Managing Secuity in Prisons - Research Paper Example

Managing Security in Prisons Task: Managing Security in Prisons Introduction This document concentrates on various issues that regard to the prison areas nations across the entire world. Based on various provide examples from the U.S., it is clearly overt that prisons have intrinsic weaknesses that always result into unwanted constraints in terms of running the jail facilities. Moreover, these weaknesses may be evident due to prison design concerns and loopholes in control of prison physical security. Therefore, this document encompasses a study that explicates on the prison architectural designs and the various legislations and stipulations that ought to be in action to bar unwanted occasions that lame this sector of the judiciary in most dispensations. The paper ends in a conclusion that offers the reader a second thought in the effort towards ensuring more favourable and habitable surroundings and security conditions within the prisons. The architectural design of prisons Separate System The separate system is a version of reformatory organization that is based on the standard of securing hostages in solitary imprisonment. Having started in the 19th century, the intent of such a detention centre was that of reparation by the detainees through quiet reflection. More typically, though, the separate system refers to a precise jail architecture created to support that system (Cole, 2012). The first separate system jail existed in the U.S. Its design was erected by other numerous prisons worldwide. This structure encouraged the division of inmates from each other as a mode of rehabilitation. Typical features of a separate structure jail comprise of a central auditorium, comprising of several blistering wings of jail blocks, which side from the central antechamber and each other by magnanimous metal slabs. While all the jail building blocks are noticeable to the jail workforces at the central antechamber, single cell compartments are not observable unless the workforces enter into them singly (Brown, 2008). Thus, this structuring differs from the panopticon jails. Moreover, the gaps between the consecutive blocks and the jail walls are exercise yards. When the separate jail structure interred, inmates were kept in lonely confinement, even as they exercised. Resultantly, the prison management raised panopticon structures in the respective yards. More overt and communal working out yards replaced the 19th century panopticon formations. However, such prisons as the Pentoville in London mandated their detainees to wear their training masks during exercise, in total isolation. Most of the separate jail structures exist to date. Additionally, the separate structuring still influences jail architecture to the present day (Boughay, 2012). Chief designers of the separate jail structures drew magnanimously on extreme solitary incarceration to damage the inmate’s identity and make them more docile. This would also sabotage the scandalous subculture that existed in compactly populated jails. Inmates confined in a separate structure jails would be truncated to their names, identities and faces, with their criminal histories deleted. Thus, the warders and prison guards were not aware of their details such as names, history and crimes they committed. Moreover, conversing with them was illegal. In addition, all inmates hooded to hide their facial identity upon exiting a unit. Moreover, they wore felted footwear to deaden their footsteps. The result of this structuring was a dumb compliance and an unreceptive uncertainty that seriously shattered the criminal society. Thus, the administration regime extended to the jail chapel where all inmates could see the chaplain but could not visibly see their counterparts. Radial Model This prison model rose to eminence when Haviland planned the construction of a jail in Philadelphia. It is efficient in terms of its convenience, aeration, economic design and ease of surveillance. The eminence of the radial structuring of prisons emerged from its ease of observation and surveillance of inmates in jail. This model comprised of an entirely circular building that housed the governor or the correctional officer (Roth, 2006). Moreover, cell building blocks emerged from the centre like wheel spokes. Johnston describes this prison design as a consortium emanating from a central point. Moreover, the radial system resembles an asterisk. Typically, this is a jail design with a linear form, where single cells align in queues down the cell compartments. In this design, the cell building blocks and administration structures extend from a middle focal point. However, this architectural design has not proven to be efficient as most dispensations disregard it (Roth, 2006). Probably, the reason behind this may be because the detainee traffic and mobility results into one point within the jail. This characteristic congestion within the jail presents a hazardous situation in high security jails. Campus style prisons Campus style jails have been in application most recently. This architectural prison design came first through the FBP. Moreover, the initial of this plan characterising the partition and spreading out of the structures within secure confines. Purportedly, forcing detainees to commute from one structure to another and moving outside instead of moving in corridors elicits a favourable response by the inmate to their surroundings (Pollock, 2009). This is because there is minimal congestion by the detainees as they commute from one part of the building to another. Additionally, with the decentralized placement of the jail building structures, there is minimal congestion as the detainees commute throughout the prison parameters. Therefore, this control fends off the likelihood of unnecessary tension on the inmates throughout the period of incarceration. Notably, the campus architectural jail design stands out to be an overtly popular prison design in contemporary times. This is due to the fact that most affiliations design their jails to fit their purpose. Congregate system The congregate prison architectural design, also the auburn system, first appeared in a NY prison in Auburn. Though it inculcates the principles of restoration, it is a purportedly a less wholesome design than the popular Philadelphia system. Detainees work, stay and eat together but return to their solitary cells thereafter at night. Moreover, silence is a characteristic concern that prison guards enforce. Mostly, the detainees practice heavy labour such as construction of buildings among others. This purportedly encourages remorse and reformation (Pollock, 2009). Moreover, this system inculcates the tier design, where different levels of units where convicts live in terms of their crime categories. Additionally, detainees dress in differently coloured attire, dependent of their categorization. This system generates income and is more realistic and lucrative. Additionally, detainees are less likely to go haywire and the administration can easily feed them. Moreover, this design has been an embodiment of an effective jail internationally and nationally. Telephone-pole design In such prisons where the telephone pole plan is evident, there is an extensive mid corridor that serves as the pathway for inmates to commute from one section of an institute to the other. Cross arms jut out from the passageway with each having various jail functional units such as sanatoriums, schools and recreational facilities. The mid pole gives allowance for stringent observation and provides easy admittance to the entire functional area. In the U.S., the telephone pole architectural system is most typically manipulated most utmost security jails For instance; Marion and Graterford apply this design system. Moreover, these institutions are for safekeeping in terms of classification systems for inmates. Moreover, various safekeeping areas have special treatment for detainees with significant concerns. However, the system bears demerits of being prone to weak monitoring where detainees may practice violence in hidden corridors (Pollock, 2009). Security policies and procedures The Contribution of Policies and Procedures to a Safe and Secure Prison Environment Physical security is principally vested with the limitation of access to restricted parties or intruders to prison facilities. Moreover, physical security may encompass the protection of the natural prison surrounding from intruders who may affect or implicate on documents or information resources and with intent to truncate and prevent accidental situations such as fires among others (Gaes, 2004). Inevitably, security enforcement requires funding, thus, incurs enormous sums of finances. Additionally, it cannot be perfect or fault free. Therefore, enforcement of physical security in jails may not totally eliminate risks. Given that mere controls are not entirely perfect, firm physical safety inculcates the law of in depth defence by application of various complementary controls. Therefore, it is pertinent for any prison facility management to devise policies that ensure safety in the prison environment. Thus, it is left for security engineers to ensure steadiness of security programs against potential risks by accounting for the associated costs. Additionally, such an administration ought to observe the rights, health, safety and conventions of the detainees in the course of security execution (Gaes, 2004). Bodily access safety methods that are inevitable for high safety jails may be inappropriate in other areas though, the security principles are coincident. Contemporarily, physical safety is not overtly human. The activity of actively protecting a territory against unnecessary interlopers is overtly typical in the animal realm. Thus, the physical safety phenomenon is not a modern prospect. Modern physical safety measures comprise technological controls that advance with the incoming potential coercion. Notably, physical safety controls of the past seem to be faulty and ineffective in contemporary times. Therefore, the administrations ought to move with technology as they progress their physical safety controls (Clear et al, 2011). Satisfactory checks of inmate’s mail, packages, and all individuals who enter a prison For the security design to work, there ought to be controls that curtail some freedoms of the inmates. This, however, should not deprive them of their rights. For instance, a surveillance system that checks the inmate’s incoming and outgoing communications through the mail and packages would be a pertinent security control (Clear et al, 2011). Moreover, it is clear that the aim of physical security is to induce potential intruders to believe that they may not succeed in their endeavours. This can be realized using warning signs and warning messages in areas where it is critically prohibited to intrude within the jail and within its information systems. Physical security can also encompass access control where mechanical construction of burglar proofing is applicable (Gaes, 2004). Doors and locks ought to be reinforced and maintained properly. Stipulation of access rights to workforces within the prison parameters ensures upholding of rules and stipulations and protects considerable resources housed within the prison quarters. Control of contraband Control of contraband is pertinent for boosting of security in prisons. Contraband is any prohibited item that detainees should not possess in the prison institution. It comprises of objects or items that may assist an inmate to elude, murderous items and other items that may curtail security in jails. Institutions have polices that provides modes of preventing detainees from possessing contraband items. Inmates may receive contraband items through mail packages, from visitors or within the jail. Unethical prison workforces may be a potential source of contraband (Palmer, 2010). Contraband control is one pertinent way to maintain a secure jail surrounding. Most contraband may be potentially murderous weaponry that should not be in the tenure of any inmate. This is because the detainees may use these weapons to harm their counterparts with whom they have disagreements. Thus, the prison management has to put forward more appealing contraband identification actions that include habitual inspections. Thus, anything that compromises jail security ought to be perceived seriously (Palmer, 2010). Inmate accountability Direct and Indirect supervision Direct supervision is a progressive investigation system that is widely accepted by numerous dispensations in their prison administration systems. Notably, most prison systems that apply direct supervision techniques register, relatively lower instances of extortions and assaults, as opposed to the traditional linear scheme of supervision and jail administration. It also allows for cheaper construction since it results into enhanced behaviour of the detainees. With the application of the direct supervision design, the detention supervisors are able to monitor inmates. This supervision technique fosters positive behavioural patterns in detainees. Moreover, deviation from the behaviour that the administration anticipates results into withdrawal of privileges and possible punishment (Palmer, 2010). However, casual supervision is the complete opposite and incurs the institution colossal damages and indiscipline. It is precisely the opposite of the former. Conclusion After a detailed study regarding the assorted applicable prison designs discussed in the first section of this paper, it is overtly clear that some designs are faulty and prone to incurring losses and unruly behaviour on the part of the detainees (Michael, 2012). The different architectural designs that institutions from diverse dispensations inculcate in their systems regard to their concerns. Some may prefer a design to the other based on various reasons. However, it is pertinent for the various administrations to design their jails in such a way that physical security and serenity in the jail surrounding is upheld. Moreover, control of contraband and supervision in jails is overtly consummate. This would ensure maximum safety and peace within the detention facilities (Myhew, 2011). References Palmer, J. (2010). Constitutional Rights of Prisoners. New Providence, NJ: Elvesier. Gaes, G. (2004). Measuring Prison Performance: Government Privatization and Accountability. Walnur Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira. Clear, T et al. (2011). American Corrections in Brief. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Michael, D. (2012). American corrections. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Roth, M. (2006). Prisons and Prison Systems: A Global Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Mayhew, H. (2011). The Criminal Prisons of London: And Scenes of Prison Life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Pollock, J. (2009). Prisons Today and Tomorrow. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Cole, G. (2012). American Corrections. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Boughay, M. (2011). Prisons in the Mid to Late Nineteenth Century. Retrieved from Brown, R. (2008). Separate and Silent. Retrieved from Read More