Discussion Thread: Observations and Implications of Recidivism
MANAGE DISCUSSION
This is a graded discussion: 60 points possible
due Apr 27
No unread replies.No replies.
After reading Chapter 6 of the Mosher textbook, discuss how the process of measuring
recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections policies.
After reading the article "The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate" by Padfield and Maruna,
discuss any areas of research bias and any observed areas of less substantive research. Where did
you find these elements. What were they?
Please review the Discussion Assignment Instructions Download Discussion Assignment
Instructions prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show
Rubric.
Discussion Resources
The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate Links to an external site.
Post-First: This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussions. This means you will
only be able to read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your
thread in response to the provided prompt.
Submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of Module 6: Week 6.
Measuring recidivism is essential when dealing specifically with corrections. In order to
determine how effective correctional practices and criminal justice policies are, criminologists,
legislators, and criminal justice practitioners rely heavily on the measuring of recidivism or
revocation of parole or probation (Mosher, 2011). The overall picture can be understood by
tracking data derived from reincarceration or criminal activity (Mosher et al., 2011). This data
requires accuracy. A proper measure can provide an accurate picture of success, effectiveness, or
even failure. If this depiction is skewed or the data is incomplete, it can lead policymakers astray
(Mosher et al., 2011).
While reading this week’s article, it became rather disturbing to uncover biased publication
selection. One disturbing feature discovered was that in proving the failure claim, the data mainly
focused on California (Padfield & Maruna, 2006). Even though the article indicated that other data
was easily available, no investigation was conducted to examine all of the other data across the
country. Another issue raised was that an exceedingly imprecise and empty description was
provided to describe the last 25 years of a high imprisonment rate (Padfield & Maruna, 2006). In
this essay, the only grounds to blame were higher imprisonment rates. There was no other
explanation provided. No data or information to explain the national-level outbreak of overcrowded
prisons or the increased incarceration rates. They took the data from California and used it to
represent the United States as a whole. Then used it to compare the U.S. to other countries. The
article included substantial research on bias concerns that were also less meaningful to the study
offered. Individuals have different ways of defining recidivism. A violation can carry different
weights depending on the person’s cultural and moral belief system. Some people see something
as simple as forgetting to put on their turn signal as something that can be overlooked; whereas,
another person may see that if that person gets a pass this time it could lead to a terrible accident
next time and choose not to overlook it. Mosher et al. (2011) assert that service-oriented officers
often overlook minor offenses to avoid incarcerating offenders again. Mosher et al. (2011) point
out that officers oriented toward law enforcement would send those offenders back to prison. In
order to avoid self-bias, officers must be careful not to disregard minor violations. If recidivism
is measured and applied appropriately, the data can be used to correct policies effectively.
Mosher et al. (2011) bring to light that inaccurate corrections to policies have negative
consequences, affecting communities. There is a predisposition to recidivism that will often lead
a criminal to re-offend if not used or measured correctly due to ineffective policies in place.
Padfield and Mauna (2006) suggest that there is bias and misunderstanding regarding this topic
because there is no research to support its importance. The article states that research neglects the
issue despite seeing a rise in re-offending. “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who
seek the Lord understand it completely” (English Standard Version, 2001/2023, Proverbs 25:5).
References
English Standard Version. (2023). Bible hub. https://biblehub.com/proverbs/28-5.htm (Original
work published 2001)
Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Hart, T. C. (2011). The mismeasure of crime (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN: 9781412981811.
Padfield, N., & Maruna, S. (2006). The revolving door at the prison gate. Criminology &
Criminal Justice, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895806065534
After reading Chapter 6 of the Mosher textbook, discuss how the process of measuring
recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections policies.
ecidivism, it is important to note that contrary to popular belief, sex offenders are among the
least likely groups of offenders to commit new offenses and are no more likely to be specialists
than non sex offenders (see Barnoski, 2006; Lucken & Bales, 2008; Miethe, Olson, & Mitchell,
2006). The flurry of legislative activity designed to control sex offenders in several jurisdictions
in the United States over the last two decades, including sex offender registration, community
notification, residential restrictions, and civil commitment laws, indicate that legislators are
similarly uninformed about the empirical data on sex offenders.
-
Ex 1
CJUS 601 DB6
Set 1
Measuring recidivism is extremely important when dealing specifically with corrections. Data
derived from individuals being reincarcerated or committing crimes should be tracked so thatthe
overall picture can be understood (Mosher, 2011, p. 200-201). Accuracy comes to mindwhen
dealing with this data. Any proper measure helps depict success, effectiveness, or evenfailure at
times. If this depiction is skewed or the data is inadequate then it can lead policymakers astray
(King & Elderbroom, 2014). In reading this week’s article it became ratherconcerning to discover
biased decisions in a publishing. Regarding “The Revolving Door at thePrison Gate,” one
troubling aspect that was found was that in justifying the argument for failurethe data specifically
focused only on California (Padfield & Maruna, 2006, p. 340-341). Eventhough the article
mentioned that there was other data readily available there was no researchmade to look at all the
other data across the nation. Another point that came into question wasthat an extremely vague and
empty synopsis was given to explain the past 25 years for a high incarceration rate (Padfield &
Maruna, 2006, p. 341). Higher incarcerations rates were the only sole reasons to blame here in this
article. No other explanation, data or information was givento explain crime rates, higher
incarnation rates or a national level epidemic for overcrowding prisons. Data obtained from
California was solely used to represent the entire United State sand make a comparison to other
countries. From a biblical perspective, there is a lot of power at play when it comes to measuring
data and information. Policy makers need accurate and reliable data to help justify an action for
change…
Ex 2
The process of measuring recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of
correctionspolicies as they directly show what is and what is not working for offenders that are
beingintegrated back into society. These policies are created based upon the information of what
isworking for those integrating back into society and what is not working in terms of how
soonthey reoffend, what causes them to reoffend, what help they were given on the outside
etc(Mosher, Miethe, & Hart, 2011). Once this information is gathered and compiled into a
datasheet, researchers can betterunderstand the information they are given and pass that
information on to agencies.For thosecorrections, policies working in one area may not work the
same in another, and that is why datamust be gathered consistently because crime trends tend to
change throughout the years.Many of the biases I found throughout the article seemed to be
criticizing the judicial system inthe United Kingdom and Europe.In the conclusion section,
statements were made to judgesregularly choose sentences that they want without showing
regard to the offender and theircrime.The judicial system was also criticized for handling most of
the sentencing process.Maruna and Padfield (2006) state that the judicial system regularly
resorted to “front endsentencing decisions.”The Bible states in Romans 10:9, “If you declare
with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved” (NIV). Romans 10:13 also states, “for, “Everyone who calls on the name of
the Lord will be saved” (NIV). We as humans are born sinners, and throughout our lives, it is
abundantly clear that none of us are perfect or without sin. However, even with our many
imperfections, all of us can still get to heaven if we ask God for salvation. Maruna, S. &
Padfield, N. (2006). The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in
recalls to prison.
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(3): 329-352. DOI: 10.1177/1748895806065534.
Mosher, C., Miethe, T., & Hart, T. (2011) The Mismeasure of Crime (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications...
View Full Document
ex3
Answer & Explanation
Solved by verified expert
Rated Helpful
Answered by MegaField7376
The process of measuring recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections
policies in a few ways. First, recidivism rates can be used to measure the overall success of
a corrections policy. If recidivism rates are high, then it is likely that the policy is not
effective. Second, recidivism rates can be used to compare the effectiveness of different
corrections policies. If one policy has a lower recidivism rate than another, then it is likely
that the first policy is more effective. Finally, recidivism rates can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of specific aspects of a corrections policy. For example, if a policy includes
both rehabilitation and punishment, then recidivism rates can be used to evaluate which
aspect of the policy is more effective.
There are a few areas of research bias to consider when discussing the effectiveness of
corrections policies. First, research on recidivism rates is often conducted by government
agencies or other organizations with a vested interest in the results. This can lead to bias in
the results. Second, recidivism rates can be affected by changes in the law or the economy.
For example, if the law changes to make it more difficult to be convicted of a crime, then the
recidivism rate will likely go down. This can make it difficult to compare the effectiveness of
different policies. Finally, recidivism rates can be affected by the individual characteristics of
the people who are released from prison. For example, if a large number of people who are
released from prison have a long history of criminal activity, then the recidivism rate will
likely be higher.
Step-by-step explanation
When measuring the effectiveness of a corrections policy, recidivism rates can provide
valuable insight. Recidivism rates can be used to measure the overall success of a policy, to
compare the effectiveness of different policies, and to evaluate the effectiveness of specific
aspects of a policy.
Recidivism rates can be used to measure the overall success of a corrections policy. If
recidivism rates are high, then it is likely that the policy is not effective. This is because
recidivism rates indicate how many people return to prison after being released. If a large
percentage of people released from prison return within a few years, then it is likely that the
corrections policy is not effective at preventing crime.
Recidivism rates can also be used to compare the effectiveness of different corrections
policies. If one policy has a lower recidivism rate than another, then it is likely that the first
policy is more effective. This is because the lower recidivism rate indicates that fewer people
are returning to prison after being released. This means that the first policy is better at
preventing crime than the second policy.
Finally, recidivism rates can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of specific aspects of a
corrections policy. For example, if a policy includes both rehabilitation and punishment, then
recidivism rates can be used to evaluate which aspect of the policy is more effective. If the
recidivism rate is lower for people who go through the rehabilitation program, then it is likely
that rehabilitation is more effective than punishment.
In conclusion, recidivism rates can be a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of
corrections policies. By measuring the overall success of a policy, comparing the
effectiveness of different policies, and evaluating the effectiveness of specific aspects of a
policy, recidivism rates can provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of corrections
policies.
There are a few areas of research bias to consider when discussing the effectiveness of
corrections policies. First, research on recidivism rates is often conducted by government
agencies or other organizations with a vested interest in the results. This can lead to bias in
the results. For example, a government agency may be more likely to report a lower
recidivism rate if it is trying to show that its policies are effective.
Second, recidivism rates can be affected by changes in the law or the economy. For
example, if the law changes to make it more difficult to be convicted of a crime, then the
recidivism rate will likely go down. This can make it difficult to compare the effectiveness of
different policies. For example, if one policy results in a lower recidivism rate when the law is
lenient, but a higher recidivism rate when the law is stricter, it is difficult to say whether the
policy is effective.
Finally, recidivism rates can be affected by the individual characteristics of the people who
are released from prison. For example, if a large number of people who are released from
prison have a long history of criminal activity, then the recidivism rate will likely be higher.
