Incarceration of Nonviolent Offenders at the High Court in Oyo State, Nigeria

Incarceration of Nonviolent Offenders at the

High Court in Oyo State, Nigeria

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

An alternative to incarceration is an essential characteristic of the criminal justice

system that prevents recidivism and supports the rehabilitation of offenders in the

community (Still, 2016). Alternatives to incarceration include probation, parole, pretrial

services, residential reentry centers, or community treatment services (Still, 2016). The

United States, England, and Wales have used community corrections as alternatives to

incarcerating nonviolent offenders (DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright, Pratt,

Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2013). The use of probation, boot camps, direct court

commitment, home confinement, and intermediate sanctions are not unique to the United

States, England, and Wales (DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013). The

use of intensive supervision, restitution, community services, electronic monitoring, and

halfway houses are practiced in many criminal justice systems (DeMichele, 2014;

Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013). However, the Nigerian criminal justice system has

not been instituted to provide alternatives for incarcerating offenders sentenced in Nigeria

courts (Solomon & Nwankwoala, 2014; Yekini & Salisu, 2013). The Nigeria criminal

justice system does not provide the structural reforms through the use of noncustodial

measures, which are essential for offenders’ successful rehabilitation and reentry to

society (Alao & Adebowale, 2014). Incarceration of nonviolent offenders has generated

difficulties in Nigeria criminal justice system (Alabi & Alabi, 2011). Yekini and Salisu

(2013) argued that the continued incarceration of nonviolent offenders has failed to

achieve deterrence. Onyeozili and Ebbe (2012) suggested that nonviolent offenses should

not result in incarceration. In Nigeria, every offender receives prison terms irrespective of

the offense the offender commits (Ajayi 2012; Armiya’u & Adole, 2015). Armiya'u and

Adole (2015) stated that the Nigerian criminal justice system does not separate or classify

violent offenders from nonviolent offenders when determining punishment. Also,

nonviolent offenders are exposed and subjected to inhumane treatment (lack of personal

hygiene, nutrition, clothing, dignity, overcrowding, and access to medical care) and abuse

(physical and sexual) in prisons. These inhumane treatments increase recidivism for

nonviolent offenders (Onyeozili & Ebbe, 2012; Otu & Nnam, 2014). Ajayi (2012)

indicated that the overcrowding of Nigerian prisons make rehabilitation difficult for

nonviolent offenders. Offenders do not have access to proper ventilation and sanitation in

the Nigerian prison system. The Nigerian prisons are overcrowded, with no ventilation

systems, and or sanitation that is essential to offenders’ health and well-being (Ajayi,

2012; Otu & Nnam, 2014).

The Nigerian criminal justice system must be revamped. In the United States, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014) indicated a low rate of recidivism among released

nonviolent offenders. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also revealed that 404,638

offenders did not recidivate in 30 states after being released from prison in 2005. In

addition, 77% of released nonviolent offenders did not commit new crimes or new

criminal behavior within 5 years of release from prison (Gallagher, Nordberg, Ivory,

Carlton, & Miller, 2015). Nally, Lockwood, Ho, and Knutson (2014) further indicated

that 78% of released nonviolent offenders did not recidivate within 3 years for new

criminal behavior. The National Bureau of Statistics (2016) reported that imprisonment is

the method of punishment for all nonviolent offenders in Nigeria. Alabi and Alabi (2011)

and Shobola and Ajeigbe (2015) claimed that 75% of nonviolent offenders released from

Nigerian prison recidivate. Parimah, Osafo, and Nyaro (2016) stated that when punishing

nonviolent offenders, the goal of the criminal justice system should be reintegration and

rehabilitation to repair the harm the nonviolent offender has caused to society. It is

imperative to use community correction as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders (Yekini & Salisu, 2013, p. 102). Mass incarceration has not proved to be a

useful tool for rehabilitation and deterrence to crime for nonviolent offenders (Currie,

2010; Larkin, 2014). The absence of vocational training, employment training programs,

and other evidence-based programs that can improve offenders’ lives are not available

during the incarceration of criminals (Ebeniro, 2011).

The structure of community corrections will provide community supervision for

nonviolent offenders in Nigeria (Yekini & Salisu, 2013). Riggs, Parsons, Wei, and

Druker (2014) indicated that community corrections provide offenders the opportunity to

use community resources without compromising public safety. The use of alternatives to

incarceration have been a force for social change by addressing the rehabilitation of

offenders in society (Klingele, 2013; Solomon & Nwankwoala, 2014). Because all

offenders in Nigeria are sentenced to prisons, supporting community correction for

nonviolent offenders will allow for the successful rehabilitation of these types of

offenders sentenced to probation (Solomon & Nwankwoala, 2014).

The purpose of this study was to examine how judicial officers in the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System perceive the use of community corrections for nonviolent

offenders. The results of this research study provided insight and information into the

Nigeria Criminal Justice community. Nigerian judges can use the results of this study to

understand the process of the implementation of community corrections. Insights from

this study should provide knowledge to aid the Nigeria Criminal Justice System, National

Judicial Council, Nigeria legal profession, and policymakers in enacting community

correction laws (Yekini & Salisu, 2013). Yekini and Salisu (2013) stated that community

correction legislation would constitute the foundation of new criminal justice policies.

These plans (policies) will be used for the implementation of community corrections.

In this chapter, I provide an overview of this study. I present the gap in knowledge

that is related to this research study. I outline the problem statement, the purpose of this

study, the research question, and theoretical framework. The final sections of this chapter

include information on definitions, assumptions, limitations, and the significance of this

study. Finally, I provide a summary that includes an overview of the information

submitted in this chapter.

Background

The U.S. court systems are encouraged to use community corrections for

offenders who commit crimes against society (Klingele, 2013). However, the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System characterizes crime as a violation of shared values in the society

that disrupt human behavior and culture, for which incarceration is the only punishment

(Omale, 2014). The criminal justice system is empowered to use sentences that are sure

and swift, including the use of probation. However, the Nigerian Criminal Justice System

has used prisons as the only method of accountability for offenders, including nonviolent

offenders (Yekini & Salisu, 2013). The application and the implementation of alternatives

to incarceration for nonviolent offenders may alleviate the problem of mass incarceration

in Nigeria.

There is a gap in knowledge on the use of community supervision for nonviolent

offenders in Nigeria. Mass incarceration has not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation of

nonviolent offenders and deterrence to crimes (Currie 2010; Larkin, 2014; Opafunso &

Adepoju, 2016). Therefore, this study was conducted to explore judges’ perceptions and

understanding of the use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. The

results of this study may provide insights into the process by which increasing numbers

of judges and the criminal justice system will implement the use of community

correction. Also, insights from this qualitative study can provide information to the

National Judicial Council and the Nigeria legal profession in helping Nigerian judges

succeed in the implementation of community corrections.

Problem Statement

The Nigerian Criminal Justice administration focuses on the use of incarcerating

every individual who commits both violent and nonviolent offense (Ogwezzy, Adebayo,

& Kekere, 2016). The criminal justice system also lacks the presence of a fundamental

framework that rehabilitates and reintegrates nonviolent offenders incarcerated in

Nigerian prisons (Stephen & Dudafa, 2016). The Nigerian Criminal Justice System

focuses on conventional ways of punishing offenders through incarceration (Solomon,

Nwakwoala, & Ushi, 2014).

The justice system does not allow nonviolent offenders to rehabilitate, reform, and

reintegrate into society (Solomon et al., 2014). Parimah et al. (2016) advocated for the

use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Nonviolent offenders

incarcerated in Nigeria prisons find it difficult to reintegrate into society. The absence of

a structural framework for community correction led to the overcrowding of Nigerian

prisons and dehumanization of nonviolent offenders without reforming the behavior of

the offender (Parimah et al., 2016 p. 50). Using noncustodial measures in the criminal

justice system are alternatives method of punishing offenders (Emeka, 2011; Shajobi-

Ibikunle, 2014).

Contrary to the commonly held belief that community correction does not exist in

Nigeria, the Criminal Procedure Act (2004) provides for the use of community correction

(probation) as a noncustodial measure for offenders (Anyebe, 2011; Shajobi-Ibikunle,

2014). Community correction is not a new phenomenon in the criminal justice system,

but what is new is the nonuse of community corrections in the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System. No offenders are sentenced to community correction (probation) in Nigeria and

Ghana (Yekini & Salisu, 2013). Although community corrections have been successful in

the United States, England, and Wales, there are 5 million (84%) offenders on probation

in the United States, and 234, 229 (70%) offenders on probation in England and Wales

(DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016). Alabi and Alabi (2011) reported that 72.5% of

nonviolent offenders lack the rehabilitative structure that is essential for reintegration into

society.

In England and Wales, 89% of probationers do not recidivate after 1 year of

discharge from probation sentence (Bruce, Crowley, Jeffcote, & Coulston, 2014). The

Ministry of Justice (2012) reported that 73.6% of offenders released from custody,

including noncustodial custody, do not reoffend after 1 year of discharge from custody. In

the United States, 73% of probationers do not commit a new crime after 5 years of

completing probation sentence (Nally et al., 2014). Given the low recidivism of

nonviolent probationers in the United States, England, and Wales, the Nigerian Criminal

Justice System could benefit from an alternative to incarceration (probation) for

nonviolent offenders (Yekini & Salisu, 2013).

Incarceration of nonviolent offenders has generated difficulties in the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System (Alabi & Alabi, 2011). The high rate of recidivism in Oyo State

has shown the need for using community correction as an alternative to incarceration (p.

102). One scholar has found that 85% of nonviolent offenders recidivate (within 7 years

of release to society) when freed from Nigerian prisons (Ajayi, 2012). Another scholar

found that 65.7% of offenders would recidivate (Shobola & Ajeigbe, 2015). The

deplorable conditions (inhumane, cruel treatment, and the lack of transitional and

vocational programs) of the Nigerian prison do not rehabilitate offenders (Ajayi, 2012;

Anyebe, 2011; Shobola & Ajeigbe, 2015).

Incarceration is the justification for sanctioning anyone who does not comply with

laws in the society (Bushway & Owens, 2013). However, incarceration has led to

rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders and deterrence to individual committing crimes

(Currie 2010; Larkin, 2014; Schappell, Docherty & Boxer, 2016). The Nigerian Criminal

Justice System does not use rehabilitative intervention for nonviolent offenders.

Incarceration of nonviolent offenders as a form of punishment has failed to achieve the

objective of the criminal justice system (Shobola & Ajeigbe, 2015). The goal of the

criminal justice system is to rehabilitate and reform offenders to society. The criminal

justice system is empowered to reform and rehabilitate offenders designated to the prison

system.

The Nigerian prison system is responsible for administering punishment on

offenders. Therefore, the Nigerian Criminal Justice System is responsible for the public

safety of all offenders, including nonviolent offenders. The Nigerian Criminal Justice

System is responsible for the rehabilitation, reintegration, reformation of nonviolent

offenders, and humane treatment to all offenders. However, the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System has been unable to fulfill its responsibilities of rehabilitating, reforming,

reintegrating, and providing transitional programs for nonviolent offenders to society

(Ogwezzy et al., 2016).

The Nigerian prison system is undergoing difficulties that hinder its capability to

perform its intended rehabilitative roles efficiently and effectively (Ladapo, 2011). The

ineptness of the prison, inadequate rehabilitation, and reintegration for nonviolent

offenders into society creates the avenue for increased recidivism and turning nonviolent

offenders into violent offenders (Otu & Elechi, 2015; Schappell et al., 2016). Onyeozili

and Ebbe (2012) claimed that Nigeria has not provided alternatives to incarceration,

which resulted into the institutionalization of nonviolent offenders.

This study provided insight into the implementation of the use of an alternative to

incarceration. This information can assist in the development and implementation of

community corrections to the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. There has been demand

for more scholarly work on alternatives to incarceration for offenders. Yekini and Salisu

(2013) reiterated the need to implement community corrections in Nigeria to rehabilitate

offenders to become productive citizens. There is limited research on the use of

community correction for nonviolent offenders sentenced in Nigerian courts. This study

could also provide insight into the various alternatives of holding offenders accountable,

specifically the nonviolent offenders who learn new criminal behavior in prison.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore Nigerian

judges’ understanding of the use of alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders

in the criminal justice system. I conducted a phenomenological study because I wished to

understand the perceptions of judges on the alternative to incarceration. The design for

this study included identifying a small group of Nigerian judges to understand their

perception on the nonuse of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Ten

judges were selected randomly for video conference interviews based on their specialized

legal knowledge, assignment to criminal court (that included interpretation of criminal

statutes), and applicable criminal codes (that are related to sentencing offenders to

imprisonment). Judges who had direct contact in sentencing nonviolent offenders were

selected. Phone, e-mail, and video conference were used to conduct interviews because of

the geographical location of the participants.

Research Question

RQ: How will Nigerian judges describe the implementation of community

correction (probation) as alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study was Dolinko’s (1997) retributive

punishment theory. According to retributive punishment theory, offenders deserve the

punishment for the crimes they commit. It is necessary to provide both rational and moral

justification for punishing criminals. The magnitudes of the crime should be the basis and

justification for incarcerating offenders (Wildeman, Turney, & Schnittker, 2014). The

retributive punishment theory affects the judges’ approach, because of the notion of just

desert that emerges as a result of punishing offenders to reduce crime (Yekini & Salisu,

2013).

The retributive punishment theory was used to explain judges’ perceptions on

community corrections, mainly if the offense committed is not violent. Dolinko’s

theoretical work has been used in the criminal justice system, albeit more frequently

employed in violent crimes than nonviolent crimes (Pate & Gould, 2012). Furthermore,

subsequent research and application of Dolinko’s theory offer guidance on the

justification of incarcerating offenders, thus providing a rational for incarcerating

offenders (Amatrudo, 2016). Chapter 2 presents a comprehensive description of this

theoretical framework.

Nature of the Study

I chose a qualitative, phenomenological research. A qualitative,

phenomenological study is consistent with understanding how judges approach the

noncustodial measures for an offender. This design study allows me to focus on how

judges make sense of interpreting the criminal statute that relates to the incarceration of

nonoffenders.

The use of phenomenological design allowed me to construct the question that

guided this research study, develop findings that provide the basis for continuous research

work, and refrain from making suppositions (Greineder, 2013; Millward & Senker,

2012). In this study, judges in the criminal division of the high court were purposefully

selected based on their experience in the criminal court. Each judge received an invitation

to participate in this study. E-mail, phone, and video conference were used to initially

introduce each participant to the study and establish interview dates. Digital recording

was used to transcribe, code, and analyze for similarities, themes, and attributes.

Definitions

In this study, definitions for appropriate correctional terminology were identified

and expressed in the simplest terms:

Center disciplinary process: A process or procedure that provides due process to

inmates who reside at the residential reentry center (Statement of Work, 2016).

Community corrections: The use of community-based resources to address

offenders’ needs, emphasizing offender’s accountability, treatment, supervision, and

monitoring (Kim, Matz, Gerber, Richard, & Lambert, 2013).

Community supervision: The supervising of offenders in the community using

probation, direct court commitment, residential reentry center, and home detection

(Klingele, 2013).

Criminal Procedure Act: Laws that provide the legal framework for the criminal

trial, conviction, and sentence of a person adjudicated in the Nigeria Criminal Justice

System (Yekini & Salisu, 2013).

Imprisonment: Loss of an offender’s liberty from society to a secure confinement

(Wildeman et al., 2014).

National Bureau of Statistics: The official agency that is responsible for

managing official statistics in Nigeria. The National Bureau of Statistics provides

information on offender prison situation, offender population, prison situations, and

information on prison staff employed.

National Judicial Council: An executive body that guarantees the independence of

the Nigerian judiciary (Odeleye, 2013).

Nigeria legal profession: The entity that comprises both lawyers and judges.

Noncustodial measure: The confinement or supervision of offender in the

community (Odeleye, 2013).

Probation: When an offender can remain in the community instead of

imprisonment (Teague, 2016; Yekini & Salisu, 2013).

Assumptions

I assumed that all participation will be voluntary and that the participants will be

truthful in their answers. I assumed that Nigerian judges are incapable of being

influenced and that they are fair, and impartial when discharging or performing judicial

or official duties. I also assumed that the participants will demonstrate a good

understanding and knowledge of the substantive and procedural framework of the

Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

Scope and Delimitations

In this study, I addressed judges understanding of community corrections

regarding the nonuse of probation, although statutes empower judges to sentence

offenders to probation. I delimited this study to Nigerian judges assigned to the criminal

court division court in the southwestern part of Nigeria.

The study sample, criterion, and purposeful random sampling were delimited.

This delimitation influenced generalizing results to judges who are not in the high court

in Southwestern Nigeria. Criterion and purposeful random sampling compromised the

capability to generalize the findings of this study to a new population or judges in other

parts of Nigeria. However, this study sample provided credibility to the study.

Limitation

The sample for this study (criterion and purposeful random sampling) did not

represent the entire population of the Nigeria Judicial Council. The research participants

were selected based on the court’s criminal division. The participants of this study were

limited to one state in the southwest region of Nigeria and an aspect of the Nigeria

judicial system, high court.

The population that I did not sample may possess a different understanding of the

community that was sampled. I identified, managed, minimized, or eliminated bias that

had the potential to influence the results of this study through rigorous accountability

(analysis of the data-showing what the data presents). This study did not generalize to the

broader population or other Nigerian courts system (the superior courts of records that

consist of the remaining 35 high courts and federal high courts for the 35 states in

Nigeria, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court). I addressed limitations through gaining

insight into participants’ understanding of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders for the high court in the southwest region of Nigeria.

Significance

The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand judges’

perceptions on the use of community correction (probation) for nonviolent offenders.

Several U. S. studies have shown that alternatives to incarceration will enhance the

rehabilitative structure for nonviolent offenders and provide reentry assistance to

nonviolent offenders, which is an essential element for successful reintegration to society.

The use of probation for nonviolent offenders reduces recidivism and leads to the

rehabilitative opportunities (family support and transitional programs in the society) that

mitigate the risk of criminal socialization (Nally et al., 2014). The supervision of

nonviolent offenders in the community minimizes the risk to society and results in

reformation for the nonviolent offenders (Wright et al., 2013). Nonviolent offenders

maintain a family connection and community relationships in society while undergoing

supervision in the community (DeMichele, 2014; Wright et al., 2013). Nonviolent

offenders participate in employment readiness program, transition and life skill programs,

vocational and educational programs, and treatment-drug and mental health programs

(Gallagher et al., 2015).

There is limited research on the use of community corrections in Nigeria for

nonviolent offenders. In this study, I addressed an under researched area of the Nigerian

Criminal System among judges, who are not accustomed to community corrections in the

criminal justice system. The results of this study can be used to increase the judges’

knowledge and understanding of the use of community corrections for nonviolent

offenders. Insights from this study provided the knowledge that will aid the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System, National Judicial Council, and the Nigeria legal profession in

enacting laws and developing policies in the implementation of community corrections.

The use of probation can effect positive social change by reducing recidivism for

offenders who are not violent. An alternative to incarceration has been a force for social

change by addressing rehabilitation of criminals in society. Because of the confinement

of all nonviolent offenders in Nigerian prisons, nonviolent offenders lack the opportunity

for reformation and rehabilitation. The support of community correction for nonviolent

offenders allows the implementation of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders, which will reform and rehabilitate nonviolent offenders (Anyebe, 2011).

Summary

The Nigerian Criminal Justice System associated with incarceration does not use

rehabilitative intervention for nonviolent offenders. The continued use of imprisonment

in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System for nonviolent offenders does not conform to the

trend of community corrections for offenders as demonstrated in England, Wales, and the

United States. The punishment of nonviolent offenders through the use of incarceration

does not show deterrence or an effective method of reducing crime. The implementation

of community supervision for nonviolent offenders, as a form of retributive, will provide

the Nigerian justice system with the mechanisms to use community supervision. The

incorporation of new criminal behaviors in prison and high rate of recidivism for

nonviolent offenders after being released from prison indicate that the Nigerian Criminal

Justice System needs to consider the use of an alternative to incarceration. This study

contributed to the limited research on the alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders. The results of this study may create awareness and understanding on the use of

an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders in the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System.

There is a need to understand judges’ perceptions on the implementation of

community correction for nonviolent offenders. There is limited research on the use of

community corrections in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. Previous researchers

have overlooked judges’ understanding and insight into the implementation of

community corrections. This phenomenological study of Nigerian judges’ understanding

of community correction will add to the literature and provide insight into judges’

awareness and perception of the community corrections.

In Chapter 2 of this study, I will focus on the literature review. The literature

review will provide information on community corrections, rehabilitation, reformation,

reintegration, and reentry of offenders who are not violent.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The criminal justice administration in Nigeria focuses on the use of incarcerating

every individual who commits both violent and nonviolent offense (Ogwezzy et al.,

2016). The criminal justice system lacks a framework to rehabilitate and reintegrate

nonviolent offenders incarcerated in Nigerian prisons (Stephen & Dudafa, 2016). The

Nigerian Criminal Justice System focuses on conventional ways of punishing offenders

through incarceration (Solomon et al., 2014). The justice system does not allow

nonviolent offenders to rehabilitate, reform, and reintegrate into society (Solomon et al.,

2014).

This purpose of this qualitative study was to explore Nigerian judges’

understanding of the use of community correction in the criminal justice system for

nonviolent offenders. The phenomenological design for this study included identifying a

small group of the Nigerian judges to understand their perception on the nonuse of the

alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Ten judges were selected randomly

for phone and video conference interviews based on their specialized legal knowledge

and assignment to criminal court. Phone and video conference was used to conduct the

interviews because of the geographical location of the participants.

Chapter 2 of this research study provides an in-depth review of the literature

regarding community corrections, the theoretical framework that provided the

understanding of imprisonment, the historical and current practice of punishment of

offenders, and Nigerian statutes on incarceration.

Literature Search Strategy

In this literature review, I used peer-reviewed journals in the Walden University

Library. ProQuest was accessed using the general search terms: alternative to

incarceration, community corrections, nonviolent offenders, prison system in Nigeria,

incarceration, punishment, and sentencing. Further resources, were used to find articles

from analyzing references of previous scholars. the National Institute of Corrections

website, Federal High Court Law Library, and Library of Congress provided additional

resources to locate scholarly articles.

I did not find any literature that directly referred to nonviolent offenders on

probation, community supervision, and community corrections in Nigeria. Therefore, the

content of this review will be limited to the impact of community corrections in the

United States. Nigeria and the United States operate with a similar system of government,

which is federalism. There is no alternative to incarceration in the Nigeria Criminal

Justice System and there is literature gap in research regarding community corrections in

Nigeria.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this phenomenon study was Dolinko’s (1997)

retributive punishment theory. According to retributive punishment theory, offenders

deserve the penalty for the crimes they commit. It is necessary to provide both rational

and moral justification for punishing criminals (Apel, 2013). The magnitudes of the crime

should be the basis and justification for incarcerating offenders (Wildeman et al. 2014).

The retributive punishment theory may impact the judges’ approach, which provides the

notion of the just desert that emerges as a result of punishing offenders to reduce crime

(Yekini & Salisu, 2013).

The central concept of retributive punishment was recognized and supported by

Wildeman et al. (2014) as a means of social control. The emphasis is placed on just desert

(offenders) and deterrence (law-abiding citizen), which is the justification for social

control and incarceration (Wright et al., 2013).

The consciousness of committing crime and consequence that precedes such

commission of offenses has not reduced crime or criminal behavior for offenders

(Wildeman et al. 2014). Offenders will choose to assuage deterrence by disregarding the

effect of incarceration in their lives (Wildeman et al.2014). Yekini and Salisu (2013)

revealed that the Nigerian Criminal Justice System punished offenders using

incarceration. Wildeman et al. (2014) claimed that the paradox of incarceration can lead

to an offender’s insensitivity to imprisonment, which will not negate the psychological

impact of incarceration on criminals. Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, and Colvin

(2013) argued that the criminal justice system incarcerates offenders as a means of

controlling crime to promote the public safety in society. The use of imprisonment as

social control is used as a deterrent effect on offenders; offenders receive punishment for

the criminal actions they committed against society (Listwan et al., 2013).

The Nigerian Criminal Justice System ensures deterrence among individuals in

society (Emeka, 2011; Obioha, 2011). The application of justice is one apparatuses that

has been considered to be indispensable for the criminal justice system that brings

retribution to offenders (Pate & Gould, 2012). Although justice includes seeking to

achieve, attain, and effectuate a just outcome, the criminal justice system must ensure that

its mechanism of retribution is proportionate to the crime committed (Mears, Cochran, &

Cullen, 2015). There must be an equilibrium that balances crime and punishment. The

criminal justice system must also consider the mechanism of justice (offenders sentenced

to incarceration has reflected in the increase in imprisonment) that will deter nonviolent

offenders from recidivism (Wermink, Apel, Nieuwbeerta, & Blokland, 2013).

Apel and Nagin (2011) stated that an individual’s decision to commit a crime is

not premised on deterrence. Apel (2013) argued that the failure of the criminal justice to

control crime will undermine the deterrence power of the criminal justice system. An

individual will access the risk factor, including “perceived sanction certainty” (Apel,

2013, p.72), before committing a crime (Apel, 2013, p. 70). Criminal justice systems

should increase the certainty and severity of punishment for committing crime. (Apel,

2013, p. 71).

Dolinko’s theoretical work has been used in the criminal justice system, albeit

more frequently in violent crimes than nonviolent crimes (Pate & Gould, 2012).

Furthermore, subsequent application of Dolinko’s theory offers guidance on the

justification of incarcerating offenders, thus providing rational of incarcerating offenders

(Amatrudo, 2016). Retributive punishment theory was used to explain the judges’

perception on community corrections, specifically if the offense committed was not

violent (Alabi & Alabi, 2011).

Literature Review

The criminal justice system is empowered to use sentences, including the use of

an alternative to incarceration, that are sure and swift. The Nigerian Criminal Procedure

Act 2004 (CPA) provides for the use of community correction, probation, in the criminal

justice system. The CPA indicated the use of probation for offenders, adjudicated, found

guilty, and convicted. The CPA gives special provisions to the court to consider the

offense committed, character, age, health status, and mental condition of the offender

(Anyebe, 2011). However, the Nigerian Criminal Justice System has failed to follow the

provisions of the CPA relating to the use of probation (Alao & Adebowale, 2014).

The criminal justice system in Nigeria controls crime through imprisonment

(Ajayi, 2012; Alao & Adebowale, 2014). The criminal justice system relies on the

incarceration of offenders, including nonviolent offenders, as means of correcting the

criminal behavior of these offenders (Alao & Adebowale, 2014). The criminal justice

system process does not institute the provision of alternatives for incarcerating offenders

sentenced in Nigeria courts (Alao & Adebowale, 2014).

Imprisonment of Nonviolent Offenders

The U.S. criminal justice system is accustomed to community corrections

(DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013). The use of probation, intermediate

sanctions, intensive supervision, restitution, and community services are alternatives to

incarcerating nonviolent offenders (DeMichele, 2014; McFarlane, 2012; Teague, 2016;

Wright et al., 2013). Also, electronic monitoring, halfway houses, boot camps, direct

court commitment, and home confinement are alternatives to incarcerating nonviolent

offenders (DeMichele, 2014; McFarlane, 2012; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013).

Gilling and Jolley (2012) explored the impact of community correction on

reducing crime, especially nonviolent crimes. Nally et al. (2014) reported that 77% of

nonviolent offenders on probation did not commit new crimes or new criminal behavior

within 5 years of release from prison. Gallagher et al. (2015) also reported that 78% of

released nonviolent offenders did not recidivate within 3 years for new criminal behavior.

Pate and Gould (2012) negated the impact of community correction on crime reduction.

Alao and Adebowale (2014) and Ajayi (2012) found that the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System has consistently used incarceration as the only method of punishment for

offenders.

There are issues associated with the imprisonment of nonviolent offenders that

have continued to be a barrier to implementing alternatives to incarceration (Onyeozili &

Ebbe, 2012). According to Onyeozili and Ebbe (2012), these issues have contributed to

the institutionalization of nonviolent offenders in an undignified manner and the

brutalization of nonviolent offenders during incarceration. Onyeozili and Ebbe asserted

that nonviolent offenders who are sentenced to prison are subjected to a high risk of

prison victimization and recidivism (p. 33). The incarceration of nonviolent offenders in

secure facilities deprives nonviolent offenders of using community resources that would

provide rehabilitation (Tolleanaar, Van der Laan & Van der Heijden, 2013; Wallace,

2012). De Giorgi (2016) suggested that it is essential to address the incarceration of

nonviolent offenders, which leads to the dehumanization of nonviolent offenders in

prison.

The ineptitude of the Nigerian Criminal Justice System in using alternatives to

incarceration does not fulfill the function of providing adequate rehabilitation and

reintegration for nonviolent offenders into society (Osasona, 2015). This ineptitude

creates the avenue for increased recidivism and turning nonviolent offenders into violent

criminals (Otu & Elechi, 2015). Nonviolent offenders who are incarcerated will find it

difficult to readjust and reintegrate back into society because nonviolent offenders do not

receive the resources that enable them to successfully transition to the community before

they are released to society (Alao & Adebowale, 2014). Neil and Carmichael (2015)

argued that incarceration is used in the criminal justice system to punish offenders. The

use of incarceration has contributed to a crime reduction in society (Neil & Carmichael,

2015; Wermink et al., 2013). Wermink et al. (2013) argued that the imposition of

punitive confinement, which removes offenders from society, reduces the opportunity for

offenders to commit crimes.

The incarceration of criminals is a useful tool that assists in reducing crime in

society (Nagin & Snodgrass 2013). The punishment of lawbreakers with imprisonment

decreases the attractiveness of offenders committing offenses in society (Nagin &

Snodgras, 2013). Mears et al. (2015) advocated for an evidence-based policy that

provides credibility to the use of incarceration, as a method of reducing recidivism.

The over-dependence on incarceration has led the criminal justice system to

overuse imprisonment, which has not assisted in reducing crime (Cullen, Jonson, &

Nagin, 2011; Bales & Piquero, 2012; Cochran, Mears, & Bales, 2014). Baron (2013)

explored the use of incarceration in the criminal justice system and found that

incarceration has different outcomes for different offenders.

Agbakwuru & Ibe-Godfrey (2016) advocated for deterrence, the use of

imprisonment, which will prevent lawbreakers from committing a crime. Offenders

incarcerated are reformed, rehabilitated and reintegrated into society (Agbakwuru

&IbeGodfrey, 2016). The use of punitive measure, in a secure confinement, provides

offenders penitentiary duties which empower the offenders when released to society

(Helen &

Popoola, 2016).

The encompassing use of imprisonment is a response to criminal behavior (Apel,

2013). Apel (2013) argued that the construction of mega-prisons and application of

technology in prisons depict the acceptance of incarceration for offenders in the United

States. Senior, Ward, Burke, Knight, Teague, Chapman, & Goodman (2016) argued that

the criminal justice system has consistently used imprisonment as a mechanism of social

control to reduce crime and restraint individual’s behavior in society.

Relevance of Community Corrections

Criminal justice system should seek innovative methods of addressing

incarceration of nonviolent offenders (Sabet, Talpins, Dunagan, & Holmes, 2013). The

use of community supervision, as a sanction, is widely accepted in the United States of

America and England criminal justice system (Woldgabreal, Day & Ward, 2014). Riggs

et al. (2014) indicated that community corrections provided offender the opportunity of

utilizing community resources without compromising public safety. Offenders who are

nonviolent are advocated to be diverted from imprisonment into probation, or community

supervision (p. 3).

Riggs et al. (2014) further stated that the diversion into community supervision

would allow and provide nonviolent offenders the opportunity to become productive

citizens and contribute to society (p. 4). Mears et al. (2015) provided in-depth insight

regarding the challenges of appropriate sanctions (imprisonment or non-custodian

sanction) for offenders.

Miller (2014) stated that community correction has the burden and responsibility

of providing transitional alternatives to offenders within the society. Community

correction enables offenders to be held responsible and accountable for the crime

committed to society and still be productive to the society (Wodahl & Garland, 2009).

Incarceration as sole means of deterrence is ineffective in reducing crime (Woldgabreal,

Day & Ward, 2014). Imprisonment increases the proclivity for nonviolent offenders to

reoffend (Woldgabreal, Day & Ward, 2014). Incarceration has not adequately addressed

the recidivism (Mears et al., 2015).

The Nigerian criminal justice system does not provide the structural reforms that

are essential and integral for nonviolent offender’s successful rehabilitation and reentry to

society (Alao & Adebowale, 2014). Yekini & Salisu (2013) stated that Nigeria criminal

justice system could seek for new ways of focusing on offenders’ development, which

would transform into successful rehabilitation.

The Nigerian criminal justice system plagued with the difficulties devoid of

rehabilitation and reformation continued to hinder its capability to perform its intended

rehabilitative roles practically and efficiently (Ladapo, 2011). Alabi & Alabi (2011)

reported that 72.5% of nonviolent offenders lack the rehabilitative structure that is

essential for reintegration into society. The absence of substance abuse and mental health

treatment, and programs, literacy, and employment readiness program for nonviolent

offenders would increase recidivism, prison congestion, and endanger public safety

(Alabi & Alabi, 2011). Nonviolent offenders incarcerated in secure custody will find it

challenging to reintegrate into society (Kelechi, 2013). Kelechi (2013) argued that the

non-availability of a rehabilitative structure and reintegration programs for nonviolent

offenders incarcerated in Nigeria prison make it challenging for the nonviolent offender

to reintegrate back into society.

Atilola (2012) stated that nonviolent offenders sentenced to the different types of

alternative to incarceration could participate in community programs, in the community.

Community programs available to offenders include cognitive behavior therapy,

substance abuse treatment, employment readiness program, vocational training programs,

life and transitional skills, community and volunteer services, and mental and medical

health treatment (Atilola, 2012).

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world (Teague,

2016). There is one in every 100 hundred adults confined in prison system. Over 600,000

adults (male and female) are incarcerated in federal and state prisons while over 10

million adults incarcerated in local jails (McFarlane, 2012; Teague, 2016).

Community corrections in the United States have increased to 7.5 million

offenders supervised in the community, through reentry programs (Frana, 2013). The

criminal justice system in the United States has continuously used alternative to

incarceration to efficiently help offenders fight temptation of criminal behavior and

conduct (Veysey, Ostermann & Lanterman, 2014).

Community supervision is strategically situated to address rehabilitative issues

and challenges that impede cognitive behavior essential for nonviolent offenders’

reintegration, especially from incarceration (Wright et al., 2013). Kelechi (2013) stated

that the pendulum of incarceration is shifting towards reformation, rehabilitation, and

reintegration, which are the bedrock of alternative to incarceration.

Senior et al. (2016) advocated for the implementation of community supervision

in the criminal justice system for nonviolent offenders. The knowledge of community

supervision in criminal justice system addressed the issue of recidivism among

nonviolent offenders (p.17).

The diversion of nonviolent offenders into non-secured confinement provides

opportunities that do not exist during incarceration, for nonviolent in the community

(Miller, 2013). The basis of rehabilitation and reintegration is adopting community

supervision, which addresses the offenders’ needs, criminal behavior, and provides

compassionate structure for nonviolent offenders who will reside in the society (Veysey,

Ostermann, & Lanterman, 2014). Community supervision is designed to address the

unique behavior of nonviolent offenders (Pianka, 2015).

Larkin (2014) argued that community supervision, using reentry programs, aims

to focus on the needs of nonviolent offenders. Reentry programs are envisioned and

intended to deliberately and explicitly address the needs and risk levels of nonviolent

offenders (Sabet et al., 2013).

Rempel, Green, & Kralstein (2012) indicated that reentry programs bring

innovation and unique means of providing reintegration and rehabilitation for nonviolent

offenders, which will ensure public safety and emphasis on human dignity for the public

and nonviolent offenders. Reentry programs, using community corrections, have been

identified as mechanisms utilized for supervising and managing nonviolent offenders’

risks, needs and behavior in the community (Millward & Senker, 2013).

Reentry program establishes the protection and strength for community

reintegration and transformation of nonviolent offenders reintegrated back to society

(Jason, Olson, & Harvey, 2015). Roberts & Stacer (2016) stated that the impact of

faithbased rehabilitative and reentry programs, which should be incorporated and

implemented in community correction, is significant to offender recidivism. Reentry

programs that are designed to address offenders’ specific needs reduce recidivism for

offenders (Duwe, Hallett, Hays, Jang, & Johnson, 2015; Miller, Miller & Barnes, 2015).

The Use of Probation for Nonviolent Offenders

The use of probation for nonviolent offender can rehabilitate nonviolent offenders

in society without confinement to secure custody, imprisonment (Woldgabreal, Day &

Ward, 2014; Pearson, McDougall, Kanaan, Torgerson, & Bowles, 2016). Pearson et al.

(2016) further stated that the use of probation promotes rehabilitation and reduce

recidivism; the goal is to focus on the nonviolent offender and reduce recidivism.

Probation is an alternative punishment that can be used to hold nonviolent offenders

accountable for the wrong committed to society (Evans, Li, Urada, & Anglin, 2014). The

effectiveness of probation provides individualized programs for nonviolent offenders.

Shannon, Hulbig, Birdwhistell, Newell, &Neal (2015) recognized using probation

to hold nonviolent offenders accountable acknowledged the targeting of the nonviolent

behavior as a core value of nonviolent offenders’ unacceptable behavior (non-violent

crime). Koetzle, Listwan, Guastaferro, & Kobus (2013) also recognized the placement of

nonviolent offenders on probation and development of individualized programs is a

demonstration of rehabilitation that can reduce criminal activity. Shannon et al. (2015)

suggested that the over-dependence of imprisonment for all offenders will defeat the

purpose of rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders. The development of individualized

programs for the nonviolent offender is an integral part lead to successful rehabilitation

and recidivism of the nonviolent offender (Tartaro, 2015).

Nonviolent offenders on probation have access to the resources in the community

that allows for self-improvement opportunities (Raynor & Vanstone, 2016). The

resources available to nonviolent offenders assist nonviolent offenders in becoming

lawabiding citizens (Pearson et al., 2016). Koetzle et al. (2013) advocated that the

participation of nonviolent offenders' in cognitive behavior therapy program assist

nonviolent offenders to develop cognitive skills.

The provision of individualized programs (employment readiness programs,

vocational training programs, substance abuse and mental health treatment) for each

nonviolent offender is of great value in achieving probation successes (Koetzle et al.,

2013). The drug court in Miami reported that 92% of nonviolent offenders who

participated in cognitive behavior program made a rational decision that helped

nonviolent offenders to understand consequences of committing new crimes or engaging

in criminal conduct (Koetzle et al., 2013; Woldgabreal, Day & Ward, 2014). The drug

court in Miami further reported that over 2,600 drug courts provided cognitive behavior

program to more than 120,000 people by the end of 2010 (Koetzle et al., 2013;

Woldgabreal, Day & Ward, 2014).

Nally et al. (2014) stated that 94% of nonviolent offenders who participated in

employment readiness and vocational training program from 2005 to 2009 did not

commit new crimes. The California drug court program admits 50,000 nonviolent

offenders every year into the drug court program (Evans et al., 2014). The drug court in

California has a success rate of 92% of nonviolent offenders. The nonviolent offenders

attended substance abuse treatment and completed the conditions of probation (Evans et

al., 2014). Tartaro (2015) reported that 86% of nonviolent offenders who received mental

health treatment during the probation sentence participated in vocational training

programs and maintained employment during the probation term.

Shannon et al. (2015) indicated that the inclusion and impact of nonviolent

offenders’ family members during the period of probation also constitute successful

rehabilitation and recidivism for nonviolent offenders. The integration of nonviolent

offenders into the community during probation supervision provides the support

framework that continues after statutory supervision cease (Evans et al., 2014; Shannon

et al., 2015). Shannon et al. (2015) indicated that 95% of nonviolent offenders who

received family support did not experience recidivism. Shannon et al. (2015) also found

that nonviolent offenders who receive family support improve the cognitive behavior of

nonviolent offenders.

Using community supervision, the use of probation helps nonviolent offenders to

maintain family ties and offers family support to the nonviolent offender (Woldgabreal,

Day & Ward, 2014; Pearson et al., 2016). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2016) reported

that 1 in every 66 per 100,000 United States adult residents serve probation term in 2015.

Also, 95% of nonviolent offenders are in the community serving probation term in 2015

(Bureau of Justice Statics (2016). The use of imprisonment for all offenders including

nonviolent offenders has a damaging effect on society and nonviolent offenders (Pearson

et al., 2016). Pearson, McDougall, Kanaan, Bowles, & Torgerson (2011) stated that it is

essential to evaluate the impact of probation on offenders. The impact of probation on

nonviolent offenders demonstrates the active practice and success of non-custodian

measure. The supervision of nonviolent offenders on probation provides the foundation

for the successful completion of the probation term (Pearson et al., 2011).

Nigerian Statutes on Incarceration

The Nigeria courts are required to sentence offenders to imprisonment, through

the more standard statutory laws. The Nigeria criminal justice system uses incarceration,

as the only punishment option, for offenders who violate the law of the society (Yekini &

Salisu, 2013; Alao & Adebowale, 2014).

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) grants power to

Nigeria courts. The power imprisons offenders. The Nigeria criminal justice system

(courts) convicts these offenders. Chapter IV of The Constitution of the Federal Republic

of Nigeria provides the framework and outline for the protection of fundamental rights,

which right to liberty is guaranteed. However, section 35(1) (a) expressly gives the

Nigeria criminal justice system (court) the authority to deviate and deny offenders from

exercising the right to liberty (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999).

Offenders who have been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment are unable

to enforce their constitutional right to liberty (Araromi, 2015; Ewelum, Madu & Mbara,

2015).

The Criminal Procedure Act (2004) provides for the procedure, regarding

offenders’ arraignment, adjudication, and sentence, to be followed by the criminal justice

system in criminal cases. Part 41 of The Nigeria Criminal Procedure Act was enacted to

provide sentencing guidelines and direction to the Nigeria criminal judicial system

(judges) when offenders have been found guilty of a criminal offense.

The Nigerian Criminal Procedure Act further provides for the use of community

correction (probation), specifically Part 47, as a non-custodian measure for offenders

(Anyebe, 2011; Shajobi-Ibikunle, 2014). Part 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act (2004)

empowers the judges to incorporate hard labor to the sentence of incarceration (Nemi V

Attorney General of Lagos State and Others; Baruwa V the State).

Part 47 of the Criminal Procedure Act enhances and extends the power of the

Nigerian judges to utilize probation when sentencing offenders. Yekini & Salisu (2013)

stated that the provision (Part 47 of the Criminal Procedure Act) empowers the Nigeria

criminal justice system to utilize probation, for offenders.

The Criminal Procedure Act will allow the court to consider offenders character,

antecedents, age, health, mental condition, and the minor nature of the offense committed

(p.110). Yekini & Salisu (2013) further stated that the provision of Part 47 Criminal

Procedure Act existed in theory. Shajobi-Ibikunle (2014) explained that the provision of

Part 47 Criminal Procedure Act would remain in theory, for nonviolent offenders and the

Nigerian criminal justice system. With a more practical, human, and actual contrivance of

the cognizance of sentencing options, the court system will have the more significant

opportunity to sentence nonviolent offenders to community corrections (Osasona, 2015).

Summary and Conclusions

Research about offenders’ supervision in the community exists in other criminal

justice jurisdictions, such as the United States, England, and Wales. However, there is

little to no research available on alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders in

Nigeria criminal justice system. The implementation of an alternative to incarceration,

such as community supervision, is necessary for research for the Nigerian criminal justice

system.

Most research focuses on offenders’ management, humane treatment during

incarceration. Imprisonment and alternative to incarceration exist in the Nigeria criminal

justice. However, the alternative to incarceration only existed in theory for the Nigerian

judges to utilize. Researching the alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders is

valuable to the Nigeria criminal justice system.

There is a need to improve Nigeria criminal justice system, especially judges’

understanding in the alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Reconnoitering

judges’ perception concerning community correction for nonviolent offenders will

provide information, which is about the implementation of community correction.

Furthermore, understanding judges’ perception could increase researchers’

knowledge of the implementation of community supervision for nonviolent offenders in

the Nigeria criminal justice system. The judges have the unwavering understanding of the

criminal justice system in ways and means that other criminal justice professionals do not

have the capability, that is beyond criminal justice practitioners, to understand. This

unwavering understanding could reveal to the criminal justice system opportunities to

create social change, implementation of the alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders.

The objective of this qualitative study was to explore Nigerian judges’

understanding of the use of community correction in the criminal justice system for

nonviolent offenders at the High Court in Ibadan, Nigeria. This study contributed to the

current body of literature by adding new information from a population (Nigerian judges)

that has no study or insufficient study.

The results of this study provided an extensive understanding of alternative to

incarceration (research topic), which provided a better understanding of the alternative to

incarceration to the Nigeria criminal justice system. Also, the results of this research

study would be utilized to implement community corrections for the Nigerian criminal

justice system. Chapter 3 provides the methodology used for this study. Chapter 3 further

discusses the research design and rationale, issues of trustworthiness, and ethical

procedures.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

This purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore Nigerian

judges understanding of the use of alternatives to incarceration in the criminal justice

system for nonviolent offenders. The phenomenological design for this study included

identifying a small group of the Nigerian judges to understand their perception on the

nonuse of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.

In Chapter 3, I describe the methodology for this study. I include a discussion of

the research question, design, rationale, my role as the researcher, the procedures for

participant selection, data collection, data analysis, and the ethical procedures.

Research Design and Rationale

I used qualitative, phenomenological design to explore judge’s perception on the

use of community correction. Also, qualitative, phenomenological design allowed me to

recognize the importance of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data collected

(Creswell, 2013). The interview questions that were used in the gathering and analyzing

of data gave validity and reliability to this phenomenological qualitative study (Creswell,

2013). The following research question used for this study was the following:

RQ1: How will Nigerian judges describe the implementation of community

correction (probation) as alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders? The

phenomenological researcher analyzes data thematically to extract information from

participants (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). The phenomenological study provided

allowed participants to be independent and impartial. Creswell (2013) argued that the

phenomenological researcher can achieve impartiality because the data collected will

align with the phenomenon of study. I used the phenomenological design to explore and

Nigerian judges’ perceptions of using alternatives to incarceration. Finlay (2009) stated

that in a phenomenological design, the participants reveal quality and thick descriptions

of a phenomenon (p. 6).

The phenomenological design can be used to explain the complexity of social

sciences and provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon under investigation

(Greineder, 2013). This phenomenological design allowed me to understand the

participants collective or shared life experiences of a phenomenon (Creswell, 2013).

Creswell (2013) argued that the phenomenological design will provide an understanding

of individual experiences. Finlay (2009) described the phenomenological design as

describing and divulging the relationship between individuals and the phenomenon to

understand what has been investigated. The phenomenological design involved the

identification of participants who had experience in the Nigeria Criminal Justice System.

These participants are the "experiential experts on the phenomenon” that is being studied

(Rudestam & Newton, 2015). I chose a phenomenological design because I wanted to

understand the perceptions of Nigerian judges in the implementation of alternatives to

incarceration in the criminal justice system.

Role of the Researcher

The purpose of this study was to explore the Nigerian Criminal Justice System the

offenders sanctioned to imprisonment. My role as the researcher was to discover the

participant’s experiences and connect those experiences to the theory of the phenomenon

(Dowling & Cooney, 2012). It is imperative that a qualitative researcher identify his or

her role to establish the integrity of the research (Sanjari, Bahramnezhad, Fomani,

Shoghi, & Cheraghi, 2014). My role was that of a researcher and interviewer. I did not

have any personal relationships with the participants. I did not have any professional

relationships with the participants. However, I am a member of the legal profession in

Nigeria. I was not acquainted with the participants. I did not have any supervisory role or

power over the participants in this study. It was vital for me to be objective throughout

the stages of data collection and analysis. I avoided biases by not controlling or inducing

participants responses during the collection of data. I did not have personal or previous

knowledge of the research participants. I provided the participants the opportunity to

review responses or comments they provided. I verified and reverified the subscribed

notes to minimize bias. I communicated my role to the participants to establish integrity

for this qualitative study. I explained the process of selecting participants for this study.

Participant confidentiality in the information they provided was protected. Also, I

informed participants that this study was directly related to my professional career.

Methodology

Participants’ Selection Logic

The population for this qualitative, phenomenological study was comprised of

judges of the high court located in the Southwest Division, Nigeria. I obtained the sample

from the population identified. Criterion and purposeful random sampling were used to

select participants for this study. Criterion sampling was used to select participants

because of their specialized and unique knowledge of the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System, which was needed to provide to responses provided to the research question.

Purposeful random sampling was also used to select participants on criteria that were

critical to this study to gain an understanding of alternatives to incarceration for

nonviolent offenders. Therefore, 10 judges were selected to gain insight into their

perceptions on an alternative to incarceration. These 10 Nigerian judges were selected to

attain credibility.

A criterion and purposeful random sampling were used to select the judges for

this study. The high courts in the Southwestern region states have qualified judges. All of

the judges in the Southwest State superior courts had decided criminal cases involving

nonviolent offenders in the criminal justice in Nigeria. I contacted these 10 judges via

telephone and e-mails to participate in the study (See Appendix B). Subsequently, these

10 participants participated in interviews via phone, e-mail, and video conferencing.

Sample size depends on the criteria of the study, such as the credibility, reliability,

population size, and the purpose of the study (Robinson, 2014). The sample size of 10

judges was consistent with Creswell’s (2013) suggestion for a phenomenological study.

Creswell suggested that 10 participants will be sufficient as a sample size for a

phenomenological study. The purpose of the research study, research question, timeframe

required for the completion of the study, and availability of financial resources for the

study also determines the sample size in a phenomenological study (Lawson, Reynolds,

Bryant, & Wilson, 2014). Creswell suggested that fewer participants can be adequate to

attain redundancy or saturation. A researcher obtains saturation or

redundancy when no new themes or concepts emerge, and no new information transpires

from the participants (Creswell 2013).

Instrumentation

I used an interview protocol as an instrument in this study. Interview protocols are

commonly used in a qualitative study (Millward & Senker, 2012). The interview protocol

provided procedures to guide me during the interviewing process of the participants

(Chan, Fung, Chien, 2013; Millward & Senker, 2012). I prepared the instrument for the

interview protocol. Participants of this study received the instrument (See Appendix D).

I have 9 years of experience conducting investigations using open- and closeended

questions, which decreases concerns that may affect the validity and reliability of the

instrument used for data collection (Conney, 2012). The data collection instrument

provided insight into judges’ perceptions of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders (Greineder, 2013). Interview protocols developed for this qualitative study did

not manipulate or control participants during the interview process (Chan et al., 2013).

E-mail, phone, and video conferencing were used to conduct the interviews.

Interview questions provided answers to the research question. Additional interview

questions were not required. Participants were provided with transcribed notes to clarify

any ambiguity that may arise from the participants’ responses. Only two participants

provided clarification to the response provided.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

I was responsible for the collection of the data used for this qualitative study. Data

collection was from judges who had experience in the criminal justice system in the

Southwest high court in Nigeria. I sought the approval of the chief judge to interview the

justices of the high court in Southwestern Nigeria for this study (See Appendix A). I

requested the names of the justices of the high court from the chief judge. I made the

initial contact to each participant via telephone. Subsequently, I scheduled phone and

video conferencing interviews with each participant. I explained the study to each

participant and asked for participation.

I provided the introductory letter (consent form) to the judges. The introductory

letter notified the research participants of the overview of this research study, methods of

communication, the time frame of the data collection, and confidentiality. I explained the

consent form to the research participants. I asked the research participants if the

participants understood the consent form.

I informed the participants that I will record, transcribe, and store the response

from the phone interview to ensure anonymity. I also informed each participant that

participation from each research participant was voluntary, and each research participant

could terminate the interview at any time or stage of the interview. The participants were

asked to choose a preferred method of communication, which allowed the participants to

be comfortable during the interview phase. E-mail, telephone, and video conferencing

were subsequently used to contact the ten judges. I began to conduct the phone interview.

I collected data using open-ended question and one probing question. I structured the

open-ended questions and probing question to gain the participants understanding and

perception of the use of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. The

participants case assignment (court schedule) determined the duration of the interview for

this research study. I ensured that the interview process and duration were not longer than

30 minutes. I recorded (using digital sound recorder), transcribed, and stored the

interview notes including transcriptions, from participants. I used the Echo Smartpen to

record and transcribe recordings from the phone interviews.

I ensured that each research participant's responses were kept confidential. I

identified and assigned each research participant with codes, for example, P1, P2, P3, P4,

P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, and P10. I organized the collected data and created files for the

transcription. I saved the files on a password protected computer and flash drives. I will

destroy the data after five years as established by the protocol of Walden University.

The research participants received appreciative letters for participating in this research

study and providing valuable insight of alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders into the Nigeria Criminal Justice system. I informed participants that I might

re-contact participants for additional questions, if necessary, that may arise from

participant responses.

Data Analysis

I transcribed the phone recording produced from the digital recordings for each

participant into text or note. I reviewed the collected data and transcribed notes to ensure

that each participant provided an answer to the RQ: How will Nigerian judges describe

the implementation of community correction (probation) as alternatives to imprisonment

for nonviolent offenders?

The research question was designed to gain understanding into judges’ perception

on an alternative to incarceration for non-violent offenders. The collection of data from

participants was very helpful in understanding this phenomenon.

The analysis of data collected was used to identify and analyze responses to the

research question. The data analysis assisted me to identify, determine, and analyze

participants’ responses (how judges will describe the use of community correction as

alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders) that provided distinctive and

unique attribute in understanding the phenomenon that is being studied (Pietkiewicz &

Smith, 2014).

I was able to focus on participant perception of incarceration of nonviolent

offenders in Nigeria criminal justice system. I used a Smartpen for taking note during the

interview. I wrote notes during the interview process to help to build a relationship with

the transcribed text. The practice helped me to classify and identify themes (Friese,

2014). I transcribed the interviews responses from the research questions to codes. I read

and transcribed the data, which were information or responses from the research

participants (judges) perception.

I was able to organize and group the codes into categories and themes. The

grouping of responses into codes, categories, and themes provided further clarity into the

judges’ perception of community correction and the use of an alternative to incarceration

for nonviolent offenders. The sample size for this research study did not preclude hand

coding. Hence, I did not use software to analyze the data. I used efficient manual coding,

hand coding, did not affect the credibility, reliability, and validity of this qualitative study

(Tessier, 2012).

I understood the information or responses received from the research participants.

I highlighted every word that is essential to the phenomenon this research was exploring.

I managed and organized the data that I collected. I used the electronic and hard-copy

files to store the information I received from each participant. The files included

transcripts, documents generated by e-mail, telephone, and video conferencing (Patton,

2002; Creswell, 2013). I extracted statements to understand how participants understood

and perceived alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. The raw data from the

telephone interviews permitted me to use many tools for interpretation. The phone

interviews began the process of discerning the phenomenon. Telephone interviews have

the same value of equality with face-to-face interviews (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2007).

I used the Echo Smartpen to transcribe and read the transcription from the interview to

understand the research participants’ responses. I identified repeated words and phrases

that were relevant to the phenomenon of the research study and consistent with each

participant’s responses. I reviewed the transcription and labeled the repeated words and

phrases into codes and categories. I categorized each participant responses into themes. I

used the follow-up interview (clarification from participants responses) to strengthen the

understanding of the research participant responses. The research participant had the

opportunity to provide additional information, clarification, or remove information that I

may have erroneously recorded.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Credibility, in a qualitative study, created confidence to researcher’s audience, which

this exploration of study established as accurate, without bias (Yin, 2013). Credibility

reassured me of the understanding of this research study phenomenon and increased

the audience confidence in the research findings of this phenomenological study

(Creswell, 2013).

I attained credibility through the application and approval of the Walden

University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB approval number is 07-28-

170332447. I used triangulation to validate and increase the reliability of this research

study. The accurate recording of participants’ responses, the assurance of confidentiality

of participants (which led to extended contact in establishing a professional

understanding of the participants) appraisal of transcription notes, which clarified

ambiguity, and the process of data analysis contributed to the trustworthiness of this

study (Cope, 2014).

I used member checking from participants. The participants had the opportunity

to review their responses, which further increased the credibility of this research study. I

attained saturation when no new themes emerged from participants’ responses. The open

line of communication and contribution from my committee members (chairperson and

second committee member) contributed to the credibility of this research study. I used

reflectivity.

I ensured that this research study established measures that determined the validity of the

research study. I triangulated the data to confirm and validate each research participant’s

responses (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2013).

I summarized each participant’s responses and forwarded the summary to each

participant to ensure that this research study attains consistency. With the use of

triangulation, I ascertained pertinent information that generated rich and accurate

reflections of research participants’ responses. I also attained credibility using openended

questions which ensured honest responses from the research participants. I used peer-

reviewed and member checking to ensure credibility. Participants’ were reminded of my

role in this research study, which reduced and eliminated any form of biases from me.

Transferability

The importance of using full description provided a detail and accurate account of

information from the data collected (Yin, 2013). The factual findings of data analyzed

from this qualitative study further validated this qualitative study. My audience will have

the opportunity to transfer and use the results of this research study to comparable

criminal justice systems that have features and structures similar and applicable to the

research study (Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013). I also provided equal

opportunity to each participant to give the additional thick description of non-custodian

measures for the nonviolent offender in the Nigeria criminal justice system. I included all

the detailed description of research participants’ responses which established

transferability. Rich and thick description verified the findings of this qualitative study.

Dependability

I used the audit trail to establish and ensure that I was diligent and cautious. Also,

I reviewed the data on numerous occasions (I conducted several reviews of the data) to

eliminate mistakes and biases. Also, I used the audit trail to ascertain and attain accuracy,

consistency, and reliability, during the stages of procedures for data participation, data

collection, and data analysis (Creswell, 2013; Cope, 2014). I used bracketing to reduce

my bias to reflect reliability and consistency of the research study.

The accuracy and coherence of this research study ensured dependability of the

research study. This research study increased and established dependability through the

objective presentation of data and preservation of all records of this research study for

five years as established by Walden University protocol. I used and provided an audit

trail which was also used to establish dependability.

Confirmability

My role as the researcher was reflected and communicated to the participants. I

utilized procedures, to maintain the objectivity that eliminated errors and remained

unbiased throughout the process of this study to attain confirmability, which will provide

validation to this qualitative study (Polit & Beck, 2013). I used reflectivity, selfreflection,

to eliminate biases and errors during data collection and analysis (Yin, 2013).

Ethical Procedures

I applied, abided by applicable Walden University IRB guidelines, and obtained

IRB approval (the IRB approval number is 07-28-17-0332447) for this research study.

Participants for this qualitative study were judges. I obtained an agreement from the chief

judge of the high court in the southwestern region of Nigeria to interview judges of the

High Court of the southwest region of Nigeria. I also abided by all ethical guidelines

from Nigeria. I obtained additional research ethics training (Training and Resources in

Research Ethics Evaluation, Nigeria). I communicated the purpose of this research study

to the research participants.

This qualitative study was conducted using the telephone, e-mail, and video

conferencing. I ensured and assured that all ethical standards that protected the

participants were followed and observed. I protected the anonymity and confidentiality of

the participants. I explained the purpose of this research study to the participants. I used

password protection to maintain data integrity privacy and confidentiality.

I informed (via e-mail and telephone) and provided participants with an informed

consent form, which included assuring the participants of confidentiality and anonymity.

Participants received and returned the form, consent form, via e-mail. I guaranteed

participants of confidentiality and anonymity. I did not publish or reveal participant

names (codes will be used and assigned to participants). I did not identify participants by

real names. I assigned codes to research participant names. I assured the research

participants that all identifiable information and collected data are confidential and

secured in a locked file in my possession and control.

I did not promise or give any compensatory or rewards to the participants. I did

not force participants to participate in this research study. I conducted interviews

professionally. I informed the research participants that participants could end the

interview at any time and continue at a later date and time. I also notified the research

participants that participants would refuse to participate in this research study or

withdraw from taking part at any time or stage of the interview process.

I secured participant information (the research data including steps taken to

collect the data, data analysis, and storage of the data, are safely secured) for 5 years in a

locked file cabinet. Also, I protected participant information with a password following

Walden University protocol.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore Nigerian

judges’ understanding of the use of alternative to incarceration in the criminal justice

system for nonviolent offenders. I provided comprehensive information on the research

design and rationale. I further outlined my role as the researcher.

I discussed the methodology for this study which included the participants’

selection, the process and procedure for data collection, and data analysis. I, thoroughly,

discussed the issue of trustworthiness and ethical consideration for this research study. I

will discuss the results and findings of this research study in chapter four.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

This purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore Nigerian

judges’ understanding of the use of alternatives to incarceration in the criminal justice

system for nonviolent offenders. The qualitative, phenomenological study provided

insight into the judges’ perception of noncustodial measures for nonviolent offenders in

the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. I used the following research question to explore

judges’ perceptions of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders in the

Nigerian Criminal Justice System:

RQ: How will Nigerian judges describe the implementation of community

correction (probation) as alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders?

I used an exploratory research question (open-ended question) that was

epistemological in seeking to capture participants' understanding and perceptions of the

use of community corrections in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

This chapter includes the description of the research setting, participants'

demographics, data collection process, data analysis, the resulting themes and subthemes,

the mechanism that establishes evidence of trustworthiness, and the results of the

research. I will conclude Chapter 4 with a summary of the chapter.

Setting

I used a phenomenological design for this study to identify a small group of

Nigerian judges to gather their perceptions on the nonuse of an alternative to

incarceration for nonviolent offenders. I randomly selected 10 judges for phone and video

conference interviews based on their specialized legal knowledge of the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System and assignment to criminal court. Specifically, I randomly

selected judges who had direct contact in sentencing nonviolent offenders.

The participants had access to their chambers (office). Participants’ chambers

were the favorable atmosphere for conducting an interview. Participants' chambers are

private, which assured privacy to the participants and myself. Participants must grant

access to anyone before gaining access to participants’ chambers. The participants

assured me that no one was present at the participants' chambers during the entire phone

interview. The participants received an introductory letter. The participants agreed to

participate in this study. The participants responded to the interview questions. I was not

aware of personal or organizational structures, requirements, or conditions that influenced

the study participants.

Demographics

The participants were qualified to hold the office of a high court judge in the high

court in Nigeria. The participants met the two minimum qualification requirements:

•The participants are qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria.

•The participants are qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria for

not less than 10 years. Participants were comprised of males and females

from the Southwest of Nigeria, one of the geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

The participants were not asked to reveal their age. However, the minimum

retirement age of the participants was 60 years. The mandatory retirement age of the

participants was 65 years. The participants had specialized knowledge of the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System. I presented participants’ demographics in Table 1.

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Participants

Gender

Row 1 P1 Male

Row 2 P2 Male

Row 3 P3 Male

Row 4 P4 Female

Row 5 P5 Mal

Row 6 P6 Male

Row 7 P7 Female

Row 8 P8 Male

Row 9 P9 Female

Row 10 P10 Male

Data Collection

The agency head (chief judge of the high court) provided me with the contact

information of participants (justices of the high court) who have presided and decided

criminal cases involving nonviolent offenders in the criminal justice in Nigeria. Ten

participants participated in this study. I contacted the participants by phone and e-mail. I

conducted the phone interview in July and August. I interviewed participants in

participants' chambers. I ensured that the duration of the interview did not exceed 30

minutes.

The interview protocol and questions (see Appendix D) for this study were

designed to attain the perceptions of the Nigerian judges in using an alternative to

incarceration. The interview protocol provided the procedures that guided this study

during the data collection process. I provided the consent form to the participants before

the start of the interview questions. Also, each participant understood the information in

the consent form and gave verbal consent to participate in this study.

I recorded and transcribed phone interview notes from the participants. I gave the

participants the opportunity to review the transcribed notes. I informed all of the

participants to review the transcribed notes to ensure that I accurately captured and

transcribed the data. The participants received the transcribed notes by e-mail. Two

participants provided clarification to the transcribed notes. One of the clarifications

involved the correct spelling of a legal terminology (Allocutus) and the meaning of the

legal terminology (plea for leniency by the convict's counsel). The other participants did

not provide additional information or further clarification to the information provided.

The participants permitted me to audio record the interview. I assigned codes to

participants, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, and P10. I recorded data by way of

handwritten participants’ responses, audio recordings with an Echo Smartpen to record,

and transcribed recordings from the phone interviews, which was transcribed to preserve

and maintain data.

Data collection for the study consisted of six structured interview questions and

one probing question. The participants did not make any objection to the audio tape of the

interview. I did not re-contact participants for additional questions. Responses from

participants from the initial interview answered the research question (responses from

participants were adequate and sufficient). There were no deviations or unusual

circumstances encountered throughout the data collection process. I did not encounter

any unusual encounter during the duration of data collection.

Data Analysis

I developed the data analysis process from the phenomenological methods

outlined by Saldana (2013). Saldana recommended that a researcher should understand

the meaning of participants’ experiences through the insights of the participants who

experienced the phenomenon. Also, Saldana provided reflective measures for data

analysis in a phenomenological study. I used Saldana’s data coding process and analysis

process to obtain a thick and quality description that provided details description of

participants experiences of the study (Carlson, 2010). I used manual coding to analyze the

data I received from the participants. I transcribed the raw data using Echo Smartpen. I

used the Echo Smartpen to transcribe all audio recordings into a Microsoft Word

document. After completing the transcription, I reviewed and examined participants’

responses.

I verified the written notes with the transcribed notes. I was able to review the

written notes and audio recordings from the participants' responses. I uploaded the files

(transcribed notes) onto my computer. I created a response form. I used the response form

to record and review all participants' responses. I transferred all responses into one

document. I reviewed the transcripts, responses, written notes, and reflection through

memos, and I identified participants’ significant and recurring statements. I related each

transcript and participant responses to the research question. I identified nine codes

(offenses, behavior, punishment, offender placement, cost of incarceration, a second

chance, awaiting trial, discretionary court power, and decongestion) from the

participants’ responses. I reviewed and developed the codes into six categories

(classification, new knowledge, deterrence, the influence of the society, delayed trial, and

offender’s awareness).

Five themes (classification of offenses, learning new criminal behavior and

activity, the opportunity for self-improvement, individual legal status, and the provision

of the law) and four subthemes (the objective of criminal justice system, obligation of the

society, forms of punishments, and prison decongestion) emerged. The five themes and

four subthemes emerged from the rich descriptions of participants’ experiences in the

Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

Furthermore, I arranged and organized the data into codes, isolated meaningful

statements, placed statements into categories, reorganized statements again as categories,

and reduced those categories into emergent themes and subthemes. I labeled and sorted

the information I received from the ten participants by grouping all the responses from

each interview question based on the similarity of participant responses. For example, I

grouped each interview question responses with each interview question. I thoroughly

sorted participant responses by examining the sentences and words that the participants

repeated frequently.

Participants used terms such as “rehabilitation,” “reformation,” “an alternative to

incarceration,” “imprisonment,” “mixing with the hardened criminal,” “new criminal

justice law,” and “community service." I formulated meaning to the participants

significant and recurring statements. I placed themes into five themes and four subthemes

(Saldana, 2013).

I reviewed the five themes and generated four subthemes (obtained from

participant experiences) which provided answers to the research question: How will

Nigerian judges describe the implementation of community correction (probation) as

alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders? Also, the themes and subthemes

reflected the participants' perception of utilizing noncustodial measures for nonviolent

offenders. I did not find discrepant cases during the data analysis. I used codes as the

essential element of the research question. The codes facilitated the development of

categories, emergent of themes and subthemes (Saldana, 2013). I presented the thick and

quality description of the data to provide the understanding of judges in utilizing

community corrections in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

I used different methods to increase the credibility of this research study (Carlson,

2010). I applied distinct measures. Before the start of the interview process, I established

my role as a researcher, doctoral student. I read the consent form to each participant. I

followed all credibility methods and procedures as described in Chapter 3. The credibility

approaches and procedures establish the internal and external validity of the findings of

this research study. I used data triangulation to establish credibility. Triangulation was

used to determine credibility. Triangulation was created by cross-checking data of each

participant, reviewing the audio recordings each participant, and checking the interview

notes.

I listened to the audio tapes several and multiple times to ensure that I transcribed

the recordings of the data accurately (Creswell, 2013). I sent the transcriptions to the

participants. The participants did not find any discrepancy in the transcription. The initial

information participants provided were clear. The original information was very

insightful and significant. I gave the participants the opportunity to review the transcripts.

Two participants provided clarification to the transcribed notes. One of the clarifications

involved the precise spelling of a legal terminology (Allocutus) and the meaning of the

legal terminology (plea for leniency by the convict's counsel). The other participants did

not provide additional information or further clarification to the information provided.

Hence, I ensured that there was member checking transpired at this stage.

The participants had the chance to verify that the information they provided to me

(Carlson, 2010). The participants also verified the transcribed notes were accurate and the

information the participants provided corresponds to participants’ experiences (Thomas

and Magilvy, 2011, p. 153). Member checking took place with all the participants. I

asked all the participants to verify and clarify the information I transcribed (Harper &

Cole, 2012). The participants did not add or provide new or additional information. The

participants did not request any part of the transcribed information deleted. I received

feedback and comments from the dissertation committee members. The feedback and

comments from dissertation committee members contributed to the credibility of this

research study. The concepts of member checking supported the trustworthiness, the

credibility, and reliability, of this research study.

Transferability

Polit & Beck, 2013; Houghton, Casey, Shaw, & Murphy, 2013; Yin 2013; Cope

(2014); suggested that transferability can relate and apply to other society through the

results, findings, and conclusions that can pertain to another jurisdiction. Hence, other

jurisdictions that have the same comparable criminal justice systems, with features, and

structures are like Nigeria criminal justice system, can relate and apply the factual

findings through thick description and result of this research study.

The thick description allows the context of this research study transferable to

other criminal justice systems like the criminal justice system in Nigeria (Bitsch, 2005).

The thick description of this phenomenological study gave the participants the

opportunity to provide a thick description. The thick description provides significant

details about participant experiences within the criminal justice system (Houghton et al.,

2013). I ensured that the research methods are consistent during the research study

(Creswell, 2013).

Furthermore, I attain transferability by presenting a clear outline of the research

methods, research design, description of the demographics, and the setting ensure that the

research study could be reproduced in comparable criminal justice systems (Patton,

2002). Furthermore, the research methodology will assist other researchers or jurisdiction

in replicating this study (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). Hence, I carefully reviewed and

analyzed each transcript and appropriately coded all data.

Dependability

Creswell (2013) indicated that dependability reflects the truthfulness, consistency,

and reliability of the qualitative study. Dependability is concerned with the stability of the

findings of a qualitative study over a given period (Bitsch, 2005). There were no

alterations made to the dependability strategies as outlined in Chapter 3. The research

methods and processes are consistent with the final findings and results of data, which

attributed dependability or reliability to the research study (Creswell, 2013). The credible

data collection process assured dependability for this research study (Yin, 2013). The

elimination of mistakes and biases supported the elevation of the dependability of the

research study (Yin, 2013). The accurate review and examination of all transcripts,

interview notes, and coding techniques were repeated many times to increase accuracy

and to reduce or eliminate any mistakes or biases (Cope, 2014; Yin, 2013).

The objective examination of this research study by the committee members

provided oversight and guidance to this research study. I received feedback from

committee members. The feedback from committee members ensured that this research

study could be dependable. I made sure that triangulation and audit trail contributed to the

integrity and dependability of this research study. I used audit trails that describe how

data were collected and kept ensuring dependability (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorensen,

2010). I kept all records of the research study, audio recording, transcripts, interview

notes, results, as required by Walden University. The records of the research study are

kept for 5 years as required by Walden University.

Confirmability

I did not adjust the confirmability strategies I described in Chapter 3. This

research study attained confirmability by ensuring that data were carefully analyzed to

remove error and eliminate biases (Cope, 2014; Polit & Beck, 2013; Yin, 2013). I used

bracketing to eliminate my bias during data analysis. I ensure that my values or beliefs

did not interpose or meddle in the research findings. The careful descriptions of the data

analysis enriched confirmability for this research study (Cope, 2014; Yin, 2013). I

ensured that data was recorded accurately during the data collection. I maintained final

interview notes of the research process. The thorough evaluation, presentation of the

research findings, audit trail, self-reflection, and reflexivity established and assured

confirmability for this research study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The systematical method

that was used to document and organize data before analyzing the data indicates that I

attained confirmability for this research study (Creswell, 2013).

Results

Allan & Dixon (2009) indicated that phenomenological qualitative study gains

insight to the real understanding of participant experiences by bringing into existence

participants experiences of a phenomenon. The research question sought Nigeria judges

understanding of the implementation of community correction for nonviolent offenders

through the experiences of the participants who have unique, specialized, vast and

immense knowledge of the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. Participant responses to the

research question aligned with the emerged five themes and four subthemes.

The research question in this qualitative, phenomenological study is: How will

Nigerian judges describe the implementation of community correction (probation) as

alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders? The participants' experiences

generated five themes and four subthemes. Theme one only generated one subtheme.

Theme two generated one subtheme. Themes three and four did not generate sub-theme.

Lastly, theme five generated two subthemes. I presented the themes in Table 2. Also, I

presented the subthemes in Table 3.

Refer to the appropriate dissertation checklist for guidance on the content of sections in

this chapter.

Table 2

Major Themes

Number of Themes Themes

Row 1 1 Classification of

offenses

Row 2 2 Learning new

criminal

behavior and

activity

Row3 3 Opportunity for

selfimprovement

Row4 4 The legal status of a

defendant

Row 5 5 The provision of the

law

Table 3

Subthemes

Number of

Subthemes

Row 1 1 The objective of

criminal justice

Row 2 2 Obligation of the

society

Row 3 3 Forms of

punishment

Row 4 4 Prison decongestion

Theme One: Classification of Offenses

The participants categorized offenses into simple, a misdemeanor, and felony

(murder, rape, armed robbery and any other types of offenses that will cause bodily harm

to another person). P8 expressed, “… offenders who committed simple and misdemeanor

offenses do not need incarceration. They could receive another form of punishment other

than incarceration…"

P10 stated, “…incarceration should be an effective tool for offenders who are

violent and have committed a felony offense….” P1 pointed out, “…the nonviolent ones

(offenders) that would not cause any harm to the other person…" Also, the participants

stated that the type of offense committed by an offender should commensurate with the

appropriate sanction the offender will receive in the criminal justice system.

P7 and P9 reiterated the importance of using non-secure custody for offenders

who commit a misdemeanor or simple offenses. P7 said, “… offenders who commit light

offenses can serve the prison term in the society…"

The Participant nine opinion did not deviate from the participant seven statement.

P9 stated, “… we can send them to noncustodial places rather than sending them to

custodial places. These offenders can work in the community. The punishment of

noncustodial will be a better option for offenders who commit simple offenses…"

P6 stated:

“…the evidence could disclose the manner in which the accused committed the

dastardly act. The court could consider such dastardly action of the accused person...”

Furthermore, P7 acknowledged, “… the court can consider whether the offender is a first-

time offender in which the court should take into consideration. The behaviors of the

offender during the trial are factors that affect sentencing a nonviolent offender…”

Participants agreed that offenses such as stealing, and "pickpocket" should not

carry the punishment of incarceration. None of the participants opposed the use of an

alternative to incarceration for simple and misdemeanor offenses.

Subtheme One: The Objective of Criminal Justice System

The participants believed that criminal justice system should serve as deterrence,

reformation, and rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders. P2 indicated, “… ordinarily, the

prison should be an avenue for reforming inmates before released from the prison.

However, we discovered that the situation in the country is different…"

The participants in this study laid emphasis that reveals that the Nigerian Criminal

Justice System has not fulfilled its fundamental objective. P2 revealed, “… The

reformative aspect of the custodial sentence has not been achieved optimally with the

present situation in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System…”

P4 had a concern with:

What is the direction of the criminal justice system? So, the question now

is: are we achieving the essence of sending those criminals into prisons if

at the end, by the time they come out, they have become more hardened–

they are now more hardened into crime. So, overall, the criminal justice

system discovered that the prison system in Nigeria today is not

reformative.

P6 expressed:

I think imprisonment should not be the punishment – the sentence

for nonviolent offenders. That is why I said that the community

service might be excellent because the prison system in Nigeria is

not reformatory at all. It hardened the inmates that go there

P9 stated, “… it is not the right punishment, kind of, because it does not reform

nonviolent individuals. It is kind – it tends to have a counterproductive result…"

P3 indicated:

The whole essence of punishment is to serve as reformatory,

deterrence and to rehabilitate. The participants agreed that one of

the goals of the criminal justice system is to act or serve as

deterrence to anyone who had committed crime and also to any

person who wants to commit a crime

P3 further stated, “… one of the principal aims of the objectives of criminal

justice is to deter criminals from continuously committing crimes…"

P4 and P6 indicated that the criminal justice should seek to reform an offender

and serve as deterrence to anyone who maybe wants to commit crimes. These two

participants expressed that imprisonment has not reformed the nonviolent offenders in

Nigeria prisons

Theme Two: Learning New Criminal Behavior and Activity

Three participants (P2, P3, and P6) expressed concerns about the negative

influence of prison on nonviolent offenders. P2 opined:

Nonviolent offender learns new criminal behavior while serving their jail

term. By the time they are out of jail, they would have learned new tricks

on crime. Criminals learned new criminal activity while they are currently

serving their present sentence. I think that nonviolent offenders will have

learned one or more new criminal behavior, they will have learned more

about how to partake in other crimes because the opportunity they have

had in prison to mix with some other hardened criminals.

P2 further stated, “… nonviolent offenders mix with career and hardened

criminals, to learn new criminal activity…"

P3 expressed dissatisfaction in the criminal justice system sentencing nonviolent

offender to prison. P3 expressed:

If the judge now sentences somebody, a nonviolent offender to prison and

the nonviolent offender, unfortunately, is located in the same prison with

hardened criminals who may torment the nonviolent offender’s life, who

may expose the nonviolent offender to grievous offenses than even the one

the nonviolent offender is committed. By the time the nonviolent

offenders release from prison, the nonviolent offender will become a

worse individual before being incarcerated. The nonviolent offender

becomes hardened, and the nonviolent offender repeats the previous

offense (recidivate). Once they are hardened, they do not mind; they keep

going back to prison. They sentence them, they fail to complete the

sentence, and they are back in prison again

P6 noted that the administrators of the criminal justice system are concerned about

offenders learning new criminal activities in prison. P6 stated:

When the offender, a convict is sent to prison the experience shows that

they come out a more hardened criminal. They get out more hardened

criminals. They learn new criminal activity and behavior in prison. They

plan for the operations right inside the prison. They have agents outside so

many of them like that. What they did not know before going to the prison

they learn there and practice when they come out. So, fortunately, the

administrative authorities concerned with the criminal justice

administration they are reacting to this issue

P7 indicated:

There has been the situation when gang’s formation developed in prison,

and they joined these gangs in prison. When they are released, they

become violent and commit further crimes. For example, if somebody is

in prison for stealing, mixes up with people convicted of armed robbery

and, when the nonviolent offenders are released, they will become more

hardened because they have learned new tricks in prison and become more

dangerous. So, I believe imprisonment for nonviolent offenders will do

more harm than good for the society. We have to explore other

alternatives than using imprisonment. The prisons are more of breeding

grounds for criminals than reformative places for nonviolent offenders

Subtheme Two: Obligation of the Society

The participants embraced the support for an alternative to incarceration.

Participants suggested that nonviolent offenders must pay their debts to society. P5

explained:

I believe that the use of alternatives to incarceration would lead to a more

sanitized society. For example, nonviolent offenders would be made to

serve in public places such as motor parks, markets, schools, offices where

the society will see them that they have committed crimes and punished

for the crimes committed. Another example of community service is for

nonviolent offenders to cut grass in public places, like motor parks,

schools, marketplaces and they will be adjourned to have a special outfit,

they will wear showing or indicating the punishment for the offenses

committed. So, the offender will be wearing an outfit in the form of a

dress which will single him out as an offender. If he is cutting grass, in the

full glare of members of the public who are passing by that will be enough

shame for him. At the end of the sentence, he will probably not go to that

crime again. I believe we will get a more sanitized society. The benefit is

that we have a more sanitized society. Somebody who has gone through

the shame of being watched by passers-by cutting grass or cleaning or

clearing the gutters that will shame some people from committing offenses

like that because they will say, 'I do not want to face the type of shame

that these people are facing.' They will probably not do the crime. So, I

believe that alternative to incarceration, in this regard, would be nice

Two participants, P1 and P6, supported the position of P5. P1 stated: They will

now do some community work. They will work in the community, go and

clean certain public places for some days which I think it is a better

arrangement. If someone stole an item that the value is not much, probably

a hundred naira (two cents), or 1000 naira ($3.00) instead of engaging in

sending such a person to a term of imprisonment. It is better that we just

ask such a person to engage in community service: clean up some areas.

An option of the fine should be given to the offender particularly a first-

time offender

P6 suggested:

Somebody who is doing community work and especially if it is in the

place of birth. Place of birth or place where the person is very well known.

That will expose the person to so many things. People around will know.

Those who did not know that the person is a convict will know…" P6

further suggested, “…there should be a re-think; there should be a review of policy on

sentencing in this regard…” P6 further believed that the society spends too much

money to incarcerate non-offenders.

P8 said, “… the expenses the government incur in keeping our prisons can be

channeled to other places..."

P2 advocated that the society must provide the social framework for the people in

society. Nonviolent offenders commit these crimes because the society does not empower

them. P2 emphasized that nonviolent offenders cannot justify violating the law in society.

However, society should provide the social support for the less disadvantaged people in

society. The advocacy of P2 revealed that society has failed to carry out its social

responsibility towards the people. P2 emphasized:

Because some young offenders who had stolen items, such as, phones,

mobile set, phones, jewelry, but it is discovered that by the time they committed those

offenses, it would be the act of lack of want and making ends meet. Nobody is saying that

young offenders should steal from people. Nobody is justifying anybody stealing from

other people Only P2 revealed (part of the responses to Sub-theme two) that the society

must provide the social framework for the people in society. Nonviolent offenders

commit these crimes because the society does not empower them. P2 emphasized that

nonviolent offenders cannot justify violating the law in society. However, society should

provide the social support for the less disadvantaged people in society. The advocacy of

P2 revealed that society has failed to carry out its social responsibility towards the people.

P2 emphasized:

Some young offenders who had stolen items, such as, phones, mobile set,

phones, jewelry, but the further inquiry would reveal that by the time they

committed those offenses, it would be the act of lack of want and making

ends meet. Nobody is saying that young offenders should steal from

people. Nobody is justifying anybody stealing from other people

Theme Three: Opportunity for Self-Improvement

The criminal justice system should recognize the inherent dignity of nonviolent

offenders. P7 indicated, “… nonviolent offenders would have the opportunity to change

the deviant behavior. The justice system needs to treat nonviolent offenders fairly, be

receptive to nonviolent needs, and affords these people the chance to self-improve and

develop themselves in the society..."

P2 corroborated P7 statement. P2 stated:

It is a process which should have its desired effect. An offender serves a

period of punishment within the community, attend counseling,

educational, and training program. Thus, the offender receives appropriate

supervision in the community.

P2 further stated,

The nonviolent offender has a second opportunity, through serving the

punishment in the society, and the nonviolent offender realizes that he or she could have

received a more severe form of punishment, imprisonment. The nonviolent offender has a

second chance to do something good in the society and become a productive citizen. The

offender should take the opportunity for self-improvement and not misuse it. The

opportunity in the community will impact positively on the citizens because, by the time

such an offender completes the community service, there is a high possibility that such a

person would – could come out better for it P2 further emphasized the importance of the

effect of self-improvement for the nonviolent offender. P2 emphasized:

Nonviolent offenders are likely to mix with hardened criminals, and the

likelihood is very high. The nonviolent offender serving community

sentence will not expose the nonviolent offender to such an opportunity

which will arise from a custodial sentence. The facilities are not there for

the nonviolent offender

P2 further emphasized:

One will expect that if someone is having a sentence of one year or two

years imprisonment, he should be able to learn a vocation, spend the time

to improve himself, or herself, or for those who are too young that cannot

read

P2 is concerned that nonviolent offenders incarcerated will not have the

opportunity for self-improvement. P2 expressed:

However, the situation does not allow these inmates to improve their lives.

At the time they are done serving their terms, they could not have become

equipped to impact positively on the society citizens. However, if such an

offender completes the community service, there is a high possibility that

such a person would come out better for it because if it were to be a

noncustodial sentence, not expose him to such – to such an arduous

environment which will arise from a custodial sentence

Theme Four: The Legal Status of a Defendant

Participants expressed the urgent need for the criminal justice system to consider

the use of an alternative to incarceration for individuals (who are not violent) who have a

pending criminal trial. The criminal justice system should consider other options (rather

than using imprisonment for awaiting nonviolent offenders) for the awaiting nonviolent

offenders who have a pending criminal trial.

P1 indicated:

Individuals who cannot afford the fine for a nonviolent offense or such

individual who is just awaiting trial. It will help because the prison system

has a more significant number of awaiting trial inmates (individuals not

convicted of a simple offense). The criminal justice system should not

Incarcerate pre-trial inmates. It will be better for awaiting trial inmates to

have alternatives to incarceration while their criminal cases are pending in

the criminal justice system

P2 explained the problem of the Nigeria criminal justice system regarding people

that are arraigned in criminal court (awaiting trial inmates). However, these people are in

secure custody.

P2 explained:

The problem we have in Nigeria is that there are awaiting trial (pre-trial)

inmates. These Offenders appear before the magistrate court pending

when the office of the director of public prosecutions provides legal

advice. In between the time of arrest, receiving legal advice, and

prosecution, most of awaiting trial inmates will be remanded in prison

custody, and that has created many bottlenecks in the judicial system. We

have come up with this new community service for people who are

standing trial. We have come up with this new community service for

people who are standing trial for non-serious offenses.

P3 narrative revealed that individuals who must have access to a reasonable

criminal trial. P3 expressed:

Many inmates are there awaiting trial for years. Moreover, the constitution

provides in section 36 (4); that every person suspected to have committed

a crime must stand trial within a reasonable time. If somebody is under

incarceration, awaiting trial for years, will the constitutional provision be

rightly said to have been complied justified by the criminal justice system?

Bear in mind; there are some simple offenses which are so-called

nonviolent offenders but are committed which will not attract extended

period of incarceration. However, because the criminal justice system fails

to arraign awaiting trial inmates within a reasonable time, some of the

awaiting trial inmates would have been under incarceration for a more

extended period than the awaiting inmate will have been ordered to serve

in prison. Right now, there are numerous awaiting trial inmates

incarcerated in Nigeria prison

Theme Five: The Provision of the Law

Participants provided extensive details on the new provision of the law

(sentencing options for the judges). Participants expressed satisfaction in the new

criminal justice law. Participants indicated that the new criminal justice law provides for

the provision of community service, an option of fines, warning, or discharge for the

nonviolent offenders.

P9 stated, “… the new criminal justice law gives discretionary powers to judges.

Judges have the discretion to sentence nonviolent offenders to community service, warn,

or discharge the nonviolent offender..."

P8 indicated, “… the law provides the area of crime the criminal justice can

charge an individual. The law recommends community service…”

P2 also indicated, “… the situation in Nigeria with particular reference to Oyo

state, we just passed a new law, which is the administration of criminal justice law…” P2

further indicated:

The guidelines should guide the court in the sentence of nonviolent

offenders. The law stipulates the discretionary use of the option of fine. I

think the court should always exercise its discretion, where the law gives

that opportunity. An option of a fine should be given to the offender

particularly a first time offender. I think with the new law – the new

criminal administration of justice law in place, I think judges will now

have much discretion to sentence an offender to an option of fine, or

community service. I think the judge should exercise the option of a fine

instead of giving a custodial sentence

P5 said:

Well, in our statute book, in the criminal justice system when the judge

wants to sentence an individual that has been found guilty of committing

an offense, the law will prescribe written term, then it gives the judge’s

discretion. Moreover, then the law will also provide for the punishment

(payment of fine as an alternative to imprisonment). In Oyo state, the law

states especially, for minor offenses the court can just warn that person if

the individual has been found guilty of the minor offense. For example, if

it is a simple offense like two students who are not minors, the students

are caught fighting and arraigned in court. The students are charged with

assaults, but not assaults causing harm. If it is just "simple" assault, the

judge can warn the students. 'Why are you fighting? The students have to

be of good behavior'. The judge can warn them and let the students go.

The law allows the judge to use such discretion in this type of situation.

P10 stated:

The court is allowed through the provision of the law to use the option of

a fine for the nonviolent offenses. The court has discretionary power to

give an option of fine. The law allows the court to caution and discharge.

Alternatively, the law also gives the court the power to imprison

nonviolent offender (jail)

P6 indicated, "I think it will be a welcome development. I think that the judge

would give preference to noncustodial measure than to incarceration. Where the law

makes provision for sentencing, the judge cannot depart from the provision of the law.

Subtheme Three: Forms of Punishment

Participants reiterated that the provision of the law would allow judges to use the

possibility of fines, community service, and canning to sentence nonviolent offenders.

P1 stated:

Nonviolent offenders can do community service. The judge can caution

and discharge depending if it is just a light offense, but based on his

Allocutus, appeal for leniency. The judge can use discretionary power to

reduce it for him. The judge can recommend community service, fines,

caution, and discharge. However, community service is the new

development. We now have provisions for noncustodial community

service. Instead of sentencing criminals or people who are found guilty to

have committed a misdemeanor or simple offense, instead of sending them

to a custodial sentence, terms of imprisonment

P2 reiterated:

They are two options. The option of fine and community service, I think

in rare cases, maybe canning, that is still part of the noncustodial sentence.

I think those are the options, “an option of fines,” community service and

then canning

One of the participants advocated for the provision of the law to stipulate

forfeiture and confiscation of offenders’ property. This participant (P3) wants the law to

impose a ban on an individual that have committed fraud, political fraud (people who

have embezzled public or private funds, got elected to political office illegally, and the

court have ordered vacation of the political office).

P3 advocated:

The imposition of a fine is one aspect of the law. Two, confiscation and or

forfeiture of looted property and or embezzled funds. For instance, if somebody

embezzled public fund, the person may use the funds to buy a real property,

buildings in prime areas or cities in any part of the world. If investigation

discovered that the looted property was used to purchase real property, the court

could confiscate such property. Instead of sentencing the person to prison, the

offender could forfeit the property to public and state treasury P3 further

reiterated:

Again, the law can impose compulsory community service. Again, the

judge could impose a ban or disqualify the offender from holding public

office. If for anything the judge now banned or disqualified the offender

from holding public office then the offender will feel the pain

P5 stated:

Well, in this modern age and the time we live in, I believe that we need an

alternative to incarceration for the nonviolent offenders. When we talk of

punishments for nonviolent offenders, such punishment for offenders

should not be imprisonment alone. There should be other forms of

alternatives, community service for nonviolent offenders. There could be

corporal punishments, giving the person some lashes, cane beating. The

judge can provide the option of fines to the offender to be of good

behavior. Within that time limit, if he commits crime again he can be

given a more severe punishment and also, a person can be warned and

reprimanded and maybe alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent

offenders

Also, in one of the P1 responses to the interview questions (see Appendix D for

interview question #6), only one participant (P1) mentioned the use of probation, home

confinement, and electronic monitoring as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders. P1 stated that the use of various alternatives to incarceration is not available in

the Nigeria criminal justice system. P1 said:

The options of probation, home confinement, electronic monitoring are

alien to the Nigerian criminal justice system. There is no probation officer

to monitor nonviolent offenders’ sentence to probation. The Nigeria

criminal justice system does not keep the record

Subtheme Four: Prison Decongestion

Participants expressed concern for the Nigeria prison system. Participants’

narratives indicated that the Nigeria prisons are congested and overcrowded. Participants

advocated for the use of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders which

would result in prison decongestion.

P6 stated:

An alternative to incarceration will not congest the prisons. The prison

itself will not be congested. As we speak now, the prisons are already

congested. For example, a prison built for maybe 600 people maybe

housing up to a thousand or more

P10 said:

The prisons are overcrowded with inmates, particularly awaiting trial

inmates. Community service as punishment for a nonviolent offender is a

welcome development in Nigeria. Most of the prisons are overcrowded

beyond the standard capacity they are built to accommodate. So, it is

highly desirable that the current situation would require an urgent

solution. The criminal justice system should take corrective measures to

reduce the number of offenders incarcerated. The facilities in our prisons

are already over-stretched

P4 stated:

The first one is prison decongestion. Right now, they are prisons that are

over congested. The facilities there are not enough for these prisoners. So,

when we start this community sentencing thing, it could solve some of the

decongesting of the prisons, and it will go a long way in helping the

criminal justice system in Nigeria

P8 stated, “...our prisons are overpopulated. It is the better to use other means to

decongest the prison. If we use alternative to imprisonment, it will reduce overcrowding

in prison..."

P5 said, “... if we explore the alternatives then we will be able to decongest prison.

So, if we explore the alternatives, it will decongest the prison..."

P3 and P7 stated that Nigeria prisons are congested. P3 and P7 suggested that the

criminal justice system could use alternative to incarceration to reduce and decongest the

prisons in Nigeria. P3 is the only participant that specifically mentioned the poor sanitary

conditions (poor feeding housing, and ventilation condition).

Discrepancy and Nonconforming Data

Creswell (2013) stated that discrepancy in a qualitative study (theme) adds

credibility to the research study. The inclusion of discrepant data enhances credibility to

the research findings and gives validity to the qualitative study (Creswell, 2013). I

reviewed the transcripts to determine and locate discrepancy information. I did not find a

discrepancy in the data. I did not identify nonconforming data in this research study.

None of the participants opposed the use of an alternative to incarceration for

nonviolent offenders. All the participants supported an alternative to incarceration

(community service and options of the imposition of fines).

Summary

In Chapter 4, I discussed the results of the qualitative, phenomenological study.

The qualitative, phenomenological study seeks to explore the perceptions of Nigeria

judges in understanding how judges approach the noncustodial measure for nonviolent

offenders in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. I revisited and scrutinized data,

recorded, transcribed, and interpreted participants' responses accurately. The accuracy of

the recorded data conveyed a coherent narrative description of the research phenomenon

(Carlson, 2010).

As presented in Chapter 4, I developed a work ethic relationship with the data. I

utilized manual coding process and analytic memo for reflection which assisted,

enhanced, and broadened the understanding of the qualitative, phenomenological study.

Five themes and four subthemes emerged which provided answers to the research

question. The results (five themes and four subthemes) of the qualitative,

phenomenological study indicated judges’ perception regarding community corrections.

Participants provided insight into the use of the alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders. The participants agreed that the use of the alternative to incarceration is a

desirable development in the Nigeria criminal justice system. Participants further agreed

that the criminal justice system could utilize an alternative to incarceration as a form of

sanction for nonviolent offenders to community service and an option of fine.

In Chapter 5, I will discuss the interpretation of the research findings, limitations

of the study, recommendations, implications, and conclusion.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

This purpose of this qualitative, phenomenological study was to explore Nigerian

judges’ understanding of the use of alternatives to incarceration in the criminal justice

system for nonviolent offenders. The qualitative, phenomenological study provided

insight into the judges’ perception of noncustodial measures for nonviolent offenders in

the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. The qualitative, phenomenological study is

consistent with understanding how judges approach the noncustodial measures for an

offender.

The purpose of this study was to provide an understanding of the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System of the nonuse of an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent

offenders. I focused on how judges make sense of interpreting the criminal statute that

relates to the imprisonment of nonoffenders. Incarceration of offenders is consistent with

Dolinko’s (1997) retributive theory for punishing individuals who violate the law

(Moore, 2010).

Interpretation of the Findings

In the findings from study, I found that the participants expressed the need for the

Nigerian Criminal Justice System to classify and categorize offenses into minor

(nonserious), a misdemeanor, and felony. The nonseriousness of the offenses

(misdemeanor) will determine the criminal justice’s decision to use community

correction. The participants agreed with other researchers (Solomon et al., 2014) that the

criminal justice system must make the conscious effort to categorize offenses before the

criminal justice determines punishment (Armiya’u & Adole, 2015). However, I found

that the criminal justice system does not take into consideration the classification of

offenders into violent or nonviolent before the determination of punishment.

The participants also claimed that the criminal justice system could use another

form of punishment for nonviolent offenders, including noncustodial measures. Using

other types of incarceration to hold nonviolent offenders accountable is a kind of

punishment. Using other forms of punishment is also consistent with holding nonviolent

offenders responsible for the crime committed (Shajobi-Ibikunle, 2014; Yekini & Salisu,

2013).

Furthermore, the participants indicated that the absence of different alternatives to

incarceration has constituted a non-rehabilitative structure for nonviolent offenders.

Participants explained that imprisonment could not reform and rehabilitate nonviolent

offenders. Participants indicated that the use of community corrections would provide

nonviolent offenders the opportunity to reform, rehabilitate, reintegrate, and become

productive citizens. The lack of community correction has made it difficult for nonviolent

offenders to reintegrate into society (Atilola, 2012; Currie 2010; Larkin 2014).

The incarceration of nonviolent offenders does not support the social intervention

that will reform and rehabilitate nonviolent offenders in society. Participants agreed that

the objective of the Nigerian Criminal Justice System is to rehabilitate, reform, and

reintegrate nonviolent offenders into society. Nonviolent offenders incarcerated in

Nigerian prisons do not enjoy the opportunity of rehabilitation, reformation, and

reintegration because the jail negatively impacts nonviolent offenders (Alabi & Alabi,

2011; Alao & Adebowale, 2014). Incarceration of nonviolent offenders in the Nigerian

Criminal Justice System has not constituted a deterrent for nonviolent offenders (Alabi &

Alabi, 2011; Yekini & Salisu, 2013).

This study confirms the previous findings of Gallagher et al. (2015) that the

incarceration of nonviolent offenders’ results into recidivism of nonviolent offenders. The

prison system in Nigeria encourages nonviolent offenders to recidivate. Participants

expressed concerned that nonviolent offenders’ account for contemporary and impending

crimes perpetrated in Nigeria. Participants advocated that the criminal justice system in

Nigeria could use community supervision for nonviolent offenders as an essential aspect

of offender reintegration, rehabilitation, and reentry into society. The failure of the

Nigerian prison system to rehabilitate and reintegrate nonviolent offender to society has

created proliferation in recidivism among nonviolent offenders. Incarceration of

nonviolent offenders in prisons has constituted an adverse impact on society, turning

nonviolent offenders into violent offenders (Onyeozili & Ebbe, 2012; Otu & Nnam,

2014; Still, 2016).

The Nigerian Criminal Justice System focuses on punishment and the act of

controlling crime. Hence, the Nigerian Criminal Justice System focuses on reducing

crime. However, the Nigerian Criminal Justice system has failed to realize that a

correctional system that is devoid of rehabilitation and reformation will remain at risk of

recidivism of nonviolent offenders (Woldgabreal, Day, & Ward, 2014). A nonviolent

offender sentenced to community supervision provides a possible option for the criminal

justice system to reduce recidivism. Participants of this study confirmed the findings of

researchers (Gallagher et al., 2015; Wodahl & Garland, 2009) that incarceration of

nonviolent offenders contributes to nonviolent offenders’ recidivism.

Incarcerated nonviolent offenders learned new criminal behavior that would

increase crime in society, which is a challenge for the criminal justice system (Ajeigbe,

2015). The continued increase in criminal activities committed by nonviolent offenders

has shown that incarceration will not reduce crime. Hence, the participants confirmed the

results of Woldgabreal et al. (2014) that the use of community supervision reduces crimes

and recidivism of nonviolent offenders.

The findings of opportunity for self-improvement is consistent with Omale

(2014), who found that the conditions of the prison in Nigeria have not conferred human

dignity to offenders incarcerated in Nigeria prisons. The system of incarcerating

nonviolent offenders, as a form of punitive means, has led to the denial of opportunity for

self-improvement and advancement (vocational or employment readiness training

programs that nonviolent offenders need to be empowered when supervised in the

community). The Criminal justice system does not provide the nonviolent offenders with

the prospect of transforming (such as providing cognitive behavior therapy and

counseling) the nonviolent offender behavior into a productive citizen.

Omale (2014) also pointed out that non-availability of social programs in the

prison has constituted a social impediment for the opportunity for self-improvement for

the nonviolent offenders. The absence of opportunity for self-improvement and

advancement (vocational training, employment training programs, and other

evidencebased programs) that could improve offenders’ lives are not available during the

incarceration of nonviolent offenders (Ebeniro, 2011).

Participants’ comments on an alternative to incarceration indicated a positive

impact on nonviolent offenders, which confirmed Riggs et al.’s (2014) findings that the

criminal justice system would provide nonviolent offenders with the opportunity to

become productive citizens and contribute to society. The lack of community corrections

deprives nonviolent offenders of the prospect of proclivity in programs that will make

nonviolent offenders become productive citizens. Incarcerating nonviolent offenders in

prison has also demonstrated the lack of adequate resources for self-improvement.

Alternatives to incarceration benefit nonviolent offenders in becoming better citizens

through participation in community programs (opportunity for a second chance in the

community).

I discovered the legal status of a pretrial inmate. The pretrial inmates do not have

the opportunity for community supervision while undergoing criminal trial. The Nigerian

Criminal Justice System does not have pretrial services for defendants who are

undergoing criminal trial. I found that the adjudication of criminal proceedings for the

pretrial detainees is delayed, and the pretrial inmate incarcerated is in prison pending the

outcome of the criminal trial. However, the use of pretrial services is consistent with the

U.S. criminal justice system. The use of pretrial services for nonviolent offenders in the

criminal justice system is an alternative for community supervision (Still, 2016). The

Nigerian Criminal Justice system overcrowds the prison system with pretrial inmates.

The participants revealed that the Nigerian prison system has created worsened

conditions such as inhumane treatment, lack of affording human dignity to offenders,

mistreating offenders, corporal punishment, overcrowding, and turning nonviolent

offenders into vicious and violent offenders. Participants expressed that the use of

alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders improves the conditions of the

Nigeria prison system. Participants claimed that the Nigerian prison system is

overcrowded, which results in inhumane treatment for nonviolent offenders.

Overcrowding in prison facilities has contributed to increased violent crimes.

The findings revealed that the Nigeria criminal justice system in the southwest

state recently enacts a new law, Administration of criminal justice law. Participants

remarked that the new law would transform the Nigeria criminal justice system. The new

law is a new and welcome development that empowers the courts (judges) to exercise

discretionary powers when sentencing nonviolent offenders. In exercising discretionary

powers, the courts can utilize community service, an option of fines, warning, or

discharge for the nonviolent offenders.

The finding further revealed that discretionary court power (to use community

service, an option of fines, warning, or discharge for the nonviolent offenders) is

consistent with the finding of (DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013;).

Community corrections are the mechanism that provides alternatives to incarcerating

nonviolent offenders (DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013).

Furthermore, the provision of the new law is consistent with the Dolinko (1997)

retributive punishment theory. The degrees of the crime should be the basis and

justification for incarcerating offenders (Wildeman, Turney, & Schnittker 2014). The

provision of the new law allows the criminal justice system to use noncustodial measures

for simple (nonviolent) offenses. Also, the provision of the new law supports and allows

Dolinko (1997) retributive punishment theory applicable to the Nigerian Criminal Justice

System. Dolinko (1997) retributive punishment theory stated that offenders deserve the

penalty for the crime committed. The sentence provides reasonable and moral

justification for punishment (Apel, 2013). Additionally, the magnitudes of the crime

should be the basis and justification for incarcerating offenders (Wildeman, Turney, &

Schnittker 2014).

The findings of this research study provide insight and understanding that Nigeria

judges will implement the use of an alternative to incarceration (community correction).

The findings revealed that community service, the option of fines, caution, and discharge

are the forms of an alternative to incarceration that the criminal justice utilized.

Limitations

The sample for this study (Criterion and purposeful random sampling) did not

represent the entire population of the Nigeria Judicial Council. The research participants

were selected based on the court’s criminal division. The participants of this research

study were limited to one state in the southwest of Nigeria and an aspect of the Nigeria

judicial system, the high court.

The population that the research study did not sample may possess a different

understanding from the research participants. I identified, managed, minimized, and

eliminated my bias that has the potential to influence the result of this research study. I

used rigorous accountability procedures to minimize and eliminate my bias (analysis

of the data- showing what the data presents). This research study may not generalize

to the broader population, Nigeria courts system (the superior courts of records that

consist of the remaining 35 high courts and federal high courts for the 35 states in

Nigeria, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court). This research study has addressed

limitations through gaining insight into participants understanding of alternative to

incarceration for nonviolent offenders for the high court in one of the southwestern

regions of Nigeria.

Recommendations

It is evident from the findings of this research study that judges would prefer

community correction as an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Hence,

this study focused on understanding the perception of judges (from one of the geopolitical

regions of Nigeria) in using community corrections for nonviolent offenders. Researchers

could conduct additional studies in the other six geopolitical zones of the criminal justice

system to explore other alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. A further

study conducted in the other six geopolitical regions compared to the findings of this

study can help identify and develop the implementation of other alternatives to

incarceration that may be effective in achieving the objective of the

Nigeria criminal justice system.

The study revealed that the Nigerian Criminal Justice System would utilize the

preferred forms of punishment (community service and options of fines) for nonviolent

offenders. Therefore, further research could examine the impact of the forms of

punishment in the criminal justice system and on the nonviolent offenders. Future

research would explore the establishment of a residential center, facility, or use of

electronic monitoring (alternative to incarceration) for nonviolent offenders. These

alternatives to incarceration would allow nonviolent offenders and nonviolent defendants

who are awaiting trial to participate in community supervision and utilize community

resources. One of the findings from the research study shows that only one participant

mentioned the use of probation for nonviolent offenders.

Hence, it is apparent that the understanding of the use of probation is limited to

the Nigeria criminal justice system. Therefore, additional, future studies should examine

how probation could be used to supervise nonviolent offenders in the community, and

impact the Nigeria criminal justice system in fulfilling the objectives of the Nigeria

criminal justice system.

I would suggest future research to consider the exploration of the challenges the

criminal justice system would face in implementing community corrections through the

lens of magistrate judges and nonviolent offenders. Understanding these challenges could

lead to the development of community programs (employment and literacy training

program, mentoring program, substance abuse, and mental health program) that will

strengthen and assist community correction in fulfilling the objective of the criminal

justice system. The objective of the criminal justice system is to address the

implementation of community supervision by increasing the understanding of Nigerian

judges. One way to increase judges (high court and magistrate) understanding of

community corrections is through conscious effort in continued research targeted towards

various alternatives to incarceration and community programs for nonviolent offenders.

Implications

Positive Social Change

The current study focuses on the alternative to incarceration (community

correction) for nonviolent offenders in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. This study

focused on community correction by attempting to understand how judges approach the

noncustodial measures for an offender in the criminal justice system. The results of the

research study support positive social change directed at increasing and expanding the

understanding of Nigeria legal system, National Judicial Council, and policymakers that

positively influence the criminal justice system using community correction for

nonviolent offenders.

Alternatives to incarceration predominantly target the use of noncustodial

measures to punish nonviolent offenders with the objectives of providing the nonviolent

offender the opportunity for a second chance (for self-improvement in the society),

reducing recidivism (the tendency for the nonviolent offender to re-offend), and the

successful transition of nonviolent offenders to society.

The criminal justice system (Nigerian judicial system) in Nigeria is the legal

institution recognized, mandated and authorized to sanction nonviolent offenders to

noncustodial measures or alternative to incarceration. It is crucial that legal profession,

national judicial council, and policymakers understand the application (discretionary

power of the court to sanction nonviolent offenders) of community correction for

nonviolent offenders as a means of punishment.

Understanding the implementation of community correction is a form of

retributive punishment (phenomenon) that the Nigerian Criminal Justice System would

need to utilize. Community correction would need the support of the Nigeria criminal

justice system, policymakers, and society to be a practical approach of holding the

nonviolent offender accountable (sanction), causing a reduction in recidivism, creating a

second chance for the nonviolent offender, and reducing the problem of overcrowding in

the Nigerian prison system.

The use of incarceration is, unfortunately, typical in Nigeria criminal justice

system and has a propensity of increasing recidivism, lack of rehabilitative structure,

structural reforms, lack of opportunity for self-advancement, and overcrowding of the

prison system. Research studies that increase knowledge, discussion, and understanding

of the phenomena of an alternative to incarceration are relevant and valuable to Nigerian

Criminal Justice System. The Nigeria criminal justice system incarcerate all nonviolent

offenders in Nigeria prisons (National Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Furthermore, the

National Bureau of Statistics (2016) reported that 75% of nonviolent offenders released

from Nigerian prison recidivate. Incarceration of nonviolent offenders and the adverse

effects are remediable by the implementation of alternatives to incarceration (community

corrections). An understanding of the implementation of community corrections is

necessary for the design of alternatives to incarceration that will decongest the Nigeria

prisons, provide the rehabilitative structure, reformatory programs, and treatment the for

nonviolent offenders in the Nigerian Criminal Justice System.

The criminal justice system has an important responsibility to educate the

policymakers, inform the public, and conduct research that is relevant, applicable, and

consistent toward the use of alternative to incarceration in ways that foster and lead to

social improvement and change for the members of the public. This study will provide

the insight to community corrections for policymakers in providing the legal framework

and structure (creating community correction agencies) that will have a positive impact

on the criminal justice system, society, and nonviolent offenders.

Conclusion

This study offers a significant contribution to the existing literature and would

enhance social change initiatives through the better understanding of community

corrections that nonviolent offenders need community supervision in the society rather

than incarceration. The administration of the Nigerian Criminal Justice System needs to

realize that the imprisonment of nonviolent offenders in prison without the use of

alternative to incarceration does not align with the contemporary criminal justice systems

from other jurisdiction (United States of America, England, and Wales). The criminal

justice system in the United States of America, England, and Wales have utilized

community corrections as the consistent practice of correcting offenders' behavior using

alternatives to incarceration (DeMichele, 2014; Teague, 2016; Wright et al., 2013).

The findings of this study revealed that Nigerian judges would utilize community

corrections. Nigeria criminal justice system would embrace alternatives to incarceration.

However, the limited research in the Nigeria criminal justice system, regarding the use of

alternative to incarceration, would require further guidance and direction on the

implementation of community corrections. Conducting future research in Nigeria

community corrections would determine the accomplishment of the new guidelines

(community corrections) as mentioned in the recommendation of this research study.

The use of community corrections for nonviolent offender supervision in the

community would provide the opportunities for self-improvement (social interventions in

literacy and employment training programs, cognitive behavior therapy, substance abuse,

and mental health treatment) for nonviolent offenders. The alternatives to incarceration

would incorporate opportunities for self-improvement as punitive measures to

rehabilitate, reintegrate, and reform nonviolent offenders as well as holding nonviolent

offenders’ accountability in society. The participants' expressed concerns that the

continued use of imprisonment for nonviolent offenders would not reform, rehabilitate,

and reintegrate nonviolent offenders back to society. The participants' concerns are

consistent with previous research that the use of imprisonment for nonviolent offenders

does not support reformation, rehabilitation, or reintegration of nonviolent offenders back

to society (Yekini & Salisu, 2013; Gallagher, Nordberg, Ivory, Carlton, & Miller, 2015).

Students also viewed