Coercive Treatment
Student's Name
Institution's Affiliation
Course
Date
Coercive Treatment
Coercive treatment is forced therapy of systemic pressure resulting in individual entry
into treatment. According to Weisner (1990, as cited in Hogan, 2015), "This form of pressure has
negative consequences as an alternative" (p.579). Coercive treatment exists in many states, an
example of which is the utilization of merit time for prisoners who have completed established
diversion services. However, this may not be included under the basic concept of coercive
treatment when the prisoners comply voluntarily. Most of them may not do so for selfless
motives but as a substitute for a decrease in duration served, making such incentives fall under
the broad definition of "coercion." Despite the ongoing argument as to whether the judicial
system can attain institutionalized care, correctional facilities and officials have, for the most
part, accepted the notion that punishment and treatment go hand in hand to create better citizens.
The question mainly posed is whether care performs best, whether it is voluntary or coerced.
This paper explores whether punitive therapy in correctional settings is a successful way of
modifying criminal activity while assessing alternative options for altering criminal behavior in
the same environment.
The effectiveness of coercive therapy depends solely on the determination of the
offender. Motivation is generally defined on a scale of internal to an external cause. McMurran
(2002, as cited in Parhar, 2008) explains externally influenced deeds that transpire in the
existence of extrinsic incentives, while internally controlled behavior comes about with no
rewards. An individual assumes unconsciously driven activity out of desire due to its optimal
challenging capacity and its basis on inherent psychical needs. According to Ryan and Deci
(2002 as cited in Parhar, 2008), behavioral changes result from innate inspiration. These changes
take longer than behavioral changes due to extrinsic motivation, which only persists while the
external incentives are carried out. As a result, criminals who have the internal drive and
motivation to refrain from violence are more likely to be effective than those who are compelled
to adjust.
Other critical concerns surrounding coercive treatment include equal access to
counseling, with the vital issue being whether or not the "Jumping the treatment queue ahead of
non-offenders" (Seldon, 2007, p. 277). When the priority access to care is determined, the main
consequence of coercive treatment is shown. As a result, some groups, such as young men, are
over-represented while the focus of therapy is on criminal law, whereas others, such as women.
are under-represented. In correctional facilities, coercive care issues can be further exacerbated.
Incoherence to messages from service providers remains the main barrier to the treatment
success of prison addicts. Although the exact degree of employee participation in this theory can
change significantly in a given program, usually avoidance or zero tolerance, as used in the care.
This variability will delay and undermine the rehabilitation of criminals participating in
programs. Also, those forced into care are often violent, uncomfortable, and find the traditional
group environment in prison services especially