Study after study shows ex-prisoners would be better off without intense supervision
From Brookings.edu
Two-thirds of those released from prison are re-arrested within three years. This incarceration cycle hurts families and communities—and also costs a lot of money. Governments and nonprofits have tried many programs to reduce recidivism, but most are not successful. In a recent review of the literature on prisoner reentry, I summarized the best evidence on how to improve the lives of the formerly incarcerated. One of the most striking findings was that reducing the intensity of community supervision for those on probation or parole is a highly cost-effective strategy. Several studies of excellent quality and using a variety of interventions and methods all found that we could maintain public safety and possibly even improve it with less supervision—that is, fewer rules about how individuals must spend their time and less enforcement of those rules. Less supervision is less expensive, so we could achieve the same or better outcomes for less money.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unfortunately, the Age of Reason has long since passed. Policy is now driven by the emotions of the rich and powerful. Floriduh is a deeply entrenched police state which profits off the arrest, incarceration, and supervision of its citizens. It has no reason to change.
Because of the rules for intense probation there is much that I could be doing for my family and community that does not get done. All my life I have been one prone to serve. I always thought that probation was a time when one was permitted to live a normal life with just an occasional check up…as compared to the intensity of parole. Was I ever in error! I must be off of probation before the system will ever know how I will respond to the real world. I have always lived a law abiding life with a temporary time of failure after my wife’s death. I have no intent to live any other kind of lifestyle.
Too bad the article does not mention sex offenders. Opponents will probably say this does not apply to us because we different from other felons.
Give people a chance to move on with their lives. Get rid of the labels felon, convict, s.o., etc. When an employer can look up your history and judge you based on that and deny you employment, it just allows for the continuation of the cycle of illegal activity and incarceration, because if you cant get a legitimate job youre gonna have to turn to illegal activity to make a living
Background checks should include a total background evaluation not just a small portion of someone’s life. Today background checks focus on the negative and totally ignore the positive. I believe that SO’s have by in far more positives in their lives than negatives. Actually that probably applies to most citizens. To keep someone from reentering society and getting a job as the results of a marginalized background check is criminal.