Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11



The researcher aimed at finding the contribution of community corrections on the

rehabilitation and re-integration of offender. The rationale is to ascertain and establish

how Community Corrections contribute in the rehabilitation and re-integrative process of

offenders in community. Therefore, to fulfil this this objective, the researcher consulted

various literatures sources from by various different scholars advocating CC and its role

on rehabilitation and re-integrative process.

The role, justification and importance of CC in rehabilitation and re-integration of


Petersilia (2001) indicate that community corrections role is to treat behaviors that are

directly associated with the question why the offenders got into trouble in the first place

to reduce recidivism1. According to Taxman, Matthew, Perdoni and Harrison (2007) the

assumption is offenders receive more treatment programs within their communities as

compared to correctional centers and that offenders who have been incarcerated in

correctional centers transition better when they are released with some supervision than

without any supervision.

Community corrections are developed and regulated in accordance with legal mandates

and applicable standards (Coming and Buell, 1997). The reasoning behind community

Recidivism is a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially: relapse into
criminal behaviour. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recidivism
corrections related programs involve multiple factors. According to Haney (2001) the

three main justifications for CC programs include avoidance of extremely harsh

sentencing, the increased ability of rendering treatment as well as reducing costs as

compared to incarceration in institutionalized corrections. Whitehead et al (2008)

indicates that even though many people may are of the view that the criminal justice

system is too lenient on offenders, one of the rationale for community corrections is to

limit the harshness of sentences imposed to offenders of minor crimes. Leanne (2016)

states that if correctional centre was the only option available to the courts, the court were

not going to have flexibility to make appropriate decision. According to Whitehead et al

(2008) during sentencing the option to consider an offender for CC programs works for

both the offender and the community unlike the imprisonment which is not deemed to be

either in the best interest of the offender or the society.

According to Braswell and Filler (2004) one of the major reasons why Community

Corrections form a large part of the CJS, is difficult to achieve rehabilitation by sending

the offenders in maximum security correctional centres. Parade (2009) indicates that

most offenders are diverted to some other categories of correctional settings such as

community correction programs for the purpose of their re-integration and rehabilitation.

According to Whitehead et al (2008) when an offender is sentenced to a community-

based sentence during the time of sentencing or upon his conditional release, it is

practical to enlist the support already existing programs for the purpose of rehabilitation

and re-integration of offenders. Schools, jobs, mental health centres, clinics, and families
can all give a contribution to the treatment goals of offenders such as rehabilitation and


Gilman (2015) states that the division of non-custodial sentences or sanctions such as

parole and community service works hand in hand with the local CJS officials and the

community to ensure public’s safety as well offender’s rehabilitation and re-integration.

According to DeMichele (2007) Community corrections emphasize public safety and

provide offenders with opportunities to change their behaviours or situations which made

them to come into conflict with the law. Coming and Buel (1997) stressed that it is the

responsibility of the stuff or officers of the particular division of community correction to

ensure the safety of the society by effectively dealing with those offenders who fail to

comply with the conditions of the placement.

Importance of community correction in rehabilitation of the offender

The white paper on correction South Africa (2013) indicates that community corrections

have a fundamental role in the rehabilitation of the offender. According to Gleissner

(2013) whenever an offender have been conditionally released from correctional centres,

either in the form of parole or probation and is required to perform a particular community

service, he or she will be serving such particular community service as rehabilitation

because through that community work, the offender will know that he or she paying back

to the community for his or her wrong doings. Whitehead et al (2008) indicate that the CC

also exposes the offender to skills and knowledge in work related matters.
According to Etter and Hammond (2003) the Kansas department of corrections2 division

of parole services has developed a community service program. Community services

have been used by the Kansas parole officers since 1995 in order to get rid of the

offenders of crime. Kansas parole officers had a goal in their minds of reintegration of

offenders of crime in the community. The main aim or purpose of this program was to

change the minds of offenders through community work so that they can no longer commit

further crimes.

Douglas and Hunninen (2008) provides that Community correction helps the offenders in

gaining experience and skills in work related matters with regard to the community

service, and they can use such experience and skill elsewhere as part of living. According

to Gleissner (2013) a person who have done a community work are less likely to reoffend

again in their part of living and it develops an offender to have self-esteem and have a

new direction in life. Lowenkamp, Holsinger and Latessa (2004) provides that people who

have gone through rehabilitation are less likely to commit another crime because such

person is taught to do certain work by himself, so when he or she goes back to the

community, he or she will be able to work and provide for him or herself and no longer

commit crime in order to live.

The Kansas Department of Corrections is a cabinet-level agency of Kansas that operates the state's correctional
facilities, both juvenile and adult; the state's parole system; and the state's Prisoner Review Board. It is
headquartered in Topeka. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Department_of_Corrections
Importance of community correction in reintegration of the offender

White paper on correction South Africa (2013) provides that most offenders are required

to perform a community service as a form or condition of their order. According to

Bazemore and Moleney (1994) Community work provides a chance or opportunities to

offender to pay back what he have destroyed or harmed. Gleissner (2013) states that in

reintegration of offenders, Community corrections also have a major benefit in the part of

the offender due to the fact that it gives them another chance to start a new life in the

community and being accepted back by the community. According to Etter and Hammond

(2003) community corrections does not mostly focus on the offenders needs, but rather

focuses on the offenders responsibility to pay the damages and harm which he or she

have caused to the community or the victim. It also helps them to realize the harm which

he or she has caused by himself or herself.

According to Griffiths, Dandurand and Murdoch (2007) re-integration programs are

developed on the understanding of risks which are associated with recidivism, the needs

of offenders to change and also the challenges which they face when they have been

released from correctional centre to the community. Travis (2000) indicates that re-

integration programs vary due to the risk factors and the types of social integration

challenges. According to Travis (2000) many of the challenges of re-integration focuses

mostly on the offenders need to change, such as drug addiction, young offenders,

mentally ill offenders and also dangerous sexual offenders.

Benefits of community corrections

Whitehead et al (2008) provides that Community corrections are important in the part of

the offender, the victim and the society as a whole. According to Alarid and Reichel (2008)

the victim benefit in the form of an apology which is made by the offender, the offender

benefit by the way of gaining skills and work experience through rehabilitation, and the

community benefit through the work which is done by the offender to the community and

by reduction of the risk or recidivism.

Offender benefits

According to Colorado Division of Criminal Justice Department of public and safety

(2017), offenders benefit from participating or being placed on community corrections

programs by receiving treatment, education, and assistance with finding employment.

Gleissner (2013) pointed out that community corrections helps or benefit the offender in

such a way that, when the offender is given community sentence, he or she is being saved

from being used to the indoor life of the correctional centre, the inability of the person to

no longer cope or get used to the outdoor life of the correctional centres. He went on to

state that, Community corrections is also a privilege to the offenders who should have

been in correctional centres by the time when they are participating in the community

corrections in order for them to avoid confinement, they must work hard and comply with

the rules of the community supervisor so that they can be released in time.
Griffiths, Dandurand and Murdoch (2007) asserted that Community corrections programs

also facilitate many of the factors associated with the offender’s successful re-integration

into the community. Community corrections (2015) presented that offenders can be

released from correctional centres and taken to the community corrections in order for

the offender to perform a community service as part of reintegration so that such offender

can get used to the outside life of the correctional centre and also in order for the

community to accept such person back to the community in peace knowing that such

person have paid for the damages which he or she have caused to the society.

According to Alarid and Reichel (2008) Community correction helps the offender by

correcting some of the problems that are directly linked to criminal behaviour and

continued involvement in the criminal justice system which include substance abuse, lack

of emotional control, inadequate education or vocational training, mental illness and

parenting problems or developmental disability. Rockville (2005) indicates that offenders

under the CC should participate in programs that address those issues while on

supervision with greater access to treatment programs than he or she would have had in

correctional centres.

Victim benefits

According to Edmunds and Seymour (2006) Historically, community corrections have

been mostly focusing on offenders of crime only and have been forgetting or ignoring the

concerns of the victims or those who have been affected by the crime. While community
supervision focuses on the society as a whole in protecting the victims of crime from

further victimization by the perpetrators.

The victims of crime can benefit from the community correction by way of restitution 3 by

the offender (Ruback and Bergstrom, 2006). According to Marcus, 1996) through the CC

the offender may be ordered to pay for the damages and harm which he or she have

caused to the victim and by that ,the victim tend to benefit because what he or she have

lost during the commission of crime have been paid back or fixed. According to Bazemore

and Stinchcomb (2004) the victims tend to benefit the apology which is made by the

offender which helps to relieve the victim and also prevent vengeance or re-commission

of crime on part of the victim and the offender.

According to Wemmers (2002) the victim can also benefit from compensation4 in the form

of monetary which the court orders the offender to pay for the damages or loss which he

or she has caused to the victim. Rex (2002) state that the court is the one which orders

the offender to pay the compensation to the victim, and the head of the correctional

services is the one which manages the payments of the offenders to the victim. According

to Burns (2001) whenever the offender does not pay the compensation to the victim, the

community correction is the one which makes sure that it is the one which report the

The term "restitution" in the criminal justice system means payment by an offender to the victim for the harm
caused by the offender's wrongful acts. Courts have the authority to order convicted offenders to pay restitution to
victims as part of their sentences. In approximately one-third of states, courts are required to order restitution to
victims in cases involving certain types of crimes, typically violent felony offenses, but sometimes other serious
offenses as well. http://victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/restitution
Compensation is a pecuniary remedy that is awarded to an individual who has sustained an injury in order to
replace the loss caused. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/compensation
matter to the court, the court will regard such failure to pay as a violation of a condition

and it will be the one which will take the necessary steps of sentencing the offender.

According to Wemmers (2002) restorative justice5 put more emphases on offender’s

responsibility to repair the injustice that he or she has caused to the victim or victims.

Through victim and community involvement, such as face-to-face mediation sessions,

victim impact panels, and volunteer mentoring, the offender remains in the community,

completes community service, and pays victim restitution (Alarid and Reichel, 2008).

According to Bazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) restorative justice is most effective for

property crimes, particularly those committed by juveniles or first-time adult felony


Community benefits

Taxman (1998) indicated that community corrections helps or benefit the community by

being saved by the reduction of recidivism rate of the offender and the community can

also benefit from the community work which is done by the offender in the community as

part of his sentence. According to Bazemore and Schiff (1996) the community also benefit

from the CC due to the fact that the offenders are held accountable of their crimes which

they have caused against the community, and by being held accountable of their actions,

they tend to receive treatment and education which later helps the offender to no longer

commit crime and it ensures a public safety in the society. Latessa and Smith (2015)

Restorative Justice is a theory and method in criminal justice in which it is arranged that the victim and the
community receive restitution from the offender. http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-
indicated that the community also benefit economically, the work which is being done by

the offender can be a work which can make a gain or income in part of the community.

According to Speiser (2015) the community can also be saved from the increase of the

tax, because while criminals have been convicted of an offence and taken to correctional

centres, such people rely on tax money of the community and whenever there is an

overcrowding in correctional centres, the government is the one who have to come with

the strategy of increasing money, and that is done through increasing tax money in order

to maintain the offenders and their needs within the correctional centres.

Role of community corrections in social re-integration

Community corrections provide the offender with social reintegration (Griffiths et al, 2007).

According to James (2015) social reintegration refers to the support given to the offender

during their re-entry into the community. Griffiths et al, 2007) asserted that offenders

social re-integration involves various interventions undertaken following an arrest to divert

offenders away from the criminal justice system to an alternative measures such as

restorative justice process or other treatment which can be suitable depending on the

crime and the circumstances of the case. This includes the imposing of community-based

sentence rather than sending the offender to correctional centre.

According to Griffiths et al (2007) the main idea or aim of community-based sentence is

to facilitate the social reintegration of the offender within the community rather than

subjecting the offender to the marginalizing and harmful effects of imprisonment. Altschul

(1999) indicates that imposing community-based sentence rather imprisonment play an

important role in social reintegration of the offender as the offender will be afforded the

opportunity to be able to be rehabilitated and to be a law abiding citizen.