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