Some arguments against the modest prison and sentencing reforms in the Senate’s First Step Act echo an influential claim from the 1970s attributed to the late sociologist Robert Martinson: When it comes to reducing recidivism rates among inmates, “nothing works.”
Once taken out of its original context, that claim resounded in legislatures across the country ever since.
Unfortunately, few lawmakers know the context of that claim, or how Martinson’s research later developed, or what the full story means for the First Step Act.
So, here it is.
At its core, the First Step Act would seek to reduce crime by subjecting each federal inmate to a validated risk and needs assessment; evaluating each federal inmate’s risk of committing an offense once they re-join society, as 95 percent will; and matching inmates to programs designed to address whatever issues factored into their personal choice to victimize others, be it a lack of anger management skills or education, substance abuse issues, or something else.
The bill would offer limited incentives called “earned time credits” to inmates who were not convicted of any one of the 50 disqualifying offenses (mostly terrorism, sex, and violent offenses), and who also prove to prison officials, over the course of multiple objective assessments, that they pose a low threat to public safety.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
3 comments:
Just look at the abomination of a law that Maryland has-"Justice Reinvestment Act" to see how it will go federally...the "validated" risk assessment is garbage...ask the people that are forced to use it to "assess" people that are incarcerated or on probation...utter, total, complete BS.
The pilot programs using one or more of the program parts has been used, many times. The success rate has been abysmal. But that's not to say that a comprehensive and well managed plan can't get better results.
But be aware that there are soooo many inmates who are just whack-job crazy, so crazy that even A Clockwork Orange therapy won't touch them.
The inmates know how to lie on their so called validated "risk assessment screener"....ask any corrections/probation person that has to use the screener...they KNOW what to say to have the outcome of the screener lower than it probably should be...and the person doing the screener is supposed to use the answer given by the inmate, even if they suspect or know it is BS...Validated my A$$...I could say that drinking water can be a cause of crime, because EVERYBODY drinks water...who can dispute that? That is how stupid the screener is...I know...I have to use it in the course of my duties!
Post a Comment