State Correction System - Essay Example

State Corrections System Part A 1. Institutional corrections punish offenders by incarcerating them in the confines of prisons to keep the public safe. The goals of community-based corrections system are no different from that of institutional corrections system, but seek to complement them. However, instead of isolating offenders in facilities away from the public, community-based corrections enforce punishments outside of traditional correctional facilities. Community-based corrections system still holds the objective of protecting the public, vindicating the victim of the offender and preventing the latter from reoffending through any of the following goals: rehabilitation; community reentry; restorative justice, and; shaming (Alarid & del Carmen p. 14). A community-based corrections system aims to protect the public through effective control of the offender while he is serving his sentence effected through an accurate evaluation of the risks involved in allowing such offender to participate in community activities as well as ensuring effective monitoring and control by officers tasked to supervise the offender while he is serving his sentence. The goal of rehabilitation is made effective through ‘programming’ the offender, which is the process of helping him to reduce his criminal behavior. This can only be done, however, if such offender truly wants to change and accepts help from others. On the other hand, restorative justice, another goal of community based corrections system, is achieved by making the offender perform community service and participate in educational programs where he is made to see the perspectives of victims. Finally, shaming, which is akin to the scarlet-letter punishment employed by the Puritan society, is done by making the offender accept and apologize for his acts publicly. The objective is evidently to deter the offender from committing a similar act in the future (Alarid & del Carmen pp. 15-16). 2. Listed in the Virginia Department of Corrections website are the following community-based programs: intensive supervision (or ISP); home electronic and telephone monitoring; community residential programs (or CRPs); diversion centers; detention centers; substance abuse services (DSAT), and; sex offender supervision program (Virginia.gov 2011). ISP is conducted on offenders who are considered high risk. Intensive surveillance of the offender’s activities coupled with the use of such monitoring systems as Home Electronic Monitoring, telephone, curfews, and home and employment checks are the standard ISP mechanisms used by the Virginia DOC. High risk offenders include sex predators, hate group offenders and those who have graduated from community corrections. HEM, which is a separate program, employs either a tamper-resistant electronic transmitter strapped to the ankle of the offender or a field monitoring device. A $30 fee is assessed from offenders who are made to use a HEM. CRPs make use of transitional residential centers to temporarily house offenders under supervision where they undergo supervised housing, random urinalysis, testing, life skills and counseling. Offenders pay for their board and lodging. Diversion centers emphasize work and offenders are given jobs in public works and in prison complexes. They also receive counseling and related programs. Detention centers is a program that takes about 5 to 7 months consisting of military drills and discipline, strict hygiene, and where detainees are made to undergo physical labor. A DSAT consists of substance abuse screening, assessment, testing and treatment. Meanwhile, Virginia’s Sex Offender Supervision program requires certain offenders to register in a registry created for that purpose. The program also includes intense supervision, treatment and subjecting offenders to polygraph tests (Virginia.gov 2011). 3. The results of research on the effectiveness of community-based corrections programs can be best described as mixed. Some researches say it is effective, some say the opposite (Elrod & Ryder 2011, p. 303). The effectiveness of a community-based corrections program, according to Alarid and del Carmen, is often measured by considering the rate of recidivism and how the term is defined and when, after supervision, it is measured, the measurement of other variables during supervision, the existence of a comparison group, the group selection and the occurrence of net widening. (2010, p. 19). Massachusetts and Ohio are two of the states that reported success in their CBC programs. In 1972, Dr. Jerome Miller, the then newly recruited head of the Department of Youth Services (DYS) of the state of Massachusetts instituted reforms in the state’s juvenile prisons. He had, for example, substituted prison uniforms to street clothes and stopped requiring juvenile prisoners to shave their heads. When his minor reforms were met with resistance from various sectors, he shut down juvenile prison houses and transferred to small training schools housing juvenile offenders who homes are in nearby communities. He introduced non-residential programs such as day reporting centers and intensive home-based supervision. Although the DYS still operated half of the secure juvenile houses, the rest, including community-based programs were given to private non-profit organizations (Krisberg 2005). According to Dr. Miller, only 25% of juvenile offenders in the state committed an offense against persons so that it is doubtful that they would pose risk to society if they serve their punishments outside of correctional facilities (Elrod & Ryder 2011, p. 303). In a study conducted separately by Harvard Law School and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, the Miller reforms succeeded in bringing down the “frequency and severity” of offenses committed by the youth in the community-based programs as compared to those undergoing strict confinement in juvenile facilities (Krisberg 2005). In 2002, Professor Nancy Marion of the University of Akron made a study on the Ohio community-based corrections programs and concluded that this system is comparatively less expensive than incarceration. Ohio’s community-based corrections programs are based on the Community Corrections Act (CCA), a law that created non-residential prison alternatives for “lower level felons.” By 2000, about 8,698 and 18,344 offenders have been redirected from state and local prisons, respectively. The extent of acceptance of the CCA programs is perhaps the reason why Ohio’s prison population is comparatively lower than that of others states in the Mid-west. To compare the costs between incarcerations and the CCA programs, Marion collected relevant data from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The data collected from DRC and from another source, a community corrections facility, also provided information on recidivism rates. Marion discovered that CCA programs are less costly than institutionalization with the state making savings between $2,000 and $11,000 per person. Moreover, offenders in CBC stay under government supervision for a lot less than prison inmates and recidivism rates for CBC offenders are less than prison inmates (2002, p. 3). Part B 1. The Virginia Department of Corrections website classifies its correctional facilities into seven levels: Level 1(low) for cases that do not involve murder I or II, robbery, any sex-related crime, kidnap/abduction, flight/escape, carjacking, malicious wounding, escape risks, assault, felony detainers or any disruptive behavior; Level 2(high) for cases not involving murder I or II, sex offense, kidnap/abduction, escape history or disruptive behavior for at least 24 months; Level 2 for initial assignment and no disruptive behavior for at least 24 months; Level 3 for those who have served 20 consecutive years on sentence with no disruptive behavior for the last 24 months; Level 4 for long term single, multiple and life sentences with no disruptive behavior for at least 24 months; Level 5 for long term, single and multiple life sentences with no disruptive behavior for at least 24 months, and; Maximum Security for cases of long term, single, multiple and life sentences with disruptive, assaultive, severe behavior problems, predatory-type and escape-risk offenders. It has also 4 Special Purpose Institutions: the Mecklenburg Correctional Center for processing male offenders from local jails; Deep Meadow Correctional Center is a level 2 facility that houses wheelchair bound inmates; Marion Correctional Treatment Center is the state mental hospital and; Powhatan Reception Center is a male institution serving as infirmary. Correctional facilities are also categorized into male and female institutions and of the 39 major and correctional facilities listed only the following are definitively categorized as women institution: Brunswick Work Center; Central Virginia Correctional Unit; Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women; Virginia Correctional Center for Women. There are other facilities, however, which did not indicate its gender classification. Moreover, the website did not differentiate, however, between public and private institutions (Virginia.gov 2011). 2&3. The Federal Bureau of Prisons lists the Federal Medical Center as a federal facility in the north central Massachusetts classifying it as an administrative facility for male offenders requiring specialized or long-term medical or mental health treatment. The facility also includes a satellite camp for minimum security male inmates. It is specifically located about 39 miles west of Boston and 20 miles north of Worcester inside the military base at Fort Devens. The security level is indicated as administrative (Federal Bureau of Prisons). References: Alarid, L.F. and del Carmen, R. Community-Based Corrections. 8th Ed. Cengage Learning, 2010. Elrod, P. and Ryder, R. S. (2011) Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical and Legal Perspective. Third Ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Federal Prison Facilities. Federal Bureau of Prisons. http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityLoc. Krisberg, B. (2005) ‘Reforming Juvenile Justice.’ The American Prospect. http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=reforming_juvenile_justice. Marion, N. (2002) Community Corrections in Ohio: Cost Savings and Program Effectiveness. http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/comm_corr_rep.pdf. Read More