2015). Work release programs are also cost effective. In 1990 two researchers named Turner and Petersilia found that inmates in Washington on work release saved the state four-thousand dollars than inmates who were not on work release (Bales et al 2015). In general, work release programs have shown to be cost effective and successful when measured by level of reconviction and rate of
Work release programs include inmates who are nearing the end of their sentence and allow the inmate to hold regular jobs among the average population (Berk 2007). There are many positives to work release programs. The inmates can return home with additional savings and a job in full swing, instead of “gate money”. Gate money is what an inmate gets when leaving prison and returning to the community. In Indiana, inmates will receive a few different items. They will get weather appropriate clothing if necessary, and if no family can pick them up they will receive a bus ticket to the stop nearest to their residence. Inmates will also receive $75 (Indiana Department of Corrections). Work release programs provide the inmates with the opportunity to go home with employment can boost the inmates’ self-worth, and show their families how much they are trying to reenter into society with poise and a rehabilitated …show more content…
One study found no significant rate of recidivism when comparing those in the work release program to those who did not partake in the program. The only significance in this study was their reoffended crimes. Those who did not participate in work release came back for serious felonies, and those who were part of the program came back for less serious misdemeanors (William Bales, Catie Clark, Samuel Scaggs, David Ensley, Philip Coltharp, Alexa Singer, Thomas Blomberg 2015). Although this study did not satisfy the need for a lower recidivism rate, another study had. A study from Robert Jeffrey and Stephan Woolpert in 1973 showed that there were fewer post-release arrests of inmates who participated in work release program from their county jail in comparison to inmates who did not contribute (Bales et al 2015). Work release programs are also cost effective. In 1990 two researchers named Turner and Petersilia found that inmates in Washington on work release saved the state four-thousand dollars than inmates who were not on work release (Bales et al 2015). In general, work release programs have shown to be cost effective and successful when measured by level of reconviction and rate of