Improvements to the Correctional System - Assignment Example

Improvements to the Correctional System The main parties involved in the correctional system are inmates and prison wardens. As such, in seeking to attain higher levels of professionalism, corrections system must address inmates and prison wardens. Indeed, correction systems can enhance professionalism by adopting effective training programs and procedures in collection facilities. Training will promote the behaviors and skills of inmates, recruits, and prison wardens. Ideally, the diverse groups that constitute the correctional system must ensure that correctional services and facilities depict equality, fair treatment, diversity, accessibility, and constituency with human rights. Effective training will help in the realization of these professional principles. Training on effective correctional interventions may allow the prison staff to understand the most professional way of handling inmates. The training might involve correctional system orientation that allows inmates and prison wardens to adopt objectives, social norms, effective interactions, and acceptable practices. The training can also equip the parties with effective communication skills that will foster effective interactions, cross-cultural communication, and professional reporting. Other training may involve the management of inmates and addressing inmate behaviors and issues that arise in the facility. The training will enable the prison staff to manifest professionalism and integrity in addressing inmates’ issues. Ultimately, the training may revolve around corrections safety and security. The prison staff will gain knowledge on how to maintain a safe and secure environment that will help in eliminating physical, chemical, and biological hazards in the facility. Moreover, correction systems can enhance professionalism by adopting ethical and moral principles in correction facilities. Ideally, maintaining ethics and morality in a correction facility is very challenging. However, correction systems can design and adopt an effective code of ethics that will govern the behavior and interactions between the inmates and prison staff like police guards. The code of ethics will professionalize correctional interventions, correctional decisions, and interactions between the inmates and prison staff. Moreover, the code of ethics will ensure that inmates act ethically and morally towards fellow inmates that will foster the idea of rehabilitation. Apparently, adopting ethical and moral principles will guarantee equal treatment, confidentiality, and respect for human rights in the correction facility. For instance, the code of ethics will define how and when prison guards can physically restrain inmates or search their bodies without jeopardizing their rights. Conditions of correctional facilities circumvent the cruel and unusual punishment standard of the Eighth Amendment (White, 2012). The amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishments while in a correction facility (White, 2012). However, it is clear that the Eighth Amendment does not define the unconstitutional punishments. Moreover, the amendment requires inmates to bear the burden of proving that correctional staff depicted "deliberate indifference" to their constitutional rights (White, 2012). These aspects help correctional facilities to circumvent the Eighth Amendment with reference to the provision of services to the inmates. Apparently, proving deliberate indifference is a fundamental challenge that gives a leeway to the circumvention of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, the inmates must show that the correction staff were aware and took no measure to address eminent risks to inmates. Moreover, the inmate must prove that the correction staff’s failure to take any remedies led to fundamental violations of inmates’ rights. The high standards allow conditions of correctional facilities to circumvent the Eighth Amendment standards. I support the removal of corporal punishment from the U.S. corrections system. Notably, the UN Declaration of Human Rights declared corporal punishment a violation of human rights in all settings including correctional facilities. As a result, many countries including U.S have banned its use in the corrections system. Ideally, prisons should seek to punish, prevent, and rehabilitate criminals within the set standards. They should not advocate for the cruelty and brutality manifested in corporal punishment. Moreover, it is quite challenging to regulate corporal punishment in a manner that is acceptable to human rights advocates. Prison guards can abuse corporal punishment by instilling fear on the inmates. Furthermore, we have other alternative punishments that can apply in the U.S. corrections system. Such punishments are effective and may include life sentences, withdrawal of privileges, and solitary confinement. America lacks behavioral norms and adopts a collective mentality that disregards the need for the cruelty manifested by corporal punishment. Therefore, the U.S. corrections system is justified to remove corporal punishment. I support intermediate sanctions as a deterrent of crime. There are numerous debates on the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions to deter crime (Markel, 2001). Some philosophers argue that intermediate sanctions only reduce overcrowding in prisons and reduce the cost of punishing an offender. I feel that intermediate sanctions can also deter crime since they focus on rehabilitating offenders. Apparently, rehabilitation is an effective penalty that ensures the criminal reforms and returns to the community as a law-abiding citizen. A reformed criminal cannot revert to criminal activities. For example, intermediate sanctions minimize recidivism to drug addiction. This emanates from the fact that intermediate sanctions support rehabilitation programs that focus on mitigating the causes of drug addiction. Drug addicts who have gone through rehabilitation programs are less likely to revert to drug addiction. As such, effective intermediate sanctions can deter new crimes. Indeed, most states have adopted intermediate sanctions in their corrections system. I assert that correctional facilities do not have adequate equipment to deal with mentally ill inmates. Correctional facilities do not depict a design that supports the mentally ill. However, the correctional facilities are now under pressure to accommodate and cater for mentally ill people who commit crime crimes in the modern society. Indeed, most of the state prisoners are mentally ill which derives the urgent need for adequate equipment to deal with mentally ill inmates. Correctional facilities have insufficient equipment to address the needs of inmates with mental illness. The mental health services offered in correctional facilities are ineffective since they entail insufficient facilities, inadequate mental health providers, and few mental health programs (Fuehrlein, Jha, Brenner, & North, 2012). The cultures in correctional facilities do not prioritize the need for mental health services despite the large number of mentally ill inmates. Moreover, budget constraints and lack of public support also demean the ability of correctional facilities to address the needs of inmates with mental illness. Indeed, correctional facilities treat mentally ill inmates just like other criminals. References Fuehrlein, B. S., Jha, M. K., Brenner, A. M., & North, C. S. (2012). Can we address the shortage of psychiatrists in the correctional setting with exposure during residency training? Community Mental Health Journal, 48(6), 756-60.  Markel, D. (2001). Are shaming punishments beautifully retributive? retributivism and the implications for the alternative sanctions debate. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(6), 2155-2242. White, K. (2012). The constitutional limits of the "national consensus" doctrine in eighth amendment jurisprudence. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012(4), 1371-1392. Read More