j. Responses: The various treatment programs designed to address
the criminogenic needs and barriers of offenders. II. Identify the situations where use of community treatment
responses are not appropriate.
k. Success: The measure of various treatment programs. It may
reflect the offender’s performance during the program, whether
the program was completed, and whether the offender stayed
clear of the criminal justice system for a specified period of
time. There are a number of areas where use of community treatment
responses are not possible, not prudent, not necessary, or not
acceptable. These various areas need to be specifically identified and
should include:
l. Recidivism: Reflects entanglement in the criminal justice
system. In a well-thought-out system, types of recidivism
would be distinguished between technical violations, criminal
violations, arrests, convictions, and return to incarceration.
Once common definitions are reached, then these items can be
compiled to produce:
2.) Empirical evidence: Every action in the criminal justice system
has successes and failures. Every program can point to anecdotal
success stories. To achieve sustainable long-term results, however,
decisions need to be based on objective empirical evidence that
reflects the totality of outcomes, both good and bad (Cullen, Myer,
and Latessa, 2009). In North Dakota, there are in excess of over
30,000 new criminal cases filed every year. Operation of such a
complex system by applying anecdotes of past singular experiences
is not appropriate as proven by past outcomes. Objective and
scientific responses produce better outcomes and the data required
must be readily available.
3.) Expanded use of technology:
a. Dissemination of information: North Dakota’s information
technology systems must be adjusted so that empirical evidence
is available to be used where needed (see Warren, 2007).
b. Public safety: Technology systems must be able to objectively
document the risk, danger, and public impact (other than
danger) potentially posed by offenders. The system must also be
able to historically record the actual public safety impacts.
c. Accountability for program and offender outcomes: Technology
systems must be able to document performance of programs
and offenders by documenting outcomes for recidivism, success,
and cost.
d. Expand use of technology for responses: In addition to
using technology to track and predict outcomes, expanded
technology must be used to facilitate implementation of various
responses. Such items as matching offender needs to responses,
reminding offenders of appointments, and tracking whether
they made an appointment are items where technology rather
than human labor could be employed more efficiently and
effectively.
1. The offense is too insignificant for meaningful intervention.
Where the offense is too small, e.g., littering, to allow for a
meaningful criminal justice system intervention, no consideration
should be given to intervening and these individuals should not be
considered for services.
2. Proposed treatment responses are not effective.
Science indicates low-level repetitive treatment programs actually
increase the rate of recidivism (Latessa and Holsinger, 1998). These
ineffective treatment programs need to be identified and eliminated
from use. If these are the only responses available, it is better to do
nothing.
3. Offenders who do not need treatment.
Many offenders in the justice system are ordinary individuals who
made a mistake. A large number of these folks have a low risk
to ever see the court system again. The trauma of being arrested,
appearing in court, admitting their crime, and accepting their
sanction has a lasting impact on them. These individuals understand
basic responsibility, and the error of their ways. There is no need to
entangle these individuals in the criminal justice system any longer
than is necessary. The recidivism rate for these individuals is lower
than the failure rate for even the best rehabilitation programs. It is
more effective for society to identify these individuals and extricate
them from the criminal justice system promptly (Lowenkamp
& Latessa, 2004). Removing these low-risk individuals from the
system reduces the risk of these offenders learning criminal traits
from higher-risk offenders in the system. Over-involvement in the
system also increases the risk of compromising the support low-risk
people already have in their life (e.g., work, family, pro-social friends,
et cetera). Identifying these low-risk offenders would be possible
with use of a tool similar to the diversion tool currently used by the
Department of Corrections that, if automated and available to the
court system, could be used to help remove individuals from the
system and avoid the inefficient use of limited resources and provide
better outcomes.
4. Punishment is the primary goal.
There are crimes so heinous, e.g., murder, that even for a first
offense, society expects significant retribution as a response. In these
instances, any rehabilitation programing is of secondary concern and
would be addressed in prison.
SPRING 2019 17