Functions of Federal Bureau of Prisons - Research Paper Example

? Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Bureau of Prisons Introduction There has long been a debate in this country over thefunction of a prison. Some would strongly contend that its purpose is punitive and that prisoners should be punished according to the crime that they commit. While few would argue with that contention, others do contend that the primary purpose of the prison should be rehabilitate offenders and get them ready to be positive contributors and law-abiding citizens in society upon their release. Naturally, there are some prisoners who will never be released back into society, but for the millions of others, many in society would like to see them get prepared for a second chance. Whatever the intended function of prison is, the reality is that they perform a role in our society. We have the need to feel safe from people who would do us harm. Many commit crimes at the state level, so are sentences to local jails or state prisons. Others, however, wrong the country as a whole, and not just a given segment of society. For this offenders, the federal government has set up an elaborate system of prisons across the country divided into six different regions. The purpose of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is to “Protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prison and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens” (Roberts, 1997, p. 53). The purpose of this paper is to explain the function of the federal prison and to examine the actually effectiveness of its various programs and policies. History and Policies Established in 1930, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has stated its policy to provide more progressive and humane care and treatment for Federal inmates sentenced to serve time (Roberts, 1997, p. 53). The policy of the system to also provide professional prison services that is designed to ensure consistent care, no matter which facility a prisoner may be housed in. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has grown from 11 institutions in 1930 to 119 today. There are also six regional offices, a central office, two centers for staff training, and 22 centers that serve residential reentry purposes (Roberts, 1997, p. 53). As one can see, this is quite an elaborate system of institutions, and each is governed by a nationalized set of policies designed to keep everything running smoothly throughout the country. Currently, the federal prisoner system is designed to care for about 219,000 inmates. Policies dictate that each inmate who is incarcerated is done so in order to order to ensure public safety. At the same time, the facilities that the inmates are housed in are designed to be safe, humane, cost efficient, and secure to the level required by each individual offender. Security Levels Just as with state and local prisons and jails, there are various levels of security existent in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The system is made of five distinct security levels. The goal in this division is to confine offending prisoners in a manner appropriate to their individual circumstance and crime committed. Each level has different features related to the number and presence of external patrols, towers, security barriers, or detection devices (Fliesher, 1998, p. 11). Each level of confinement will also typically have different types of housing within the institution, certain security features, and a different staff-to-inmate ration. It is also interesting to note that each institution in the federal system is designed to house a different security level as needed depending on the space available and the needs of the population (Fliesher, 1998, p. 11). The lowest level of security in the Federal Bureau of Prisons is minimum security. Prisons of this type are also known as Federal Prison Camps and typically have dormitory type housing, a low staff-to-inmate ration when compared to other security levels, and minimum to no perimeter fencing around the institution. These particular prisons often consist of work related programs and are usually located to larger prisons or on military bases. This is so that minimum security inmates can help work at larger prisons or on the bases. Inmates who do not quite qualify for minimum security housing, but are still relatively low risk, will likely be housed in a low security institution. These typically have double-fenced perimeters, consist of dormitory or cubicle style housing, and also have strong work and program related components. Unlike minimum security institutions, low security units begin to beef up the staff-inmate ratio and they tend to have more built-in security features. Medium security federal correction institutions typically have perimeter fences that are much stronger than those found in low security units, and they are often double-fences with electronic detection systems. These institutions have cell-type housing and contain a mix of work and treatment programs, but have a higher staff-to-inmate ration and they have great internal controls to prevent outbreaks of violence and escape. The fourth level of security is high security. This are also referred to as federal penitentiaries and have highly secured perimeters. The perimeters in such penitentiaries have either walls or reinforced fences. The housing consists of either multiple or single occupancy cells, and they have the highest staff-to-inmate ratios in the federal system. Movements of inmates in a high security institution typical are closely monitored and their movements are highly restricted. There is a fifth level existent in the Federal Bureau of Prison’s known as the administrative level. Administrative institutions are typically charged with special missions, such as holding pretrial offenders, treating inmates who have a serious medical conditions, or handling the detention of extremely dangerous or violent inmates. This level will also house any inmate who is viewed to be particularly escape-prone. Most administrative facilities in the system are constructed in such a way that they can typically house any level of offender, in all security categories. Recidivism Rates Since the primary stated goal of federal prison is to correct the attitudes and behaviors of inmates so that they do not become repeat offenders, it is particularly beneficial to examine the recidivism rates of the inmates. When considering such rates, it is useful to look at recent statistics. In 2007, for example, there were a little over one million people on parole from the federal prison system. Of this amount, nearly 16%, or slightly more than 160,000 individuals, were returned to prison within the year (Pelissier, 2008, p. 702). It is also useful to look at state by state comparison. From 15 states in a recent survey, there were nearly 300,000 individuals released from the federal prison system. Out of this 300,000, just over 67% were arrested again for various offenses. This is staggering amount, and it appears to be on the rise. In a survey conducted a decade earlier, that percentage was only 62%, indicating an increase of more than five percent (Murray, 2001, p. 35). Naturally, society is often particularly interested in the recidivism rates for the most violent of offenders. The statistics in that category are even more sobering. Of the 67% of paroles who were rearrested within three years, 47% were convicted anew of a felony or serious misdemeanor. It has been discovered that the most common repeat offenders are those convicted of robbery, with over 74% becoming repeat offenders. Other common repeat offenders include those convicted of larceny, theft of a motor vehicle, possessing stolen property, and those caught selling or using illegal weapons. In an equally troubling find, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for a subsequent rape committed after their release. In addition, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide are arrested again on the same charge (Ross, 2002, p. 146) Rehab Programs In order to assist prisoners and to provide them with need training and treatment to avoid committing a crime again upon release, the federal prison system has an extensive list of rehabilitation programs. These programs are designed not to make excuses for the behavior that got an inmate locked up in the first place, but rather they are usually designed to treat the underlying issues that cause the individual to break the law in the first place. For example, perhaps a lack of an education, leading to little to no access to viable employment, turned the inmate towards a season of crime. Certain programs exist to use the time that an inmate is sentenced to jail to provide them with some vocational training and education in order to give them a chance at employment upon release. Other prisoners may enter with a drug or other substance abuse problem. We know that many such inmates commit crimes either to gain access to drugs, or as a result of the drug trade itself. Rather than simply having them serve time and then be released, only to return to prison because their issues have never been dealt with, many federal prisons will offer drug rehabilitation programs. Such programs are designed to get inmates away from drugs and to develop alternative means of enjoyment, or employment, upon release. Were it not for many such programs, many drug offenders would be right back where they started from upon release (Murray, 2001, p. 35). The mental health of prisoners is often another key area that must be treated. Too often prisons are accused of punishing offenders, as society rightfully expects them to do, but failing to look for underlying behavioral disorders that may create the propensity to commit crimes in the first place. This is where mental health services plays a big part. By determining the reasons why some individual committed the crimes they did, treatment programs can be started behind bars where prisoners can get a better handle on their behaviors, decreasing the likelihood of becoming a repeat offender (Pellisier, 2008, p. 701). Conclusion The Federal Bureau of Prisons serves an important function in our society. We expects individuals who break the law to be punished. We also expect our system to train these individuals and help them to become productive members of society upon release. That is certainly the goal of the system. While not everyone can or wants to be helped, the important aspect of the system is that it does its best. From the guards, to the court system, down to the institutions themselves, the federal prison system exists to protect society from those individuals that desire to do it harm, while returning to society those who are truly deserving of a second chance. References Fleisher, M. (1998). Strategic management in the federal bureau of prisons. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 11. Murray, D. (2001). New initiatives in drug treatment in the federal bureau of prisons. Federal Probation, 55(2), 35. Pelissier, B. (2008). Mental health research in the federal bureau of prisons: Current trends and future developments. Psychiatric Annals, 18(12), 702. Roberts, J. (1997). The federal bureau of prisons: Its mission, its history, and its partnership with probation and pretrial services. Federal Probation, 61(1), 53. Ross, P. (2002). Preparing federal prison inmates for employment after release: An innovation at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(4), 146. Read More