Examining the Flaws of Circles of Support and Accountability in Sexual Offender Reintegration

Abstract

Paper Position Against CoSA. Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) is a support and recovery program that comprises volunteers and professionals that are determined to help sexual offenders reintegrate and adapt to society after incarceration. The program is said to offer restorative justice to the community and operates community justice centers in the state. According to (Elliott and Zajac 113),” According to estimates from the U.S. National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC), at least 95% of state prisoners are released back to their communities after a period of incarceration.” These victims are likely to experience physical, social, economic, and mental pull down. CoSA is a program that tries to intervene and lighten the burden of these aggrieved individuals through restorative justice. Restorative justice approaches victims with empathy and gives them a voice by making sure they take responsibility for their actions, understand the harm they have caused, and build relationships with the community. The program is funded by the Department of corrections. The DOC helps address issues outside the criminal justice system ad foster restorative justice. CoSA addresses the needs of society and increases public safety. The most proven success of the CoSA program is reducing recidivism. The volunteers and the core members of the program establish relationships that enable them to ensure public safety. Victims of sexual abuse find it difficult to reintegrate into the community due to the stringent laws that come with incarceration. Incarceration is a setback in the American community, and victims face trauma and hardship in finding their place in society. According to (Lowe et al. 129),” In 1994, the pending release of an individual convicted for sexual offenses in Canada was met with protest, media involvement, and community fear.” The victims of offense are a threat to the community and many times the public is not willing to accept them. CoSA comes in to bridge the gap by ensuring they have access to employment, decent housing, transportation, accessing to better services of health care, and reducing the chances of reoffending. Despite the advantages of CoSA, the program is flawed and there are loopholes surrounding the program. Mary land’s plan to accept the CoSA legislation is an afterthought since the process has its flaws outweigh the merits. The CoSA program cannot solve the relationship between the offender and the victim. This happens in the case when the victim knows his offender and the process of finding solutions between them is difficult since the victim may want no further contact with the offender. A case of sexual abuse is overwhelming and preserving a toxic person is deceitful. CoSA’s restorative justice measures appear impossible in such a situation. Taming a harmful person in society is dangerous since they can possibly repeat offenses again. Restorative justice assumes that the offender is remorseful and willing to make amends and the victim has no choice but to accept. CoSA aims in helping the victims communicate and problem-solving but communication in this sense is outdated t the victim. Most communication is centered to uplift the victims and heightening their expectations in the community. This derails the offender’s mandate on justice and may cause them emotional and mental trauma. CoSA sidelines the offended and pays attention to the victims of crime. There is no guarantee that CoSA will put the offender and the victim back to their original state. The offender may not offer a public apology for trespass and refute and chaos may escalate out of court. CoSA can cause further damage rather than be beneficial to both parties. It is a program that stirs a wound that has not yet healed making. The issues of justice are better solved by the courts and extensions may cause more damage than good. CoSA does not prove recession at all. Many times, the process is flawed since victims are not willing to talk about the current situations due to trauma and mental deterioration. This analogy pauses a difficulty for the members to perform counseling. Restorative justice is an expensive process and succumbs to various barriers. The team encompasses a circle of volunteers and professionals which requires a lot of time and commitment in training and enacting the process. The power paradigm is sometimes not on their side since victims of incarceration are set to endure hardship and torture after their release. Sometimes the law can prove difficult for the program to access victims and give them the opportunity to live against all odds despite their offenses. The program needs a lot of resources to...