Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Should Recidivism Be a Trial Court Performance Measure?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Should Recidivism Be a Trial Court Performance Measure?
October 17th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode
In the middle of last month’s episode, the question was asked, should recidivism be a trial court performance measure? All the panelists responded negatively, but the reasons they gave are
worth hearing.
We have all heard the criticism that the criminal justice has turned into a “revolving door.” Defendants are arrested and tried, most are convicted and sentenced. Some are incarcerated, others are placed on probation.
The recidivism rate for incarcerated defendants is nearly 50%; almost one out of every two incarcerated defendants is rearrested. The recidivism rate for defendants on probation is not much better. 43% of probationers are rearrested within 3
years.
Traditionally, there are four
main purposes of criminal justice sentencing. 1) Incapacitation, 2) punishment,
3) deterrence, and 4) rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
as a goal is not easily measured and yet it seems as if it is one of the
standards by which the public gauges the success of the criminal justice system.
In the simplest terms, the purpose of rehabilitation is to ensure defendants
stop committing new crimes and become productive citizens. Recidivism is therefore an accepted measure
for success in rehabilitation.
One of the reasons why recidivism
is difficult to measure lies in the system itself. The criminal justice system is made up of
multiple components: police, courts, defense and prosecution, the sheriff and
state prisons for the incarcerated, probation departments for other
defendants. What is the degree of
responsibility each of these components bears in rehabilitating defendants? Is rehabilitating defendants even really a
goal anymore? We’re only going to
scratch the surface in today’s discussion.
This month we’re looking at one of the
basic purposes of criminal justice and if we should use recidivism to measure
that purpose.
Today’s Panelists
Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts
Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Clark County, Washington
Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department, Supreme Court of Virginia
Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon
View all episodes
By Peter C. Kiefer
4
1111 ratings
October 17th Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode
In the middle of last month’s episode, the question was asked, should recidivism be a trial court performance measure? All the panelists responded negatively, but the reasons they gave are
worth hearing.
We have all heard the criticism that the criminal justice has turned into a “revolving door.” Defendants are arrested and tried, most are convicted and sentenced. Some are incarcerated, others are placed on probation.
The recidivism rate for incarcerated defendants is nearly 50%; almost one out of every two incarcerated defendants is rearrested. The recidivism rate for defendants on probation is not much better. 43% of probationers are rearrested within 3
years.
Traditionally, there are four
main purposes of criminal justice sentencing. 1) Incapacitation, 2) punishment,
3) deterrence, and 4) rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
as a goal is not easily measured and yet it seems as if it is one of the
standards by which the public gauges the success of the criminal justice system.
In the simplest terms, the purpose of rehabilitation is to ensure defendants
stop committing new crimes and become productive citizens. Recidivism is therefore an accepted measure
for success in rehabilitation.
One of the reasons why recidivism
is difficult to measure lies in the system itself. The criminal justice system is made up of
multiple components: police, courts, defense and prosecution, the sheriff and
state prisons for the incarcerated, probation departments for other
defendants. What is the degree of
responsibility each of these components bears in rehabilitating defendants? Is rehabilitating defendants even really a
goal anymore? We’re only going to
scratch the surface in today’s discussion.
This month we’re looking at one of the
basic purposes of criminal justice and if we should use recidivism to measure
that purpose.
Today’s Panelists
Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts
Cheryl Stone, Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Clark County, Washington
Greg Lambard, Trial Court Administrator for the Superior Court, Middlesex Vicinage, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Kent Pankey, Senior Planner, Judicial Services Department, Supreme Court of Virginia
Liz Rambo – Trial Court Administrator for the Circuit Court in Lane County, Oregon
More shows like Court Leader's Advantage
View all
The Daily
113,520 Listeners
Dateline NBC
47,472 Listeners