CH 10 DECENTRALIZING CORRECTIONS 1960S 1970S A GOALS OF DECENTRALIZATION MOVEMENT a Summary 1 The first wave of the decentralization movement was the Safe Streets Act of 1968 that was influenced by President Lyndon B Johnson s LEAA This first goal was based off of the labeling theory and its affects on the offender 2 The second wave of the decentralization movement was the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 that influenced congress to create the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention The purpose of this wave was to resolve the issue of excessive solitary confinement used in juvenile facilities The main goal was to eliminate the use of juvenile detention facilities for those whose acts would not be considered criminal if they were adults e g status offenses Another attempt of OJJDP was the use of community based treatment alternatives to incarceration This second goal was based on the concerns of equity and justice on confining non criminal acts b Fix the effects of labeling theory on offenders c Resolve the issue of excessive solitary confinement in juvenile detention facilities B IDEOLOGY d Replace incarceration with community based alternatives a Community based 1 The value of community care and community corrections is the ideology and goal that replaced the emphasis of institutionalization during the decentralization of corrections movement in the 60s 70s 2 In contrast to previous years community based strategies replaced the more is better ideology during the decentralization of corrections in the 60s 70s The idea was that community intervention would help the stigma discussed by the labeling theory as well as help reduce the cost of CJS b Labeling Theory 1 The labeling theory is the criminological perspective that helped expand the decentralization efforts of corrections in the 60s 70s By using the labeling theory focus was place more on the damaging behavior of the judicial system versus the behavior of the offender The labeling theory argued that interaction with CJS could actually create intensify and perpetuate criminal behavior This ideology was far different than from previous years which thought that interaction with CJS would fix offenders to becoming law abiding citizens However the labeling theory discussed how the label offenders get from CJS e g ex cons makes criminal careers more likely 2 Using the labeling theory to support the ideology that the behaviors of CJS increases and intensifies criminal careers because those who enter CJS interact with other criminals and these relationships cause individuals to learn more criminal behaviors furthering their deviance 3 The labeling theory challenged the dominant functional perspective by evaluating how CJS methods such as arresting trying and imprisoning offenders failed to prevent crime 4 The policy methods when using the labeling theory ideology were to essentially limit incarceration and CJS intervention as much as possible c Symbolic Interactionist Tradition Frank Tannenbaum 1 Tannenbaum supported this labeling theory consequence as dramatizing the evils and these evils could be resolved by enforcing community based programs versus incarceration d Primary Secondary Deviance Edwin Lemert 1 Lemert in Social Pathology refined Tannenbaum s labeling theory by implementing two concepts of primary and secondary deviance Primary deviants do not consider their behavior to be deviant and therefore the labeling does not affect their identity Secondary deviants in contrast to primary do attach their deviance to their identity 2 Lemert s implications help explain for those who shift from primary to secondary deviants A primary deviant becomes a secondary deviant once social audiences give negative reactions to their behavior In sum actions do not become labeled deviant until social audiences give negative reactions to behaviors 3 Negative reactions by social audiences label behaviors deviant became the focus to help determine the causes of crime e Robert Martinson 1 Robert Martinson focused on determining the how to effectively rehabilitate offenders He concluded that there is no correlation between rehabilitation programs and reducing recidivism rates 2 Robert Martinson s conclusion led to congress getting rid of LEAA in the 80s and transition to the police law and order approach to the crime issue a Summary 1 The main penal reforms of the 60s 70s were strategies of diversion deinstitutionalization and community corrections These reforms were supported through the labeling theory ideology that the method of incarceration and increase involvement of CJS on offenders causes more harm than good 2 These reforms first began with juvenile diversion programs in the late 60s then deinstitutionalization of status offenders using community based programs emerged in the 70s b Diversion 1 The goal of the juvenile diversion programs was to take the juveniles who faced the most danger into these neighborhood agencies by a referral from either schools parents or from the majority which were by police or juvenile court These referred juveniles were given specified services e g counseling special remedial education vocational training C PENAL REFORMS 2 Diversion programs modeled system modification which refers to police and juvenile courts having alternatives to incarcerating juveniles and minimizing criminal contact 3 The relationship between the Juvenile court intake officers and the diversion programs are significant in that they affect the outcome of the rate of diversion 4 There are three types of diversion programs legal paralegal non legal 5 Criticisms of the Diversion Program Mahoney s criticism of the diversion programs was the blindness of offenders on the negative consequences they face if CJS gives them a bad deal Mahoney s argument would support liberal reformist Morris s criticism on diversion programs was that although these programs would eliminate incarceration and reduce the intensity of the CJS involvement it still was a method that allowed control over a population and increased those subjected to arrest diversion Therefore diversion programs failed in their original goal to limit CJS involvement and formal court In fact diversion programs caused more CJS involvement and increased punishment for offenders than prior to the decentralization of corrections movement in the 60s c Deinstitutionalization d Community Corrections D METHODS OF CONTROL a Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets