Reintegration Program of BJMP

Introduction

Successful crime prevention strategies must address factors contributing

to the large number of crimes that are committed by individuals who have served

a term of incarceration and failed, upon their release, to integrate the community

as law-abiding citizens In the absence of material, psychological, and social

support at the time of their release, offenders may have a very difficult time

breaking the cycle of release and re-arrest(Rakis, 2010).

Short-term prison terms and extended terms of remand in custody provide

limited opportunities for successful treatment and interventions to prevent future

recidivism. A majority of convicted offenders have at least one prior conviction,

either in youth or adult court and, among recidivists nearly one-third have a prior

conviction and nearly 75 percent have multiple prior convictions. Community

safety makes it imperative that governments and communities develop effective

interventions that will assist ex-prisoners to successfully reintegrate into the

community and avoid further criminality. Managed offender reentry processes

are gaining acceptance and may offer a cost effective way of preventing crime.

There is some evidence that positive reintegration outcomes are attained

when factors predisposing a person to criminal behaviour are addressed in a

holistic fashion and when the physical and social needs of offenders are

supported both within the prison and after the offenders’ release (Travis,

Solomon, and Waul, 2011).

 Nevertheless, facilitating offender reintegration is a complex task and the

impact of specific interventions is often difficult to measure. (Lievore, 2009).

In the Philippines there are many convicted person released from jail that have

feeling of isolation form, the society ,poor employment or unemployment, and

recently going back to what has been involved in , they can be seen as a starter

or hired in the crimes .

In the province many people were released from jail and does not know

how to start in their life , their whole being is affected , their family are doing their

best so that they may be avoided to be implicated in another crimes.. to

determine the real effect of reintegration of the Ex Convicts to the society and to

their psychological well being as a whole.

Body

In recent years, the post release, community-based component of these

interventions has been variously referred to as “aftercare”, “transitional care”,

“reentry” or “reentry support”, reintegration, or resettlement. Some post-release

interventions may begin while the offender is still incarcerated with the intent of

facilitating post-release adjustment.

In Canada, the expression offender “reintegration” generally refers to

“reentry” or “resettlement”. In this review, these terms interchangeably to

designate interventions, programs and services designed to assist prisoners to

live law-abiding lives in the community following their release. However, the

reader is cautioned against using the term “reintegration” too literally, as it should

be obvious that, in many instances, the offenders were not prior to their
incarceration, successfully integrated into the community, were typically

marginalized, and often had failed to acquire the attitudes and behaviours that

result in most people functioning productively in society.

In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on designing

comprehensive interventions, based on a continuity of care, to provide consistent

assistance to offenders within and beyond prison. There is a recognition that

preparation for reintegration should commence before the offenders’ release.

After their release, interventions should support their immediate transition from

the prison to the community and reinforce the gains achieved through in prison

treatment and continue until a successful reintegrationis completed (Fox, 2009).

Offenders confined in correctional institutions are confronted by a range of social,

economic and personal challenges that tend to become obstacles to a crime-

free lifestyle (Borzycki and Baldry, 2009 ; Visher, Winterfield, and Coggeshall,

2011). Some of these challenges are a result of the offenders’ past experiences

and others are more directly associated with the consequences of incarceration

and the following difficult transition back to the community (Borzycki, 2011).

Offenders may have a history of social isolation and marginalization,

physical or emotional abuse, poor employment or unemployment, and

involvement in a criminal lifestyle that began at an early age. So too may

offenders be challenged by physical and mental disabilities and health issues

that may be related to substance abuse and drug addiction. Many offenders are

challenged by skills deficits that make it difficult for them to compete and succeed

in the community: poor inter-personal skills, low levels of formal education,

illiteracy or innumeracy, poor cognitive or emotional functioning, and/or a lack of

planning and financial management skills. There are also several practical

challenges that must be faced by offenders at the time of their release, including

finding suitable accommodation with very limited means, managing financially

with little or no savings until they begin to earn some lawful remuneration,

accessing a range of everyday necessities, and accessing services and support

for their specific needs(United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2009).

The period of transition from custody to community can be particularly

difficult for offenders and contribute to the stress that is associated with being

supervised in the community. The period of incarceration may itself have had

several “collateral effects” (Borzycki, 2010: 36; Borzycki and Makkai, 2010:10)

upon many offenders: they may have lost their livelihood, their personal

belongings, their ability to maintain housing for themselves and their family; they

may have lost important personal relationships and incarceration may have

damaged their social networks; they may have experienced mental health

difficulties or acquired self-defeating habits and attitudes. Homelessness, in

particular, may place youth are risk of offending (Arnull, et al., 2010)

Sampson and Laub’s (2009) view of capital accumulation entails the

acquiring of various forms of social capital over time, such as strong

attachments, quality employment, or pro-social friendship networks, which

“entrenches individuals in conforming pathways throughout the remainder of their

life course” (Wright 2011). In turn, this entrenchment affects the likelihood that

one will be involved in criminal activity. Social capital—as a configuration of

relationships to persons and groups—varies in degree and type. Earlier research

by linger (2009), for example, argues that social capital inheres not only, and not

most importantly, in one’s most intimate relationships but rather in the “weak ties”

one maintains with extra-intimate groups, for these latter persons are the ones

who are most likely to help in the achievement of personal goals, such as

securing gainful employment. In his research on people who recently found a

new job,

Granovetter (2009) observes that 80 percent found the job either through

someone with whom they only occasionally or rarely had contact. He concludes

that weak ties comprise an important resource in reaching goals and increasing

one’s chances for mobility opportunities. Granovetter also extended his research

to that of communities; communities with more weak ties that connect them to

groups and various networks outside themselves will be more effective in

organizing and achieving goals .

Moreover, by opening up to more groups and consequently, more

information and knowledge, one then increases his/her human capital and

becomes more capable while also becoming more useful to others in which they

connect; social capital and human capital are complementary (Coleman 2011).

As described by Kindsert (2009), strong ties are those that one defines as their

close contacts while weak ties are those people who one does not have a lot of

contact. Weak ties seem to be the most beneficial as they are more likely to

connect an individual to many more networks of people. The belief is that having

more groups or networks in which to be associated with will create more

opportunities for jobs, community organization, etc. as opposed to the quality of

only a few close friendship circles.

Our interviews with ex-inmates demonstrate that enjoying close personal

relationships is an insufficient crime-reduction, pro-social behavior promotion

factor. Instead, by almost all indicators the most successful ex-convict possesses

and activates his connections to the weak ties that transcend his small

community and connect him to the larger society. Weak ties serve as the vehicle

for achieving social capital, which in turn facilitates social bond development,

which in turn aids in desistance. The vast majority of men in this study do not

lack support; rather, the support they enjoy—emotionally-laden filial ties in most

cases—ineffectively serve the end of reintegrating them into broader society.

They suffer from “too much of a good thing.

Ex-convicts return to the streets seeking a solution to the local and more

global problems of economic, cultural, social, and political disenfranchisement.

Their search typically unfolds through interactions with people close to them—

members of their tight-knit networks such as family members (usually mothers

and siblings). Nearly all of the respondents in this study reported coming from

and still enjoying strong, cohesive ties with family members. In short, they have

access to—and frequently utilize—strong, close ties. The central problem,

however, is that they essentially “cocoon” themselves with close ties, thus

precluding or at least hindering progress toward forming the “looseties” that are

integral to one’s success in developing and exploiting “social capital” (Zamora,

2011)
 The Philippines has been supportive the goals of community-based

treatment and has continuously adopted measures consistent with the United

Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non custodial measures or the Tokyo

Rules.

In order to appreciate fully the goals and advantages of community-based

treatment in the context of the Philippines, there is a need to revisit the old and

traditional concepts of treating offenders and those of emerging ones, specifically

from a social development framework.

Social development, as defined by the United Nations, is the greater

capacity of the social system, social structure, institutions, services and policy to

utilize resources to generate favorable changes in levels of living, interpreted in

the broad sense as related to accepted social values and a better distribution of

income, wealth and opportunities. Social development therefore, covers a

comprehensive, yet integrated, field that encompasses education, health and

nutrition, livelihood, social welfare, etc. It involves the services of educators,

medical practitioners, social workers, psychologists and other social scientists

that contribute to improvement in the quality of human life.

Sanchez (2009)studies suggests that human dignity, equality and social

justice are key values in a social development approach. These values are

therefore consistent with those adopted by the United Nations Minimum Standard

that encourages countries to pursue crime prevention and criminal justice within

the framework of the promotion of human rights, social justice and social

development.
 From this social development context, it is best to examine old concepts

related to the treatment of offenders vis-a-vis the new approaches in this field

The traditional concept of treating offenders has been towards examining the

offender’s characteristics, behavior, values and other personal traits and the

causes behind committing a crime, among other factors. Criminals would be

examined from

a criminological point of view, which usually led to self-blaming. Thus, the

treatment approach would be individual therapy, focusing on behavior

modification.

The empowerment approach, which is basically a social development

approach, however, looks not only at simplistic unicausal explanations, but at the

offender as a “person-in-environment”, i.e., one in a dynamic relationship with

their environment and prescribed roles in varied social situations. It assumes an

interdependence of relationships between the parts (the offender and his/her

family) and the whole (community and society).

Thus, while behavior modification continues to be a goal in rehabilitation

and reintegration, empowerment, which is the harnessing of the offender’s

adaptive capacities, decision-making abilities and capability to link and access to

outside resources, is a tandem goal in our present efforts. Harnessing and

honing adaptive capacities are deemed necessary because of the fast changing

conditions in the environment brought about by globalization, information

technology, accelerated development and other factors( Santos, 2010)

 The failure of some individuals and families to adapt to such sudden and

swift changes brings about crisis in their adaptation and social functioning. This

therefore calls for harnessing not only the offender’s capacity to handle crisis,

solve problems, and make right and timely decisions, but also their own and

family’s ability to identify resources. Through this empowerment scheme, they

are made aware of what are the resources from within and outside the family,

which they can tap to address their needs and problems( Ternate, 2009)

Comprehensive crime prevention must include effective measures to prevent

recidivism and to stop the cycle of failed adaptation by repeat offenders.

Offenders released from confinement face a variety of challenges that may

hinder their ability to become law-abiding citizens. Of particular concern are high-

risk offenders with lengthy records of criminality.

A key feature of successful crime prevention strategies is their attention to

the social reintegration of ex-prisoners into the community and the development

of interventions designed to reduce the levels of recidivism. These interventions

represent a wide array of efforts sponsored by the justice system, often in

collaboration with community agencies and organizations. Offender reintegration

programs target the dynamic risk factors associated with recidivism and specific

initiatives focus on specific challenges facing offenders, including substance

abuse and unemployment, while others target specific offender groups, including

sex offenders and high-risk young offenders. Offender reintegration programs

can be generally grouped into prison-based programs, surveillance-based

transition programs; assistance-based transition programs; and integrated,

through care programs.

With regard to upholding the rule of law and protecting people's rights, the

prosecution mechanism has certain primary responsibilities: investigating crimes

and complaints to see whether the law has been broken and by whom,

prosecuting those responsible for committing crimes, and ensuring that justice is

ultimately served by way of a fair trial and the punishment of the perpetrators

according to law. However, for various reasons the prosecution mechanism in

the majority of Asian countries is lacking in all these responsibilities, as indicated

below.( Http/// Focus: Prosecution in Asia///html)

The investigation of crimes and collecting of evidence is crucial to the

prosecution of perpetrators, without which there can be no justice. While it is

usually the police who are at crime scenes and do the initial investigations, the

prosecution department must take some responsibility to ensure that

investigations are being done adequately, if at all, and that they are given enough

information to proceed with filing charges. The attorney general of Indonesia

however, not only refuses to undertake its own investigations, but further

disregards investigations conducted by other groups such as the National Human

Rights Commission, regarding the 1998 May riots, Trisakti shootings and

Samanggi killings, which took the lives of over 1000 people, with many others

suffering injury and damage to their property and possessions. The victims of

these abuses have been awaiting justice for seven years.( WHO: Report,

International Justice, 2010)

 One of the reasons the attorney general refuses to act upon the Trisakti

and Samanggi killings is that the Indonesian parliament concluded in 2000 that

no violations of human rights had taken place. While this conclusion has been

challenged and the parliament is set to reopen the investigation of these

incidents, the attorney general's office cannot conclusively accept or infer to such

political proceedings. Only judicial bodies have the authority to decide whether

human rights violations have occurred or not, and it is the attorney general's

responsibility to carry out investigations to this effect

The indifference and lack of action by the attorney general of Indonesia--

the department responsible for bringing criminals to justice--to prosecute the

perpetrators of the May 1998 riots and subsequent abuses is a clear violation of

domestic and international law, as well as a violation of the prosecution

department's own mandate. One of the key roles of the prosecution and judicial

institutions is to provide an effective remedy to victims whose rights have been

violated. This is done through prosecuting the perpetrators and punishing them in

accordance with international legal principles, as well as awarding suitable

compensation to the victims. Not only do these actions serve to redress the

wrong done to the victims, but in punishing the perpetrators, a clear message is

sent to society that such abuses will not be tolerated. The attorney general of

Indonesia however, seems to be sending the message that perpetrators of

crimes can walk free, and thereby encouraging future violations [AHRC AS-73-

2005, 29 June 2005].

 This lack of investigation by the prosecution becomes a greater liability

when the case is proceeded with in court, as occurred in the Bindunuwewa

massacre case, Sri Lanka, where all the accused were eventually acquitted by

the courts due to a lack of evidence. It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to

ensure that persons are not implicated without cause and that cases do not

proceed in court without sufficient merit.

On 25 October 2000, more than 25 young Tamils at a rehabilitation centre

in Bindunuwewa were attacked and killed by a Sinhalese group. Forty-one

persons were charged with participating in the massacre. However, the Sri

Lankan courts gradually acquitted all of these persons due to a lack of evidence.

The last of these occurred on 27 May 2005 when the Supreme Court acquitted

the remaining accused on the basis that the evidence against them lacked merit.

(http ///google/// Riot in Indonesia///)

That the massacre took place killing 27 detainees and injuring 14 others is not in

doubt. That the modes of killing were ugly and cruel is also not in doubt. That the

Sri Lankan government was responsible for the protection of these detainees is

also well established. However, just who the actual perpetrators of this heinous

crime were, the Sri Lankan justice system has been unable to resolve.

The primary responsibility for this failure lies with the Sri Lankan police,

who had the legal responsibility to investigate and provide the necessary

evidence to secure a successful conviction. Obviously the investigators failed in

their task. There is clearly also a failure on the part of the prosecutors in Sri

Lanka; a failure that lies with the attorney generals department itself. The
department should not have filed indictments against persons if they did not have

sufficient evidence to prove a case successfully before a court. To the accused, it

is a great injustice to bring them before a court without sufficient evidence. To the

survivors of the massacre and the relatives of the dead, such prosecutions

amount to deception.(Google///Judicial Process///Indon Times)

Successful prosecutions are not possible without a functioning criminal

investigation system that is able to conduct professional and thorough inquiries

before proceeding to court. Additionally, there must be a prosecuting system that

thoroughly measures the evidence before prosecutions are filed [AHRC AS-57-

2005, 30 May 2005].

The absolute separation that exists between the criminal investigation and

prosecution systems in Sri Lanka is thus highly detrimental. The criminal

investigation is solely in the hands of the police, with the prosecution usually

having no power to conduct criminal investigations, and being dependent on the

information given to them by the police. They are dependent to the extent that

only when the police inform them of a given crime or complaint, can they take

any further action in the case. This situation in fact exists in many Asian

countries. Given the situation of the policing systems in the region, this does not

bode well for the protection of human rights (for more detail, see HRCS Lesson

Series 41). Not only is this problematic when dealing with crimes committed by

ordinary people, but it becomes worse when the crimes are committed by law

enforcement officials.(Humanitarian Resolution Council, 2009)

 In Thailand for instance, the control of the police over the investigation and

filing of charges has led to numerous instances of police abuse remaining

unaddressed in accordance with either domestic or international legal provisions.

These include recent incidents of police shootings as well as the 25 October

2004 killings.

Under section 148 of Thailand's Criminal Procedure Code, a death in

custody must be followed by a post mortem autopsy and investigation into the

cause of death. Under section 150, three agencies must be involved: the forensic

doctor, investigating officer, and public prosecutor. After the autopsy has been

completed and report submitted, it is the job of the public prosecutor to approach

the court for an inquest, with a view to entering into criminal proceedings if

necessary. This process should not be delayed under any circumstances, such

as a politically appointed inquiry also being under way. It is the role of the public

prosecutor to investigate and prosecute all crimes, including those committed by

government officers, without regard to other factors. ( Yahoo//Mass Killing in

Indonesia/// http//)

The Philippines in recent times has been plagued by widespread and

systematic violations of human rights, which include unabated extrajudicial

killings, torture and enforced disappearances, among others, that are occurring in

an increasingly unexplained fashion. The sense of frustration and distrust of the

victims and their families that they will ever attain justice is the result of flawed

and defective policing and judicial systems. The possibility for victims to seek

redress and justice is often denied due to poor police investigations, a non-
functioning witness protection programme, delays in the adjudication of cases

and the absence of enabling laws. (Department of Justice [DOJ] Circulars 70 &

70-A, 2000)

While the government claims to uphold and protect human rights, its

actions do not live up to this claim. The government does not come close to

providing what is required and urgently needed. How can justice be served, for

instance, if investigations are flawed and defective? There have been cases

where the police have declared cases solved without having conducted thorough

investigations. They are unable to protect or afford security to witnesses and

those facing threats but instead put the blame on the victims for not cooperating

with them. Once the police are able to identify the suspects and file charges in

court, regardless of whether the suspects are arrested or evidence they have

gathered can be used effectively in court, they consider the case solved. It is on

this flawed premise that the police measure their performance and a high crime

solution rate. (Joint Circular with DOJ Circular 1, 1995)

Police investigations are an extremely important factor in seeking justice

and redress. In the Philippines, however, poor and incomplete police

investigations have become a factor as to why seeking justice is extremely

difficult and cases do not succeed in court. A number of cases have been

recorded where victims have not been able to even file charges in court as a

result of these failures by the police. Not only are the police accused of such

failings, however, but in some cases the police themselves have been accused

of either being involved or of conspiring to commit gross human rights violations.

Although the police are among the essential pillars of the criminal justice system,

the experience of human rights victims confirms that it is impossible to seek

justice and redress if the current practice of the police is allowed to continue or

be tolerated. In reality, the moral and investigative credibility of the police towards

the victims to deliver justice and protect human rights is waning if not already

lost. This failure was manifested by the number of task forces it created to

investigate cases of extrajudicial killings. One such body is Task Force Usig,

which has been unable to obtain conclusive findings to identify and arrest

perpetrators and warrant a strong case in court. ( Perez, 2008)

Even if cases are filed in court though, victims are still confronted with the

common problem of long delays in the adjudication of their cases. In the

Philippines, the poorly resourced and understaffed prosecution offices and court

branches are unable to effectively perform their duties due to heavy workloads. It

is extremely alarming though that the government has not done enough to

improve these institutions and make them more effective. This neglect creates

and nurtures a negative perception and deep distrust towards the prosecution

system among the country’s citizens.

In the RULE 115 of the THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE (As amended, December 1, 2000)Rights of Accused

Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal prosecutions,

the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:(a) To be presumed innocent

until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.(b) To be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him.(c) To be present and defend in
person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to

promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at

the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is

specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the

accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be

considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under

custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on

all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the

accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears

to the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of

counsel.(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-

examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in

any manner prejudice him.(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a

witness against himself.(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against

him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a

witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the

Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or

proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject

matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.(g) To

have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and

production of other evidence in his behalf.(h) To have speedy, impartial and

public trial.(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
In the Philippines as well, delays in cases are common and are a result of either

direct or indirect actions by the prosecution. A recent case taken up by the Asian

Human Rights Commission (AHRC) illustrates the problems clearly. Five young

men, who were arrested, tortured and illegally detained in 2003, are still awaiting

a verdict from the court, as their trial has been continuously postponed or

cancelled over the last two years.

Tohamie Ulong (minor), Ting Idar (minor), Jimmy Balulao, To Akmad and

Esmael Mamalangkas were arrested on 8 April 2003, in separate joint police and

military operations in connection with the Davao International Airport (DIA) and

Sasa Wharf bombings in Cotabato City.

Upon arrest, they were tortured into admitting involvement in the

bombings. They were blindfolded, subjected to electric shocks, beaten, and

experienced dry and wet methods of suffocation. They were then illegally

detained at the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group

(CIDG 12) in Davao City for several months before being turned over to the city

jail.

Even then, no trial was conducted due to the slow progress in the conduct

of reinvestigations and the prosecutors unclear declaration of probable cause.

Under Philippine law, before a case can go on trial the prosecutor should

establish 'probable cause'. It was only in the latter part of 2004 that the victims

were arraigned. A pre-trial was set for 2 December 2004, but was postponed.

Since December 2004, the pre-trial has been postponed on several

occasions. On 4 January 2005, it was postponed due to the existence of two sets
of suspects in the same case. The judge had to order the City Prosecution Office

(CPO) to decide who among them would be tried first. On 7 January 2005, the

CPO decided that the five torture victims would undergo trial before the new

suspects.

On 18 January 2005, the hearing was cancelled due to the absence of the

prosecutor who was in hospital. Succeeding postponements occurred as the

prosecutor had not yet established 'probable cause'. Finally, on March 31 Judge

Paul T. Arcangel of the Regional Trial Court Branch 12, Davao City ruled that

probable cause existed, and a trial should be proceeded with.

The next hearing, set for June, was also postponed, as the complainant

represented by the CIDG 12 in Davao City and its witnesses failed to appear at

the hearing because they did not receive notice or a subpoena from the court.

The most recent hearing was scheduled for July 25, which was again postponed

for the same reason: the prosecutor's failure to ensure the appearance of the

complainants and witnesses at scheduled hearings.

All those accused of crimes have the right to a speedy and effective trial,

and it is the prosecutor's duty to protect this right. Any obstacles in the protection

of this right are in violation of the law. In addition, the prosecutor also has the

duty to investigate all allegations of torture and initiate consequent proceedings

[See further: AHRC UP-92-2005, 2 August 2005 and UA-69-2005, 26 April 2005].

It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied and oftentimes, this

maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine Criminal Justice System.

However, lawyers are not the only ones who are guilty of delaying tactics, court
dockets are often clogged and different legal issues often crop up that need extra

time to be decided upon. Our laws do have safeguards to ensure the prompt and

speedy action on all types of legal actions and cases.

Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution declares that: “All persons

shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,

quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

True, indeed, the 1987 Constitution provides the right not only to a speedy

trial but also to a speedy judgment after trial. Hence, the Constitution mandates

dispatch not only in the trial stage but also in the disposition thereof, warranting

dismissals in case of violations thereof without the fault of the party concerned,

not just the accused. The case of Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr., laid down the

guidelines in determining the applicability of the “speedy disposition” formula:

Speedy disposition of cases’ is a relative term. Just like the constitutional

guarantee of “speedy trial” accorded an accused in all criminal proceedings,

“speedy disposition of cases” is a flexible concept. It is consistent with delays and

depends upon the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are

unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.

As held in Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan:

The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is

deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious,

and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for

and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is

allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is
the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his

right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which

the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such

factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or

non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay,

are considered.

In addition, Section 1 (h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Procedure states

that one of the rights of an accused is to have a speedy, impartial and public trial.

A speedy trial is one conducted according to the law of criminal procedure

and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive

delays. The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the

oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite

period of time.

The right of an accused to speedy trial is not violated by the mere

postponement of scheduled hearings of the case. Unjustified postponements

which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the

right of the accused to speedy trial. The right to speedy trial allows reasonable

continuance so as not to deprive the prosecution its day in court.

In the determination of whether or not the right to a “speedy trial” has been

violated, certain factors may be considered and balanced against each other.

These are length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to

assert it, and prejudice caused by the delay. The same factors may also be

considered in answering judicial inquiry whether or not a person officially charged

with the administration of justice has violated the “speedy disposition of cases”

guarantee.

Conclusions

as the exconcixts were released from jails ,there are effects on the part of

the ex convicts and as observed by the community , ex convict were challenged ,

to find job and best way to suit themselves in the society , they become more

stronger than before because of their status and approachable since they need

friends who can count on.

the treatment modality program of the BJMP helps a lot for their

reintegration in the community and community can be a great help for the

positive reintegration of the ex convicts to the society as a productive citizens

they can help them by means of making them feel and safe and accepted in the

community and making them busy in some of the community works and jobs .

Recommendations

The following are recommended:

1. That community should continue to support the ex convicts in their

search for their new life , they should be assisted in any way they need

in order to upheld their new life upon release

2. Families and relatives of the ex convicts should not set aside the needs

of the ex convicts in order for them to face the struggle they faced upon

release so that they may cope up to their new life.

References

Altschuler, D.M. and D.L. Armstrong. 1994. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk
Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/juvcc.pdf

Altschuler, D.M., T.L. Armstrong, and D.L. MacKenzie. 1999. Reintegration,

Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. Washington, D.C. Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/175715.pdf

Andrews, D. A. and J. Bonta. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct

(3rded.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Anglin, D.M., D. Longshore, S. Turner, D. McBride, J. Inciardi, and M.

Prendergast. 1996. “Studies on the Functioning and Effectiveness of
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime: An evaluation of Five Programs.”
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 168-198.

Arnull, E., S. Eagle, A. Gammampila, D. Archer, V. Johnston, K. Miller and J.

Pitcher. 2005. Persistent Young Offenders: A Retrospective Study.
London, UK:Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

Arnull, E., S. Eagle, A. Gammampila, S.L. Patel andJ. Sadler. 2007. Housing
Needs and Experiences. London, UK: Youth Justice Board for England
and Wales.

Baldry, E., D. McDonnel, P. Maplestone, and M. Peeters. 2002. Ex-prisoners and

Accomodation: What Bearing do Different Forms of Housing Have on
Social Reintegration of Ex-Prisoners? Paper presented at the Housing,
Crime and Stronger Communities Conference convened by the Australian
Institute of Criminology and the Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute, Melbourne, 6-7 May 2002.

Banks, D. and D.C. Gottfredson. 2003. “The Effects of Drug Treatment and
Supervision on Time to Rearrest among Drug Treatment Court
Participants”, Journal of Drug Issues,33(2),385-412.

Belenko, S. 1998. Research on Drug Courts: A CriticalReview. National Drug

Court Institute Review,1(1), 1-42.
Bonta, J., R. Jesseman, T. Rugge, and R. Cormier. 2006. “Restorative Justice
and Recidivism: Promises Made, Promises Kept?” In D. Sullivan and L.
Tiff, eds. Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. New
York: Routledge. 108-120; also, summarized in: Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2006. “Restorative Justice and
Offender Treatment.” Research Summary, 11(6).

Bonta, J., M. Law, and R.K. Hanson. 1998. “The Prediction of Criminal and
Violent Recidivism Among Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Meta-
Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142. Bonta, J., S. Wallace-
Capretta, and J. Rooney. 2000a. “A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an
Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program”, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 27(3): 312-329.

Borzycki, M. 2005. Interventions for Prisoners Returning to the Community. A

Report Prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology for the
Community Safety and Justice Branch of the Australian Government
Attorney General’s Department. Canberra: Australian Institute of
Criminology.Retrieved from
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/reports/2005-03-prisoners.htm