Diversion in the Criminal Justice System Essay Example

during this period aim to assist wrongdoers in recognizing their mistakes and exploring ways to improve themselves, which may involve changing their social circle or learning effective ways of saying no. Diversion, which has a long history dating back centuries, underwent significant reform in the 1960s according to scholarly literature and federal juvenile justice policy discussed in the textbook.The text discusses the concept of labeling, which was first introduced by Tannebaum in 1938 and further developed by Becker in 1963 and Lemert in 1951. According to Becker, negative labels from influential social groups have detrimental effects on juveniles, while Lemert argued that the juvenile justice system may contribute to further delinquent acts. These perspectives align with those of Tannebaum, Becker, and Lemert who advocated for excluding juveniles from the criminal justice system and giving them a second chance. They emphasized that if juveniles are not removed from this system, they may easily be influenced by labeling and continue engaging in deviant behavior. Therefore, efforts are made to provide them with another opportunity through rehabilitative programs supported by the Commission in 1967 leading to the establishment of around 1,200 recreation plans in the 1970s. This demonstrates various approaches being implemented within the criminal justice system during this time period to assist individuals and build trust by offering them a second chance (Walker, 2008). The textbook also mentions the historical existence of recreational programs where young individuals who committed wrongdoings often avoided criminal justice consequences.Police officers often choose not to arrest individuals, even if there is evidence of their guilt. Similarly, prosecuting officers dismiss cases that do not align with the "interest of justice." This practice, known

as "old diversion," has been common among police officers for a long time (Walker, 2008, pg.262). They believe that apprehending wrongdoers can deter them from committing further offenses, especially if it's their first time or a minor offense.

However, the approach to diversion has evolved and become more modernized. There are now programs in place that establish goals for individuals and are supervised by professional staff who provide assistance and treatment. These models play an important role in defining the core practice of diversion/supervision programs involving face-to-face interactions (Taxman, 2010). Shifting away from generic contacts towards targeting specific behavior shows promise in emphasizing the value and importance of probation and diversion programs in correctional policy and practice.

Currently, dedicated professionals actively address clients' issues through program interventions with the goal of keeping them out of the criminal justice system. The more individuals we can exclude from this system through diversion programs, the better it will be. Diversion creates fear among individuals because it offers an alternative route away from involvement with the criminal justice system.They are aware that if they make another mistake, they will only serve 30% of their sentence. Diversion is seen as not just a "second chance," but also as a way to prevent future offenses. The effectiveness of diversion varies among individuals, with some finding it beneficial and others not. Those who do not find it helpful often try to avoid the system, resulting in trouble and longer probation sentences. A journal titled "Developing renewing practice: contemporary lessons from an English juvenile diversion project of the 80s" discusses how these projects found solutions that benefited those affected by promoting accountability and appropriate decision-making

among young people. However, consistent success has not been achieved in all cases (Smith, 425-438, 2011). Some individuals involved in this research have found diversion unsuccessful due to their lack of seriousness and irresponsibility. On the other hand, there are individuals who take diversion seriously and have had success with it. It should be noted that diversion programs can present challenges. According to an article about Maryland's diversion program for alcohol-impaired drivers (PBJ), the program allows drivers to plead guilty or nolo contendereAlternatively, individuals who are found guilty in a criminal proceeding may have their judgement postponed until they complete a provisional period.The conditions of probation may include participation in intervention, an alcohol instruction plan, self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, and/or an ignition interlock license limitation plan (Ahlin). Violating probation terms, such as committing another alcohol-related offense, could result in the reinstatement of original charges and further prosecution. This demonstrates how the diversion program clarifies legal proceedings and associated conditions while emphasizing consequences for non-compliance. It also highlights that self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous are part of the program to provide support during probation and aid in reintegrating individuals into society. Ultimately, diversion programs aim to steer individuals towards making better choices in the future and instill hope that offenders have learned from their actions. An example of a diversion program targeting juveniles is the Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP), which promotes their involvement in community service work. Its objective is to establish relationships between students and the local community through showcasing critical community service rather than mere volunteering.The main focus of the ADP is to divert young adults from engaging in criminal activities by involving

them in community service work. The program specifically targets juveniles because intervening and correcting their behavior at a young age may decrease future offenses. There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of recreation plans in reducing crime and deterring repeat offenses. Some argue that punitive approaches like conviction or imprisonment do not significantly discourage future incidents of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Others suggest that jail time and convictions are not always effective deterrents for offenders after their release from prison. Therefore, alternative strategies need to be implemented, such as using probation instead of incarceration for minor offenses. This would reduce prison overcrowding and limit exposure to criminal influences while imprisoned. The article also examines how deterrence theory can be applied in this context. Studies show that swift and certain penalties like license suspension effectively reduce DWI recidivism without being as punitive as incarceration (Ross, 1991; Yu, 1994).According to Yu (2000), there are differing opinions on this matter. Treatment-based approaches, as noted by Taxman & Piquero (1998) and Alhin, have been successful in reducing recidivism among drivers with alcohol disorders. These approaches propose implementing more "treatment" focused corrections to help offenders avoid recommitting drinking and driving offenses. Providing intensive support for drinking issues or addressing drinking and driving can prevent individuals from ending up in jail and potentially save lives by preventing impaired driving incidents.

Extensive research has been conducted over the years on recreation programs to assess their effectiveness. In one study by Kammer and Minor (1997), a program for juveniles aged 11 to 18 charged with minor delinquent offenses and no prior record was evaluated. This program lasted for 16 months and served 12

offenders at a time. Among the 81 graduates, it was found that 86.2% (N=81) were rearrested during the evaluation period.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that among juveniles initially arrested for minor offenses, those who recidivated were charged with more serious delinquent acts, as stated by Marsh (2005). It is important to note that many research studies on recreation methods in this context have not utilized true field experimental conditions which can have serious political implications in the juvenile justice setting. The absence of a control group design hinders the ability to compare results to a baseline.The current project's methodology allows for comparisons between groups and different interventions using a baseline control group, highlighting the importance of conducting research with actual offenders to understand the effectiveness of recreation programs. However, the "net-widening" effect is a major concern raised by these programs, as observed in an evaluation of 11 California recreation projects (Bohnstedt, 1978). This effect was found when court recreation programs served 3,871 clients, half of whom would not have been processed by the system otherwise. Another study focused on juveniles and their tobacco use offered penalty options such as going to court, paying a fine or attending a single 2-hour recreation class on tobacco dangers (Marsh, 2005). Many juveniles chose to pay the fine instead of attending the class. The article suggests that behavior or attitude did not change for both groups - those who attended the class and those who paid the fine. However, it was discovered that juveniles who paid the fine had lower tobacco use rates. This research emphasizes how important it is to use appropriate intervention methods in recreation-based programs as any

missing or incorrect elements can undermine the entire experiment. Implementing recreation programs nationwide could help decrease incarceration rates and alleviate overcrowding in jails in the United States - a significant financial burden for citizens and government authorities.The utilization of community recreation to address the involvement of young people with the juvenile justice system presents a challenge, but it also helps alleviate the strain on the overloaded judicial system. Increasing the usage of recreation programs and reducing jail sentences could relieve taxpayers' financial burden and potentially assist in rehabilitation efforts. While diversion programs steer first-time offenders away from trouble, it is crucial for them to adhere to program rules in order to prevent further offenses. Although effective, diversion programs may not always deter future actions by offenders. The decision for both juvenile and adult offenders to participate in recreation programs as a means to learn from their mistakes and move forward is a personal choice (Ahlin, E.M., Zador, P.L., Rauch, W.J., Howard, J.M., & Duncan G.D., 2011; Patrick, S., & Marsh R., 2005). In Criminal Justice Policy Review (Vol.16, Issue 1), pp.59-73 there is an article titled "Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study" by Faye S. Taxman. Another article by Faye S.Taxman titled "Victims & Offenders" can be found in Contemporary Justice Review (Vol .14 ,Issue4), pp..425-438 respectively. Additionally, material related to this topic can be found on pages 251-263 of the book "Sense and Nonsense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities (Seventh Edition)" by Samuel Walker