Criminology

The philosophical ideas of the punishment on crimes can be generally divided into two schools of thought Reductivisim and retributivism. While the utility of punishment is mainly grounded on the idea of crime control, it must, however, be supported by a moral authority. This moral authority comes into play when deciding on whether the punishment is appropriate to the crime committed, and can be interpreted in the two schools of thought on punishment.

Reductivisim vs. Retributivism
Reductivism refers to the philosophy that punishment is carried out to prevent or to discourage future crimes from the offender or as an example to possible offenders. Reductivism is largely supported by the philosophy of moral utilitarianism, that any discomfort experienced by the offender must be outweighed by the fact that his punishment will result in less discomfort for those who may have been the offenders future victims. Its perspective is forward-looking, to prevent future crimes from being committed.

Retributivism refers to punishment as simply an outcome from the offenders wrongdoing. Older codes of law are usually based on this moral authority, sometimes known as just desserts (Carrabine, 2004, p. 236). However, liberal thinkers began to protest this route in punishing crimes, as it values the powers of state over each individuals rights. Retributivism also appealed to feelings of revenge andnaturallyretribution, which does not fit in todays idea of justice. Todays idea of justice usually follows that the sentence must follow the offender, and not the offense (Carrabine, 2004, p. 236), which is against the idea of retributivism.

The modern justice system clings to neither school of thought but rather takes elements of both in a series of compromises. Many may argue that despite the archaic nature of retributivism, it still strongly manifests itself into our justice system, especially in the persistence of capital punishment. Reductivism on the other hand has proven itself ineffective History and experience has shown us that punishment and indeed, the threat of punishment is not enough to deter potential offenders, especially those who live in poverty-stricken areas. In fact, the number of prisoners continues to rise steadily over the years, triggering debates on whether this was caused by public expenditures being focused on physical prisons rather than welfare or rehabilitation of offenders (Carrabine, 2004, p. 233).

Restorative Justice
With the steady disillusionment in the justice system, and the active debate between social scientists, victims rights groups and prisoners rights group, a new school of thinking has arisen Restorative justice. Restorative justice aims to address the gap between the offender and the victim by having the offender compensate for any wrongdoing or damage they have done, effectively having them acknowledge their own fault and in doing so forming a relationship with their victim. Restorative justice can also involve family group conferences, reparation orders for offenders 10 years and older, and consultation with the victims family or group prior to reparation (ibid. p. 238).

Criticism of restorative justice has ranged from those claiming that offenders have little to no protection against pious moralizing to accusing this form of justice as a way to tighten social control. Regardless, it is quite clear that the current trend is, simply put, not working at all. We are approaching a time when the prison will only be used for those whose character is deemed unfit to be at large (Spalding, p.3). As such, the increasing prison population and crimes demands us to consider alternatives to simply putting away offenders and forgetting about them. Restorative justice encourages a system that effectively reintegrates offenders into becoming more productive members of society while at the same time addressing some of the justice systems problems with prison population and crime acceleration.

The Probation System What You Need to Know
The probation system encourages offenders to reintegrate and become healthier and more productive members of society. While the probation system is under the executive branch of government, it is the local judiciary who oversees probationary cases in most states.

The probation system is seemingly simple Once the trial has been heard, the judge will consider the crime, the background of the offender, and the statements of the offenders family on how the crime has affected them, before the judge decides on whether to sentence the offender to be under the probation system. Offenders are then undergo risk classification what their individual needs are and the risks the offender will present to the community under probation. The risk classification will then result in getting the probation officer most suited for the offenders needs. Once the probation has been served and the requirements set, the judge will declare the sentence served and the offender released back into society.

The probation system affords the offender a sense of freedom by allowing the offender to live at home. However, the system also encourages participation with the greater community by having the offender report to their probation officers, who act both as a supervisor and a counselor. Probationers are also given access to social services in housing, education, housing and finances.
 
Other methods used in probation include intermediate sanctions, which are administered to more serious offenses but not serious enough to warrant long-term imprisonment, or to those who show little risk of recidivating or showing any future threat to society. Intermediate sanctions can take the form of home confinement, intensive supervision probation, and shock incarceration, more commonly known as boot camps. Like probation, intermediate sanctions aim to lessen prison congestion and at the same time adjust the punishment to fit the crime on a ladder of scaled punishments (Siegel, 2005, p.542).

While the number of probation officers vis--vis the number of probationers is stretched thin (and is source of discussion on whether or not probation is still effective in the sheer number of offenders), supporters of this system still claim that this is still the best way to reintegrate minor offenders mainly due to two important points Economic gain and recidivism. Advocates of probation cite that sparing prisons and its facilities from congestion is a bigger economic gain. It also helps keep those who have committed minor crimes from those in prison, who may influence them into bigger crime, or in some cases, a lifetime of crime. Probation is also a better way of expressing rehabilitation vs. mere punishment. 
 
The Exception of Serious Crimes
Probation is largely imposed on misdemeanors, but how effective could it be on more serious crimes A 1985 study by Joan Petersilia on imposing probations on felony crimes yielded interesting results. 65 were rearrested, 51 were convicted, and 34 were incarcerated within the number of cases that were included in the study. 75 of the new crimes the study group committed were more serious crimes and 18 were for serious, violent crimes. While the numbers may show a failure on the part of probations rehabilitative potential on offenders, the studies also show that offenders with the most serious of crimes are most likely to recidivate in comparison to those who were sent to prison (Criminology, 2005, p. 542).

The exception of serious and violent crimes, like murder, from the probationary process is one that almost goes without saying, but what of matters such as juvenile crime In most judiciary process, serious crimes committed by juveniles are studied and handled very carefully by everyone involved. Despite the stance of most states to adopt a more inclusive, conciliatory stance to allow the offender to reintegrate into society while improving their own chances at success, the most common trend for serious and violent crimes committed by juveniles is to continue to try them and punish them as adults. This speaks very strongly of the judicial systems view on whether probation should be utilized for those who have committed serious and violent crimesprobation is hardly used, and traditional punishment such as long-term imprisonment is still the preferred punishment for perpetrators of such crimes. This is probably because probation is viewed as a tool or a method that is most effective for those who have lesser likelihood with recidivity and pose smaller risk to the community once the probation period is over. It is assumed that with perpetrators of serious and violent crimes, the likelihood for recidivity is high and they also pose a high risk to the population if released. Whether an acceptable probation method will be developed in the future for cases such as these is yet to be seen.

Setting the Standards
The probation system is generally considered a new system within the judicial system, and currently there are no set or fixed standards on to which particular misdemeanors or offenses warrant probation and how to implement probations on varying individuals with different offenses under different circumstances.

The question of standards in imposing and implementing probation behooves us to look back into the moral philosophy and justification of punishment. Why do we punish those who have committed crimes Why did probation arise from collective judicial experience as a nation Let us recall that the current school of thought in regard to the idea of justice arose mainly from the failure of reductivism and retributivism, and that today, many believe that the punishment should fit the crime. There is also a leaning towards re-integrating misdemeanor offenders back into society, with an aim to bridge the gap between offender and victim.

It goes without saying that those who have committed crimes should be punished, and as stated earlier, punishment geared towards reformation for misdemeanor offenders is deemed most effective as it encourages them to become more useful members of society at the same time it helps protect society by giving offenders a higher chance of reintegrating successfully with them.

However, for any society to have a working probation program, certain standards must be established within its judicial system. Early criminology scholars have listed said standards and they still ring true today. According to John Lewis Gillin, the state must have the following prerequisites before implementing probation, and they are 1) Accurate and scientific methods of identifying offenders, such as fingerprinting, criminal records, and crime labs 2) A police force trained to respond towards the philosophy of restorative justice 3) Appropriate places of detention 4) An effective system of bail bonds that will lessen the necessity of jail detention 5) Reformation of the judiciary system that ensures a speedy and efficient trial and 6) Proper institutions and infrastructures that will ensure that probations and offenders will be properly dealt with and receive individualized treatments to allow them to reintegrate successfully back into society (Gillin, 1926, p.853).

Yet every crime is different, and in taking the route of reformative justice means that each form of punishment must be individualized to ensure its efficacy on each offender. To ensure that efficacy, standards should also be set and followed by those in the judicial system. Unfortunately, the prerequisites that should be established in each state that were mentioned earlier and the standards in carrying out probations are not fixed and vary from state to state. In the United States, probation is not a right but the prerogative of the judge. Different laws in different states also complicate matters by having removing the option of probation entirely on certain misdemeanor offenses. There is also the problem of the lack of institutions such as hospitals and schools that are specifically aimed to deal with individuals whose ignorance or are victims to negative influences led them to commit offenses. Currently, there are neither set standards nor specific prerequisites for states to have these institutions in place before implementing probation, and whether these prerequisites will be integrated within the system remains to be seen.

Another crucial point in the success of probation lies in the proper training of qualified individuals as probation officers. The recommended number of cases to every probation officer (or counselor for juvenile offenders cases) is 50 cases for every officer. However, this number is not always followed due to the overwhelming number of probation cases vis--vis the number of probation officers available. While the prescribed timeframe for probationary period spans from six months to a year, the sheer number of cases means that any probationary officer at any time may be handling more than the prescribed number of cases than they should and the more the number of cases, the less chances of applying an individualized method effectively to each of the probation officers client.

As for the standards of the probation officers themselves, the National Probation and Parole Associate cite the following A BA or equivalent, at least a years worth of paid fulltime experience under competent supervision in an approved social agency and the possession of good character and sound judgment (Rouek, 1958, p.279). However, it s quite clear that it needs more than those general qualities to become an effective probation officer. For one thing, probation officers need to cultivate and encourage dynamic interaction between offender and probation officer. They must be prepared to deal with varying backgrounds, psychological problems and other mental problems of their clients. While they are expected to guide their clients into a healthier and more useful lifestyle, they are expected not to do everything for them, nor to coddle them. Being a probation officer is a careful balance between authority figure, counselor and at times, friend. One must not mishandle authority as not to ruin the starting point of any probation officer and their clientone of hostility or unfriendliness. At the same time this authority can be used to make rewards for good behavior much more effective if they have regained the trust and respect of their client.

It is a probation officers failure if they do not inculcate and show a genuine interest and concern for their clients, and disinterested and perfunctory checkups result into an unchanged attitude for the offender. An ineffective probation officer also casts a bad light on the probation process as it may convince taxpayers and upstanding citizens to think that, based on the unchanged attitudes of the offender, that probation in and of itself have no merit whatsoever. Less public support means less support in general for the probation system, and less support for the probation system means less resources laid aside for the system. In a sense, the crucialand the most meaningfulphase of the probation period is the participation and relationship of the offender and the probation officer.

The Role of the Judge
The role of the judge within the probation system is to act as oversight towards individual cases. It starts with the sentencing. The judge can only sentence on terms that are authorized by statue, that it is not discriminatory and that it draws distinctions on sentencing schemes. For those whose cases can fall under probationary status, the probation office will present the judge with background of the offender, including family, psychological profile, education and criminal record. Families of the victim can also speak at court about the crime committed by the offender or other aspects of the crime committed and how it has affected their family in the form of victim impact statements (Feinman, 2000, p.326). The judge will then review the report of the probation office, together with the victim impact statements, and will ultimately have to decide within the prescription of the legislature.

Depending on the judges discretion, first-time offenders may find themselves doing community service or diversion programs. For those with misdemeanors, probation or probation combined with a reduced jail time is much more common.  Probation means meeting requirements, and should the offender fail to meet these requirements or should the offender not finish the probationary period, the judge may order the probation to be suspended, which may have the offender having to serve out the rest of his or her punishment in jail. If the offender meets all the requirements and has served out his probation time, the judge can declare the sentence met, and the offender will then be allowed to be released and reintegrated back with the rest of society.

The role of a judge is crucial. While laws may get in the way of a judge sentencing an offender more fairly (for examples, some states may have laws that dictate that those carrying illegal firearms will automatically get jail time, which leaves many first time offenders with no choice but to be jailed when probation would have been more appropriate), the inflexibility of the judge may also get in the way from getting probation utilized in some cases. These usually happen in cases where serious and violent crimes have been committed, and the stigma of these crimes usually dictates the sentence, no matter how exceptional the behavior of the offender shows in prison that may show a warrant for the offender to go in intermediate sanction.

Intermediate Sanction
Intermediate sanction, as mentioned earlier, refers to the method used in most probation processes that combine traditional imprisonment and traditional probation methods. Intermediate sanction is looked upon favorably by advocates who state that 50 of those imprisoned will likely to be jailed again while those under probation have a high revocation rates due to the inability to meet requirements (Siegel, 2009, p. 542). Many view intermediate sanction as the best way to solve some of the problems caused by the prison system,   and to have an alternative to incarceration should regular probation be revoked but the crime itself not too grievous as too warrant incarceration. For example, would you automatically someone throw someone with a misdemeanor offense in jail due to a revoked probation The reasonable answer would be no, but certainly a more stringent punishment would be appropriate. Intermediate sanction, as mentioned earlier, uses several methods to impose stricter conditions of the offender. Combined with jail time, intermediate sanction can also be used for felony offenders. The heightened surveillance on those under intermediate sanction may also discourage those under probation to hidden recidivity. About a 14th of those under regular probation have admitted to committing at least one offense and 34th admitted to going to at least four offenses (Siegel, 2009, p.382).  Regular probationers who have learned to go around the system may be guarded more closely under intermediate sanctions.

Intermediate sanction may prove itself to be a bigger economic gain as it helps limit the use of jail cells to incarcerate offenders. Since intermediate sanction can be used to include a vast number and variety of offenses, it seems unwise for the judicial system to leave the possibilities of a system made up of intermediate sanctions, leaving jail cells to those who are most dangerous to society.

Implications for the Future
For what is the use of punishment if we do not use a more inclusive method that gives bigger hope for offenders to be reintegrated back into society In our 20th century laws, and methods of punishment, time and time again we have stressed on the importance of rehabilitating offenders over getting the retribution of the few on them. While critics may point out the probation system and intermediate sanctions make no significant difference on recidivity of the offenders, the probation system and intermediate sanction are truer to our ideals of rehabilitation for prisoners and offenders. While there is a 50 chance of those under probation, intermediate sanctions and even intensive probation supervision to fall into recidivity, the success of the other half of those in reintegrating with society should be considered as well. This other 50 have been able to lead healthy, successful lives as productive members of society with only a small percentage of likelihood of recidivity. And while it is not a bigger percentage, the success of reintegration is something to think about.

Conclusion
The overall prison system, simply put, has failed. All we have now are overcrowded jails which do not serve as deterrents for future offenders. There is also a question of the limited resources and facilities that we have for jails. The fact is, theres not enough to go around for everyone, and alternatives should be considered carefully. For now, probation is still largely considered an alternative to jail time, but is steadily increasing in becoming of the more appropriate method of corrective measures for many misdemeanor and even felony offenders.

Of course, the drive towards promoting probation as the preferred form of punishment comes with its own issues. Theres the question of the standards used across states when it comes to implementing probation, if the necessary infrastructures and institutions are in place and if they are ready to accommodate the many and varied cases in the probation cases. Theres also the question of qualified probation officers and whether they are fully-equipped to respond meaningfully and effectively towards those under the probation system. Another issue is whether other members of the judicial system or those involved in them, like judges, policemen and the like, have been properly trained and sensitized to the needs of those under the probation system as well as whether they can themselves overcome their own personal preferences or prejudice against criminals and the probation system to realign themselves into truly believing and advocating the cause of real restorative justice.

The role of society towards probation and restorative justice is just as important as those who directly deal with it. Public opinion matters greatly in the matters of state and reform, and for now public opinion still greatly leans towards a retributive form of justice, having little knowledge of the complexity of crime and punishment. While its clear that the general public would rather criminals to be cleanly tucked away from their minds, perhaps this only means that its high time for them to get involved. Probation, among other things, bridges the gap between offender and the rest of society, and in doing so it encourages rehabilitation with participation with the rest of the community. With the proper safeguards in place and checks and balances, the possibility of the greater public participating in the rehabilitation of offenders shows a truer sense of the restorative justice that the modern system claims to be following. The road to individualized rehabilitation efforts for offenders, for the punishment fitting the crime, is far from realized but is showing great promise in the steps we as a nation have begun to take.

To demonstrate the ambiguous state of Aboriginal justice in Canada and the community based responses to restorative justice programmes, a case study of such an initiative in Canim Lake, British Columbia, Canim Lake Band and their supporters tell of the development and implementation of a Family Violence Programme (Pg. 168). Interviewing was the primary methodology used. A Shuswap Nation Tribal Council study revealed sexual, physical and emotional abuse and prompted Canim Lakes decision to confront the issue of sexual abuse (Pg. 169). The community through the Chief and Council started the Community Oversight Committee to develop a programme for Canim Lake. A seven-phase programme was created, combining traditional and contemporary practices to treat sexual offenders and victims.

Offenders, who volunteered to participate in the self-disclosure programmes were not prosecuted if they participated in the programme, were considered by the COC to be appropriate candidates after risk assessment, and if they fulfilled all the conditions of the programme. In 1993, a community referendum gave the COC the authority to implement the FVP (Pg. 170-171). For the programme to succeed, political will, co-operative agreements and trusts were required and with the communitys support, funding and co-operation of related government agencies were sought (Pg. 172). Community members participating in the programme expressed concern about a situation where everyone in the community owned up about their experience with sexual abuse since the joint release of emotion would be suicidal in proportion (Pg. 173). Conflict of confidentiality in circles where people knew each other or were related trust was an issue presented challenges. When the whole community did not participate, blame resulted where leaders and FVP staff who initiated the FVP but not the healing part, were questioned (Pg. 174-175). Community hesitation regarding the programme resulted in another survey which confirmed the communitys support of the programme. Positive changes were noted by most interviewees although usual success measures such as lowered crime rates were not applied (Pg. 177-179)

Conclusion
The FVL programme not only proved to be a tool for administering justice but it also showed that a crime is not just a violation of statute but of relationships in the community. The community overcame challenges to find justice while maintaining cohesion making the program a success.

Every year thousands of prisoners are released from prisons on parole or after completing their jail terms. To ensure that prisoners return to their normal lives without re- offending governments adopt programs meant to prepare prisoners for life after prison. Such programs may involve prisoners being allowed to work in community projects in order to instill a sense of responsibility in them. Additionally, prisoners may be allowed to work away from prisons and return when they have finished work. In some cases prisoners are permitted to visit the community. But despite these noble initiatives, cases of prisoners re-offending soon after they are released from prisons are not uncommon. This reveals that the programs are not always effective and something needs to be done to improve the situation. I strongly agree with probation experts such as Maburi (2009) that the psychological confusion, social stigma and economic hardships that they experience are partly to blame for prisoners re-offending tendencies. I believe that the excessively punitive sentences issued to convicts harden them instead of reforming them. Such sentences ignore the fact that convicts will at one time return to the community yet and do little to prepare them for life after prison. To prevent cases of ex convicts re-offending, courts should take bear in mind rehabilitation of prisoners back to the community after their jail terms. Towards this end, I believe there is need for further cooperation between the judiciary and the prisons and rehabilitation departments. By issuing humane punishments, courts will not only help in decongesting prisons but also save time and resources spent in charging and convicting the same persons for the same criminal offence repeatedly. This will definitely boost efficiency of both departments. While the move by governments to rehabilitate ex-prisoners into the community is laudable, I think there is need to enhance cooperation between rehabilitation departments and prisoners families and communities. This helps reduce stigmatization of prisoners thereby helping them regain their self esteem and quicken their reintegration into the community. The community also benefits from reduced cases of crimes. At the same time, by working closely with ex convicts, community leaders are able to monitor ex convicts movements and detect any criminal tendencies. Such monitoring also protects reformed ex convicts from being accused of criminal behaviors.
 
I also believe that there is need to increase financial assistance accorded to ex-prisoners. As a result of social stigma that faces ex convicts, they face challenges in securing employment, consequently some of them may resort to criminal activities such as robbery to meet their needs.

To reduce chances of ex prisoners re-offending, I would strongly advocate for the creation of organizations based on the alcohol anonymous model. This would entail prisoners and ex prisoners coming together to help each other overcome their criminal behaviours. Since they share similar experiences it would be easier for them to open up to each other and get assistance. Such a move will help reduce recidivism and other offences. Finally, I would propose that ex prisoners be made to pay back to the community for crimes committed. This could help deter them from committing crimes and boost reconciliation efforts in the community.

Criminal justice is broadly about efforts to prevent crime but at a tertiary-level. In an event that crime has happened, the criminal has to be identified, proved guilty, taken in for correction and released back to the society. The direct approach is therefore seen through deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation while the system acts indirectly through effects on social norms. This is in effect a possible way to make the person who committed the crime to avoid repeating the act as a result of punishment and education through the correction process.

While considering the level of crime and violence in the society, there are repeated cases as well as new incidences. Criminal justice generally aims at reducing future incidences by properly dealing with the current ones. Therefore, if a new case emerges, there is always that process to follow in the cycle before the system can be confident to have avoided a repetition. This means that if there are many new cases of different people committing a crime of violence, the system cannot have been effective at preventing them. The crime in the society is however composed of a majority of culprits who have been dealt with before. This indicates two things. First, jails and prisons dont seem to be working out on their own. The fact that many of the released prisoners get back to jail having committed the same or a different crime indicates the failure of correction within the jailprison subsystem of the criminal justice system. There are many factors that could contribute to this result. The prisoners are locked collectively in the same facilities having committed different crimes and on sharing prison life they worsen each others situation by exchanging thoughts and criminal characters. They influence each other negatively leading to crime life training instead of correction. Then there is the poor prison and jail conditions the sometimes lead to ill health and death. The cruelty portrayed by these conditions make the prisoners to feel distant from the society by figuring out that bad things are what it has to offer and therefore feel completely rejected. This makes their mentality to turn on pessimism and further embrace crime and violence. The system therefore requires some backing up from rehabilitation, education and skillful training so that the prisoners can be released with some skills to earn a living from.  Secondly, it is not obvious that all the culprits who get arrested share a common response to the correction system. Some may change while others may just lay low in order to be released from prison, and then go back to their crime life after release. There is no perfect way of determining which of the prisoners have changed and which ones are in the pretence for release.

There are various ways proposed in reducing crimes through corrections, through community restraints or a combination of both correction and monitoring in the society. These methods in criminal justice systems aim to reduce crime in a long term basis by applying strategies that will with time make people aware of the generally acceptable norms or society standards. Prevention therefore cannot be seen as a direct approach from such an angle. It is by the involvement of the system in the ex-prisoners lives in the society that is supposed to show other members of the society that once someone committed crime, complete freedom in hisher life becomes debatable. This can create awareness and possibly reduce crime and violence from new members of the society.   People have different views when it comes to the issue of corrections. Some argue that criminals cause trouble in the society so just clogging them in jail is good enough to keep peace . Others have the perspective that criminals become violent in the society under their clear rationale and they therefore deserve proper punishment, so keeping them away for sometime is not good enough.

In the essence of protection for the people, the police department has in many cases made efforts to curb crime. From the installation of new technological devices like private CCTV systems in residential areas and police monitoring cameras in the streets to police patrols, the efforts have been enormous (Kriel Julius). But even the police department agrees that the presence of the police in the society is not an effort enough to prevent violence and crime from happening. The system cannot be completely accurate in monitoring and estimating chances for violence. The whole scenario in preventive methods for crime and violence control is purely probabilistic and cannot be completely relied upon. It calls for the system to deal only with the problems related probabilistically to the problem at hand, that is, violence. In the long run, the probabilistic estimations may not be correct and could turn out ineffective. In this sense therefore, the reactive method of dealing with and preventing crime and violence proves to be more important. It deals with a determined factor that is directly connected with the problem. For example, the community monitoring of an ex-prisoner directly targets a person already proven to be violent by his violent act that led to his arrest (Welsh and Farrington, 2005). The way that criminal justice handles crime after some incidences have already happened is somehow controlled by the need for evidence in order to act. Without violence incidences, there is no way of knowing they would occur and planning on preventive measures.

In an inclusive analysis, it is important to also notice that even though the various subsets of the criminal justice system act to capacity to try and chip in to the efforts of crime and violence prevention-even when violence incidences are presumed to happen-hindrances are there for the rescue to act on time. Sometimes there can be so many places that are hot spots for violence and the system cannot, in terms of resources, manage to deploy services for prevention and protection of the people. The police department cannot have enough policemen among other resources to monitor and guard all homes that are prone to crime and violence. This calls for a combination of the various departments each doing their best in prevention and their collaborative efforts geared towards strategies for the tertiary preventive measures.

The Criminal justice system offers the right package of avoiding the repetition of a crime. If the aims of the Criminal justice system are successfully achieved with respect to an individual, then we can be sure that we can limit the effects due to that one person to one action in hisher criminal life . Well, by doing this, the level of crime in the society can be put down to a limit that is somehow acceptable, based on the fact that most crimes are committed by secondary offenders and the cases of new offenders are very limited. It is also logical to emphasize that this correction methods and process can only be applied once a crime has been committed. This is an overall limitation that cannot be avoided when following the law and other social-political ideologies that govern the society (Moore et al, 2002). No one can be convicted of the possibility of committing a crime that he has no association with. There is also no way of foretelling that a person is likely to commit a crime he has not yet committed.

In the current times though, the police department has been on the move to indulge in a new way that might help actually prevent crime before it happens. This is presented in the idea of community policing (Moore, 1993). This idea seeks to make use of police officers in helping the society mobilize their own capacities of self defense to deal with violent attacks in order to reduce the opportunities of vulnerability. There is also the problem solving policing idea that aims at establishing hotspots of violence to quicken response by having standby prior arrangements for police support. This idea do not advocate for arrest and trial but eliminating the conditions necessary for crime and violence to happen. Although this might not work in a full swing due to other factors like the willingness, availability and capacity of the members of the society to execute defense actions, it is an effort worth trial for the future of violence and crime prevention.

Conclusion
One of the major mandates of the criminal justice system is to protect the society from crime and violence as part of crime prevention and reduction. The way that the system does this has been questioned and criticized over time. Lots of improvements have been seen in the past in various departments, like the police have undergone transformation through embracing of new technology and strategies of dealing with violence in the society (Kriel Julius). The debate on whether the efforts are effective is largely influenced by the facts of level of crime in the society. This is lacking in the sense that there have been numerous changes in the society itself leading to new requirement for change in the mandate, scope and methods of the service by the criminal justice system to society.

This paper establishes the varying angles from which the question of whether the criminal justice system can effectively prevent crime can be viewed and the direction of its importance or effectiveness evaluated. So far, the system has been limited by various factors and its success depends on the mandate defined for it. In the sense of preventing crime at the tertiary-level, the system has done a lot and the future of on the spot crime prevention has been proposed from the police department new ideas. If the community embraces the new ideas and the police keep up the use of technology helped by a positive development in culture and economy, the future of less violence through the criminal justice system is anticipated.

There are different police structures with different responsibilities. Every structure has a leader who is distinguished with a different name ranging from CEO, Commander and Director among others. Each structure leader has a different responsibility and also has designated powers in his disposal. CIA and DEA are the most notable police structures due to their work and activeness in the society and in nation wide as well.

Police are people who are empowered to enforce the law, protect people and property as well as reducing civil disorders. They have power to use force when enforcing the law as required by the state law. There are different police structures in the US and each structure has a head though they have different definitions including CEO, Director and Commissioners among others (Walker, 2005)

Central Intelligence Agency
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of the US police structures. Its a civilian intelligence agency that is responsible in providing the US government with intelligence on national security matters. The CIA department engages in different convert activities as directed by the president. The main responsibilities of the CIA are to collect information from other governments, companies and also advising the US policy makers. CIA is headed by DCI (Director of Central intelligence), the highest officer in the department. DCI has different responsibilities assigned to him in order to afford leading the agency effectively and provide the aspired outcome. He has different responsibilities including
Advising the president on intelligent matters regarding the national security.

The DCI is responsible of evaluating all information that is forwarded by other departments, agencies and entities in the US regarding the national security.

The DCI is responsible of developing any strategy or objective of the intelligent community in order to improve its capabilities in handling any future needs for national security and foreign intelligence.
He is also responsible for appointing and evaluating any officers that are responsible for national intelligence matters.

The DCI is also responsible of recommending to the president a person to be appointed to fill a position in the intelligence and national security senior position (Neocleous, 2004).

Drug Enforcement Administration
DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) is a department within the US department of justice that deals in combating the use of drugs in the US as well and drug smuggling within the US territories.  DEA works together with the department of defense in pursuing all related drug issues within the US. DEA is headed by the Administrator of Drug Enforcement (ADE) who is appointed by the president and is confirmed by the US senate.

He is responsible for reporting to Attorney general through his deputy.
He is also responsible to recommend any person who is found to be perfect to fill a position in his department

He is also responsible in authorizing recruitment in the department when the need arises.

On the other hand, he is also responsible for developing strategies as well as evaluating then in order to determine their effectiveness in employment by the department in line of duty (Bayley, 1979).

The responsibilities of these heads of the above agencies are to ensure that their respective departments are working and achieving their targets that influenced their formation. The staffs below them are responsible and subjected to adhere to the heads commands and on the other hand, the head is responsible of listening to the people below them and attend to their grievances.

The Green River Killer was the name given to a serial killer who murdered numerous women in the state of Washington in a period spanning the 1980 and the early 1990s. At the time, the police and detectives were unable to uncover the true identity of the serial killer, but advances in criminal investigative methodologies later after the turn of the millennium prompted Detective Reichert, a police Officer at the time of the murders who had now become the sheriff of King County, to revive the case. Fresh investigations uncovered Gary Ridgeway as the killer. He had killed a total of forty nine victims and is suspected to be behind nine others. Gary Ridgeway killed his victims, who were mainly prostitutes, through strangulation or asphyxiation, sometimes using a ligature (Smith  Prothero, 2006).

Criminal Typologies
A typology is basically a systematic grouping of entities that have characteristics or traits similar or interrelated in nature, criminal typologies are therefore characterizations of the motivations behind a criminals criminal behaviors. In other words,  a criminal typology is a theory explained in such a way that it can be effectively applied to practically organize, classify, and understand a range of behaviors and acts that violate the law. In this research paper, I identify five different criminal typologies that I think would apply to Gary Ridgeway, the Green River serial killer and explain the reasons behind my conviction that they applied to him.

The Psychological Typology
From the time he a young boy, Gary Ridgeways life was troubled. His relatives readily testify that his mother was very domineering, and her character caused a lot of conflicts between her and her husband (Smith  Prothero, 2006). These conflicts often ended in confrontations, and Gary and his brothers Gregory and Thomas witnessed enough violent confrontations between their parents. As a child, Gary Ridgeway scored an 82 in an IQ test, suggesting that his intelligence was low (Smith  Prothero, 2006).

His grades were very poor, and his life was generally very troubled. Living in an abusive family definitely affected the young Gary, even as his classmates and neighbors would later testify that he was an invisible student. He often exhibited strange behaviors, like when he stabbed a schoolmate and walked away laughing, remarking that he wondered how it is like to kill a person. He was 16 then, and definitely family struggles affected his outlook in life.

The Sociological Typology
As noted above, Gary Ridgeways life was troubled. Coming from a family with internal strife, he must have felt torn away from the society, and alienated from everything that was happening around him (Smith  Prothero, 2006). He must have partly (and unconsciously) looking for a way to get even with the society which had taken so much away from him. As a kid, he was ignored by his peers even though most people who knew him describe him as being friendly. Sociological factors therefore contributed in the making of this serial killer (Smith  Prothero, 2006). Additionally, Gary is in record as opposing the activity of prostitutes in his neighborhood. Despite his frequent use of call girls, he was naturally, on account of his staunch Christian faith, opposed to prostitution. Why he chose to kill prostitutes could be tracked back to his wishes for a fornication-free society, which is quite ironic for him.

The Biological Typology
According to his three wives and other women he slept with, Gary was sexually insatiable and often tended to exhibit masochist tendencies (Smith  Prothero, 2006). His second wife and a prostitute made allegations to the effect that he had placed each of them in chokeholds in the year 1991. In killing sexual partners who were mainly prostitutes, Gary Ridgeway might have looking to satisfy his sexual desires. His two marriages had resulted in divorce since he could not be faithful to one sexual partner. He tended to commit outrageous acts of masochism to get satisfied sexually, and murder was the last resolve.

The Legalistic Typology
I have already pointed out that Gary Ridgeway was openly opposed to prostitution even though he himself sometimes sourced the services of prostitutes. He might have been angry with a political and legal system that had failed to address the issue of prostitution the way he would have wanted it addressed, prompting him to take matters into his own hands. The fact that he targeted mainly prostitutes around his neighborhood speaks volumes about his intentions or the motivation behind his actions.

The Multi-trait Typology
Gary Ridgeway exhibited an intricate network of complex behaviors and responses. At one time, he is opposing prostitution, and at the other he is using services from prostitutes. There might be an entirely criminal intent however, considering the way he could dump the bodies of some of his victims across state borders.

Conclusion
Criminal typologies can help us understand criminals better, or rather the motivations behind criminal activities. Armed with these theories, criminologists can have better intuition at solving serious atrocities like the ones committed by Gary Ridgeway. However, as the adage goes, prevention is better than cure. These theories can be used by criminal sociologists to plan interventions especially at schools to prevent recurrence of acts like the Green River incident.

One important study in the field of criminology is that of recidivism.  Once recidivism is explored is explored and well understood, it may be possible to reduce the crime rate in certain scenerarios.  When researching recidivism, it is pertinent to look at all factors that may be of influence to the offender. 

This paper will take a thorough look into psychological, sociological, and economicalfactors that may play a role in repeat offenders.  Once knowledge is gained regarding common psychological, sociological, and economical issues that trigger repeat offenders, those issues can beaddressed and the person can be rehabilitated after the first offense so that he or she does not continue circulating through the system.

Before exploring what causes recidivism, it is important to understand the definition of
Recidivism.  The word recidivism, according to the Meriam Webster, means a tendency to
Relapse into criminal behavior (Webster).  Recidivism is more common in certain crimes such
as property offenders and drug criminals.  The study of repeat offenders has been a major issue
in hopes of reducing crime committed by individuals who have previously been involved in the
judicial system.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 67.5 of prisoners released in 1994 were arrested within three years, an increase over the 62.5 found for those released in 1983.Even though rearrest rates increase for property and drug offenders, the rearrest for violent offendersremained relatively stable (BJS).

The 1994 recidivism study estimated that within 3 years 51.8 of prisoners released during the year were back in prison either because of a new crime for which they received another prison sentence, or because of a technical violation of their parole. This rate was not calculated in the 1983 study (BJS).

According to the Organized Crime Digest in 2006 fifty-six percent of the violent felons
convicted in the seventy-five most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction (56 of violent felons are repeat offenders).  Having this large amount of repeat ofenders is a major Issue facing criminal justice professionals. This large amount of repeat offenders clearly shows that all aspects of the criminals life needs  to be evaluated and attempt to rehabilitate the offenderbefore letting them merge back into society. As the judicial system continues to delve into the study of recidivism the  sexual offenders  are treated with caution.  Acording to Ryan King, researcher at The Sentencing Project The corrections system is clearly being very cautious About who is being released from prison for sex offenses. Its a very Significant concern with the public (King).

One of the first things that should be explored with criminals upon their first offense is the stability of the offenders psychological state.  J. Steven Lamberti, M.D. published Understanding and Preventing Criminal Recidivism Among Adults with Psychotic Disorders. Lamberti begins the article by writing,

The high prevelance of adults with psychotic disorders in the criminal justice
System had received much attention recently, but our understanding of this
Problem is marked by diverging opinions.  Mental  Health Professionals point
To deinstitutionalization and our fragmented mental health system as primary
causes.   Criminologists minimize the role of mental  illness and contend that
persons with and without mental illness are arrested for the same reasons. 
Meanwhile, practice guidelines offer little guidance to clinicians about how to

Address the problem (Lamberti).
The majority of criminals posess some sort of mental illness. There must be a great working relationship between mental health professionals and criminologists. Often times a psychologic problem has not previously been diagnosed for different reasons.  Most criminals have not  had access to a mental health professional until they find themselves in prison.  Because mental health professionals are not always accessible, patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders are unlikelu to receive adequate treatment within correctional facilities (Lamberti).  The Department of Justice shows that inmates that have been diagnosed with a mental illness, only receive medication to treat their disorder (Ditton).  While criminals are in custory, their mental health should be carefully studied, diagnosed, and treated. If the criminals psychological disorders can be treated with therapy andor medication, sucesfully rehabilitating them may be much easier.

Because mental health has become such a presing issue in the courts, mental health courts have been formed. The goals of mental health courts include

To improve public safety by reducing criminal recidivism to improve the quality of life of people with mental illnesses and increase their participation in effective treatments and to reduce court-and-corrections-related costs through administrative to incarceration (Almquist and Dodd).

Policymakers and practioners have partnered to address the issue of psychological disorders amont the incarcerated.  Both recognized a great opportunity to address and rehabilitate the psychological problems.  Not only will mental health courts help these offenders return to society as a productive citizen, but it will also help with the costs involved to keep them in prison or another type of institution. Upon the partnership of policymakers and practioners, Menetal Health courts has been one of the most popular outcomes.  The mental health court combines court supervision with community based treatment services, usually in lieu of a jail or prison sentence (Almquist et al). If a mental illness plays a major role in the repeat ofender, there is a good chance he or she will be better served through a mental health court. The offender has previously been in the system and obviously was not completely rehabilitated rather they commit the same type or crime or a totally different crime. If a serious psychological disorder, such as schizophrenia or depression, is diagnosed that person may not be best served by being incarcerated. With the implement of mental health courts, the options of retribution as well as rehabilitation are increased.  According to Mental Health Courts A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice,

Mental health courts are more effective than the traditional court system and jails at connecting participants with mental health treatment services. Over time, mental health courts have the potential to save money through reduced recidivism and the associated jail and court costs that are avoided, and also through decreased use of the most expensive treatment options, such as inpatient care (Almquist, et al).

Once the people studying mental health courts research a bit more who is best served by this type of court, the court can be improved up and perfected upon. In 2006, eighty-seven mental health courts only acepted offenders convicted of misdemeanor crimes.  Ten percent of the mental health courts accepted only those convicted of felonies while fifty percent accepted offenders convicted of both felonies and misdemeanors.  Those organizing the mental health courts recognize the importance of diagnosing mental disorders and treating thos disorders in hopes to decrease the percentage of recidivism. 

While mental health courts are in place, it is criminal recidivism as it pertains to the adult psychotic offender.  Cognitive behavioral therapy reduces recidivism in both juvenile and adults (Clark, 22). There are mental health professionals available to employees within the judicial system and within the prison, but in order for the best results in reducing recidivism, the criminologist needs to be aware of causes.  In order to develop effective prevention strategies, it is necessary to understand why adults with psychotic disorders enter the criminal justice system (Lamberti 36).  Many time a fragmented mental health system is blamed on psychotic adults entering the system.  However, this can not be the only case as not all adults with serious psychological disorders become criminals (39). When researchers have studied criminal recidivism, they have found that while a psychological disorder may be present and play a role in the offender comitting a crime, often psychosis is not the only deciding factor.

In addition to the psychological state of the repeat offender, it is also prevelant to explore the sociological past of the criminals.  The prevelance of antisocial personality disorder is significantly higher among adults with schizophrenia than in the general population (Lamberti, 44).  During 1981 and 1982 the Minneapolis Police Department performed a study to determine the effect of offenders repeating a criminal act of some sort. The research showed that recidivism increased among those that did not conform to societys norms. (Shermen and Berk, 1984).  When people are raised without the respect of what society considers to be normal, such as mariage and employment, they are at a higher risk to comit a crime during their life. Without a normal sociological upbringing, the lines between right and wrong become intertwined. Once the experiment conducted by the Minneapolis Police Department culminated, Sherman stated, If we ask whether arrest influences the subsequent violence of those arrested, the answer is that, in general, it depends on the arrested persons stake in conformity. Arrested persons who lacked a stake in conformity were significantly more likely to have a repeat offense (686).

There is more in the realm of sociology to be explored than simply non-conformity. It is also important to lok at shat group of citizens are committing the crimes and the repeat offenses.  When theories and research revolving around chronic offenders, the question was raised  is it a small amount of the population committing crimes or is it a large amount of one time offenders  Robert Tillman discovered that, recent longitudinal studies of criminal careers have drawn attention to the existence of what are referred to as chronic offenders or career criminals who appear to contribute disproportionately to the crime rate (561). Since non-conformity to socio-norms among offenders and the fact that repeat offenders are contributing largely to the crime rate, it would be beneficial to incorporate employment into some offenders rehabilitation.  Sociologists have explored turning points in peoples lives, including the lives of repeat offenders.  During that research, come concludede things such as employment made for a turning point. With employment, the offender begins to feel important as well as a contributing factor to society (Uggen 529).

Along with psychological and sociological disorders, the offenders current economic state plays a huge role in whether or not the offender will commit a criminal act once again.  When offenders are able to find and maintain employment, their rate of repeating criminal behavior is reduced greatly (Myers 1981). When the economy is thriving and jobs are plentiful, offenders are able to find work.  Emploument keeps them busy, and they do not have free time on their hands to commit crimes.  A good economy also means plenty of money is circulating therefore, there is not much need to steal from another (Boland 126).

Psychological disorders paired with substance abuse andor sociological issues are common factors among repeat offenders.  The economy also plays a role somewhat when things are bad.  Until rehabilitation is more individualized and focused more so on the actual treatment of the offender, the recidivism rate will not increase.  Treatment plans need to be personalized and deal with the mental disorders as well as showing the importance of conforming to society.  Criminologists should be more concerned with healing the offender and find what keps them our of trouble, rather than retribution.

Abstract
This paper explores why psychology, sociology, and economic wel being of the community all play a role in a criminals offenses. Often psychological disorders are paired with non-conformity in a bad economical state.  When all three mix, the tendency for the criminal to repeat the behavior is raised.  With a partnership among criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists, plans can be developed to individually treat and rehabilitate each offender.