ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING

To address the challenge of prison overcrowding and the general failure of incarceration as an effective means of producing rehabilitation, Justice & Mercy supports the application of alternative sentencing for appropriate defendants.

Matching the right alternative sentencing strategies with defendants who are likely to function positively within those strategies will take an intentional effort. Skilled attorneys will need to be at the heart of all such processes, deftly identifying options that will satisfy judges and prosecutors.

Defendants would fall within guidelines for eligibility so as to not pose a serious risk to the community.

With those criteria met, a multitude of programs--such as community service, work release programs, graffiti clean-up programs and victim-offender reconciliation programs--offer a positive experience that benefits the community while bolstering the defendants’ self-esteem and their interaction with the society they will someday rejoin.

Unconditional prison-based incarceration--the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” mentality--appeals to a basic societal need for security, but has proven largely ineffective in stemming criminal behavior.

Justice & Mercy supports responsible alternative sentencing programs currently in effect and encourages the development of new programs that encourage rehabilitation and service outside of prison walls.

[ Related Links of Interest ]  

DRUG COURTS

Justice and Mercy supports the practice of drug courts, which has proven to be effective in reducing recidivism rates and providing cost-effective and holistic incentives benefiting public safety, family health, and individual stability.

Studies have shown that recidivism rates have dropped dramatically in all areas where drug courts have operated. These studies reflect recidivism reductions in some locations from 50% to as low as 4%. Other recent reports reveal that arrest and conviction rates for persons in the two-year period after entering drug court programs were respectively 85% and 77% lower than in the two prior years.

A significant number of participants tested during the drug court programs were found to be clean, and more than 75% of drug court graduates have obtained and retained employment.

Other positive factors include the increased number of families regaining custody of their children and an overwhelming higher rate of drug-free baby births achieved by female drug court participants.

Economically, the program has shown substantial benefits, with as much as $10 savings realized for every $1 invested in establishing and maintaining drug court programs. Reports from all areas indicate that initial investments are recouped by overall savings at some point subsequent to establishment of new drug courts.

These data are compelling and justify efforts to establish drug courts at local levels. Drug courts are functioning in all states, however, Pennsylvania lags behind most other states for number of local areas participating in these programs. In addition, PA is one of the few states which has not yet passed some form of legislation for establishing and operating drug courts and other specialty courts. Justice and Mercy encourages the development and passage of state legislation and the ongoing support and expansion of drug courts throughout Pennsylvania.

[ Read More ]

LONG-TERM SEGREGATION UNITS

Because of documented adverse sociological and psychological effects that have resulted from such confinement, Justice & Mercy Based opposes the use of long-term segregation units (LTSUs) and encourages evaluation and development of alternative programs.

As the final step in a punitive policy that begins with restricted or special confinement units, LTSUs are virtual isolation environments. Inmates may be restricted to LTSUs for months or even years.

While theoretically inmates may be rewarded for good behavior and returned to the general prison population, the very nature of this isolation prevents the significant interaction with both staff and fellow inmates that would testify to such behavior. Conversely, LTSU inmates frequently act out to gain attention. Contributing to their frustration is the denial of group exercise and work opportunities, treatment programs and social services. The impersonal nature of such an environment is striking: meals, religious worship and counseling are administered to LTSU inmates only through the slots in the cell doors.

Numerous studies have shown that LTSU confinement produces in inmates adverse psychological effects because of sensory deprivation. Resultant behavior can be delusional, depressive or suicidal; more than half of inmates in solitary confinement experience panic attacks.

Prison staff, likewise, are adversely affected by LTSU programming, often becoming immune to the methods of force that are routinely established to maintain order. The LTSU environment perpetuates cycles of violence psychologically detrimental to inmates, staff and, ultimately, the public.

Rather than encouraged to model good behavior, inmates in LTSUs are conditioned to become more antisocial and belligerent. And accounts reveal that many inmates have been released directly from LTSUs without parole supervision.

The situation is serious and likely to become even more so. With overcrowding and increasing security concerns, prison administrators may be inclined to expand their utilization of LTSUs.

Justice & Mercy believes that segregation units are detrimental to inmates, prison staff and society, and encourages the evaluation of alternative and innovative incentive, counseling and treatment programs.

MANDATORY SENTENCING

Justice & Mercy opposes mandatory minimums, which stipulate that those convicted of specific crimes are to be sentenced to an unconditional minimum number of years as determined by legislative bodies.

The challenge is formidable: Currently there are approximately 80 mandatory minimums in effect in Pennsylvania.

The power of stipulating mandatory minimums rests solely with district attorneys and does not involve the discretion of presiding judges. It takes away the ability of judges to show mercy if those convicted show remorse. Judges become little more than “rubber stamps” for decisions district attorneys have made and presented to them.

The policy of mandatory minimums was developed with the presumption that it would deter criminals from committing certain crimes, but, conversely, it has caused prison populations to grow exponentially. This creates the need to build many more prisons and greatly expand federal, state and county government budgets, causing concern among the tax-paying public.

For example, in the hope of getting drug “kingpins” off the street, many underling minor offenders, who cannot afford appropriate representation, have been carrying the brunt of mandatory minimums.

Many of those who supported this policy in the past now oppose mandatory minimums and perceive it as failed policy. Justice & Mercy strongly encourages a repudiation of mandatory minimums and a refocus on options for mercy and incentives appropriately applied to those convicted.

[ Related Links of Interest ]             

MENTAL ILLNESS AND INCARCERATION

What many corrections officials and mental health experts have decried over recent decades as a growing concern is today an ever-expanding crisis: the criminalization of the mentally ill has placed many people in the wrong environment for treatment.

The U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics recently estimated that over one-half of the nation’s incarcerated—more than 1,000,000 inmates in federal, state and local jails—were suffering from some form of mental illness, including schizophrenia and various levels of depression. Such figures are alarming enough, but especially when considered that they represent a five-fold increase since similar studies were done in the late 1990s.

Many of those mentally ill persons who are in jails or prisons are guilty of relatively minor offenses, often as “public nuisance” offenders, and are behind bars by default because of a lack of alternative measures. Most studies have shown those in the prison population with mental health issues represent a four or five times greater percentage than that within the general public.

Many factors have contributed to this crisis in adequate and appropriate care, including widespread cutbacks on state facilities focused on adult and adolescent psychiatric care and the state’s failure to fund the counties’ Mental Health/Mental Retardation populations.

Few leaders in either mental health or corrections work would argue with the unsettling observation of Dr. Laurie Flynn, executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill: “Part of mental illness in America now is that you are going to get arrested.”

In the midst of this growing concern are a number of proven alternative programs that are working in various parts of the country to better process and treat those offenders needing psychological help.

In Pennsylvania since June 2001, a few Mental Health Courts have been established which focus on individualized programming and treatment for those awaiting trial who voluntarily submit to the process. The Allegheny County Court program has had moderate success, with the cost of treatment offset by decreased jail expenditures. Although figures cited in 2004 indicate a modest 15% “graduation” rate, others were able to be bonded out of prison or were hospitalized with in-patient psychiatric care.

Crisis care centers, aimed at getting nonviolent detainees appropriate psychiatric help quickly, often are set up within the confines of inclusive medical centers. Effective procedures enacted by trained counselors and therapists enable certain offenders to bypass both jail and emergency room processing, allowing a straight line to effective treatment.

Among other viable forms of assistance for the mentally ill, many re-entry programs which provide prompt and efficient mental health care benefits have proven successful, especially those focused on continuing the specialized treatment plans developed for individuals while they were incarcerated.

Justice & Mercy strongly encourages lawmakers, corrections officials and mental health administrators to work in concert to expand the search for viable options supporting incarcerated mentally ill offenders. To that end, J&M cites and applauds the important work of Pennsylvania’s Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project and especially the Forensic Workgroup of the Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, formed in 2005 to seek alternative treatment for mentally challenged individuals likely to be incarcerated. Justice & Mercy promotes cost-effective and efficient systems which add more capacity for this clientele.

Following are articles and Web site links that provide detailed information on this issue.

[ Related Links of Interest ]             

POWER OF THE GOSPEL

Justice and Mercy believes that persons must change from the inside out--and that the power to change a life can only come from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At the heart of the Gospel is the affirmation that “if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Corinthians 5:17; NRSV).

Not only do we believe in the power of Jesus Christ to change lives, we also have seen many lives changed and bear witness to the genuineness of God’s work in those who come to Christ.

We therefore unconditionally advocate for incorporating Christian ministry into the efforts of the Justice System. Lives changed by the power of Jesus Christ will positively impact our society and our world.

[ Read More ]

SEX OFFENDERS

The challenge of protecting the vulnerable within U.S. society from sex offenders and providing both a punitive and restorative response to those offenders has never been more formidable. With more than a half million registered sex offenders and the proliferation of child pornography and internet solicitation, national and state legislation has focused appropriately on deterring the offense and removing convicted offenders from the proximity of potential victims.

While those and other measures are necessary to confront incorrigible sexual predators, the label “sex offender” is broad enough to include many whose inappropriate behavior may best be dealt with through comprehensive rehabilitative programs. Studies dealing with those accused of underage consensual sex or of incestuous relationships indicate that in many cases the prospect of stiffer sentencing--and the resultant familial breakdown and public exposure--may dissuade victims or family members from reporting the incidents and receiving assistance in any form.

The results of recently-passed state residency restriction laws (RRLs) and several comprehensive studies of sex offender rehabilitation programs in Canada offer some wisdom for dealing with this important issue.

State lawmakers in Iowa, California and other areas report that their well-intentioned RRLs have provided significant challenges that ironically may put communities at greater risk. The specifics of RRLs usually forbid sex offenders from living within a set distance--usually 1,000 to 2,500 feet---of a school, day care center or church. In reality those physical restrictions have failed to protect children. Offenders now tend to live in remote areas, sometimes clustered, where law enforcement officials are hard-pressed to keep track of them. RRLs also may be redirecting public attention toward strangers, when the majority of sex crimes against children are committed by relatives or acquaintances.

Iowa officials, providing counsel for neighboring Kansas as it considered its own RRL, urged that state instead to direct its energies into treatment for sex offenders and educational programs for children.

The Canadian studies provide hope that intentional, well-planned and customized programs can enable many offenders to be restored as productive members of society. The Phoenix Program in Alberta reports recidivism rates as low as 3.3% over a little more than three years. The program treats male adult sex offenders 32 to 35 hours per week through an integrated regimen that includes psychotherapy, victim empathy, cognitive restructuring, anger management, relapse prevention, life planning and goal attainment. A comparable, behavior-based program, Counterpoint House, notes recidivism rates of 3.9% for Canadian offenders who completed the course compared to 10.8% of those who dropped out.

Canadian research has revealed that the key to success in treatment is to provide inclusive approaches that target the particular needs of specific types of offenders. Even in the highest recidivism group--non-incest child molesters--long-term treatment and monitoring has produced encouraging results. Treatment for rapists, those next most likely to recommit criminal acts, has focused on general crime issues as well as specific sexual ones. Through behavioral conditioning and cognitive skills training, reconviction rates for these offenders dropped significantly. Incestuous child molesters, those least likely to reoffend, are guided through a program requiring the completion of six initiatives that have been proven to reduce recidivism.

Justice & Mercy is committed to helping reform the criminal justice system so that our streets are safer and that those who break the law are returned to society at an appropriate time prepared to live productive, law-abiding lives. The challenge of dealing with the punishment and treatment of sex offenders is made more difficult by the breadth of those who are placed in that category, and by the primarily defensive--rather than proactively rehabilitative--approach undertaken in many areas.

Justice & Mercy urges citizens and their legislators to focus on the merits of rehabilitative programs for sex offenders by considering the encouraging reports of appropriate treatment--behavioral conditioning that has positively affected many offenders and greatly reduced the likelihood of their recidivism. We also call for a rethinking of residency restriction laws as the primary means of dealing with this issue and encourage dialog with law enforcement officials in RRL areas--those who are best qualified to identify procedures for ensuring the safety of potential victims.

[ Read More ]

LIFE SKILLS AND THE EX-OFFENDER

At a time in which many now in the work force currently lack the abilities needed to master 21st century jobs, ex-offenders reentering society particularly are vulnerable. Extended periods of incarceration have left those in our prisons sadly lacking in basic life skills. Heightened feelings of failure and hopelessness also are evident, as is a general alienation from mainstream institutions. Ex-offenders often reenter society with a ready cynicism and the desire to manipulate those systems to which they are exposed.

Many, including those compromised by long-term addictive behavior, are emotionally and socially underdeveloped because of the lack of nurturing environments. For a successful transition to society to take place, intentional networks of individuals and resources need to be in place to guide, support, train and fellowship with those now living outside of prison walls.

[ Read More ]

RE-INTEGRATION

Offenders Coming Home, the Reintegration Process by Calvin Lightfoot

Before applying for funding earmarked for reintegrating offenders back to society, it is important that all reintegration agencies within a jurisdiction organize under one collaborative umbrella. All organizations, in both the public and private sectors, that have a mission to reintegrate offenders after incarceration, must be invited to become members under the collaborative umbrella. It is preferable to establish a collaborative task force with a major purpose of learning what each member of the task force does to aid offenders returning to society. This task force will also gain knowledge of what funding and resources each member brings to the collaborative umbrella.

[ Read More ]

Societal Impact of Offender Reintegration by Calvin Lightfoot

Offenders who have been arrested, incarcerated, and released back to their communities have plagued society with the continuous commission of crime. The history of this country shows that programs were seldom developed, either in jails and prisons or after the offenders’ release that primarily emphasized comprehensive reintegration of offenders back to society. In fact, the punishment ideology prevails even today. Locking up offenders for long periods of time, without the benefit of programs, has been the rule.

[ Read More ]