How Prisons Work and Prisoner Management - Essay Example

CORRECTIONAL CRIMINOLOGY DO PRISONS WORK NAME INSTITUTION ABSTRACT The main focus of this essay is on the basis of the function of a prison as a correctional facility or institution for offenders. A prisons aim, is basically to aid the judicial arm of the government in dealing with both juvenile and adult offenders as well as integrating them back into the society. The treatment accorded to them, a focus on the Western Australia system of sentencing and imprisonment tendencies only shows the risks of reoffending and recidivism. How well we treat the offenders based on their different offences and needs would go a long way in ensuring that they do lead good lives even after release from these institutions. The nature of punishment is mainly to deter and correct an offender, but better treatment ought to be accorded to the offenders as they are still citizens. In the centre of any criminal justice system lies, the main issues of correction, as a means of reconciling an offender with the community, and treating them as citizens (Brown & Wilkie 2002). The main emphasis for any punishment system, with a justice as its main focus, is the ability of concentrating on the aspects of deterring, rehabilitating, correcting and punishing any offender as provided by the law. However, there has been a growing debate, on the ineffectiveness of correction, as a measure of rehabilitating criminals, and integrating them back to the society. Correction, in criminology, mainly involves roles by correctional agencies in punishment, treatment, and supervision of those persons who are convicted for having done a crime, prohibited or proscribed by a particular law (Harding, 1997). However, it is usually the mandate of the court to prescribe the appropriate punishment , at their discretion for any offender, regardless of their needs as well as their type of offence (Dear, Thomson, Hall & Howells, 2001).The main functions, for any prison are those involving, parole, probation, imprisonment, whether long term or short term. The treatment programs of correctional purposes are usually chosen, does not work for all offenders the same, and this usually gives rise to recidivism; a tendency for which convicted criminals do return to the correctional facilities within a few years (Bull, 2010). Western Australia can be stated to have the highest prison rates especially of the Aboriginal people as opposed to other Australian states. This is based on its double increase between the years 1990 and 2010, based on a parliamentary report in the year 2010. The factors creating the risks of offending as well as reoffending are based on the accessibility of drugs and alcohol, the low levels of education, child abuse. The most contributing factor in reoffending is attributed to juvenile justice centre, based on the fact that it does contribute to recidivism. The high prison rates are also attributed to factors such as the role of the police especially in how they act, racism as well as in their reaction to violence, the socio economic factors, the people perception, and little knowledge of the law and an understanding of the criminal justice systems. There is also the concept that in Western Australia, there is a high chance of offence criminalization, on offensive behaviour contrasted to other Australian communities. The treatment of aboriginal communities on incredibly trivial offence is also a factor, based on the focus of court procedural technicalities other than on the substantive aspects towards attainment of justice (McKean & Ransford, 2004). Figure 1 National average daily Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Imprisonment rate in the March Quarter 2011 © Australia Bureau of Statistics. The sentences that are usually imposed on offenders for any kind of crime can be probation, community service, imprisonment, or fine, however, in the view of recidivism, imprisonment is usually considered as amongst the maximum contrasted to hanging (O’Toole & Eyland, 2005). The other systems of punishment, as opposed to imprisonment, are usually considered to be quite ideal, and are usually recommended for first time offenders and the nature of offence (Howells & Day, 1999). In trying to understand whether prisons do work, it is crucial to understand and know what a prison is. A prison is usually and basically considered a closed facility, entirely from the outside contact, away from the public life, social contact, as well as civilization. A prisoner is not entitled to any salary or remuneration, as well as the conditions of living in which a person is subjected can be said to be quite torturous. There is usually a darkness inside the prison, minimum time is spent out-doors, a first time offender can be exposed to advice from criminals with questionable background and the overwhelming stench (Bull, 2010). Most prisons do not have water; little food is given in small rations. A person subjected to this kinds of living conditions, cannot be re-integrated without the proper counselling and guidance. There needs to be a proper treatment program and consideration for integration with the community. A prison does work, especially for those considered repetitive offenders but ideally it cannot work for everyone. Juvenile institutions are usually recommended for those who are under age or children for correctional purposes. On the other hand, in consideration of Western Australia it is contended that the high rates of recidivism is attributed to those who have been into the juvenile system. However, one cannot say this to be true because the legislative framework does offer a different view on the class of people to be committed into jail. A prison does adopt different theories, in terms of how it is manned either, on the remote supervision model, or the contemporary supervision model each having an impact on the inmates conduct (Finnane , 1997). The theories informing the supervision within the prison, does provide for whether a prisoner would be reformed, or will be catapulted back into criminal activities. In this case therefore, correctional facilities should focus on giving inmates programs that can improve their lives, and invest their time in community activities. In this view, a prion does fail to utilize the use of parole that is considered to be a better maintainer of the population of prisons. However, Australia has amongst that highest probation and parole rates in the entire world, there is still a need to consider the prison population ration and focus more on retributive justice and deterrence. The prisons do not also consider, pre-sentence options, conditional release mechanisms, because a prison is strict on the length or duration in which a person is sentenced (Barry, 1997). Community service would be better compared to imprisonment based on the fact that imposing a custodial sanction to a fist time offender and petty offenders would highly increase their chances of reoffending as well as re-incarceration. The only undoing of this treatment program would be the inadequacy of professionals to oversee the community based correctional services as identified by Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters (2006). Other treatment programs that do exist do include the presentence sanctions such as imposition of fines, the suspension of imprisonment as well as probation (O’toole& Eyland, 2005). Monetary penalties as we, are usually, considered to be the most common non-custodial sentences as noted by Otoole and Eyland (2005). The community corrections and restorative justice programs, court-monitored treatment programs as well, as home detention are considered as alternatives to the prison, as forms of deterrence and correction of offenders. The alternative treatment options are quite good, based on the fact that the offender is entitled to give back to the community for the committed offence. The only obstacle in this use is based on the ability of any jurisdiction to sustainably supervise an offender and get the best outcomes. Restorative justice focusing on the victim-offender reconciliation and group conferencing are considered a means of deterring offenders as opposed to the issues of imprisonment. Ideally programs that are more centred in psychological theory and research are attributed to have better outcomes in efforts of providing rehabilitation services to offenders. These are usually crucial especially for sex offenders, drug and alcohol abuse, violence and general offending. This is based on the fact that they aim at helping an offender deal with issues that are entirely not criminal in nature but are influenced by environment as well as their personal beliefs. A prison, in contrast cannot help such individuals based on the fact that the nature of their crime is not criminal, but is based on certain social and psychological issues as popped to crime. The effectiveness of offender treatment with criminal sanction, then it outwits criminal sanctions on the basis that it is suitable for integration, treatment as well as rehabilitation of an offender and reduces the risk of reoffending and recidivism. The main focus of any treatment program to reduce the risks of offending, reoffending and recidivism, should be based on the consideration so the changing antisocial attitudes and cognitions mainly on crime, as this is to be an immediate concern. There should also be a focus on the basis of reduction of antisocial peer associations to ensure that when an alternative form of punishment is adopted, there is a limited risk of interacting with criminal activities. Identification of anti-criminal role models and the increase of an offenders problem solving skills would important for any treatment program to ensure an adequate cope of recidivism. Treatment programs should also focus in helping a rehabilitating offender to determine and recognise risky situations; have adequate coping mechanisms as opposed to imprisonment. A holistic treatment of offenders in terms of how they are integrated into society as well as how to cope, as opposed to a prison, would go a long way in guaranteeing and decreasing the chances of reoffending,. On this basis therefore correctional facilities ought to be recommended as a last resort, in any criminal justice systems, as well as even if a person is sentenced, then rehabilitation programs should be integrated those high risk offenders with different criminological needs. Western Australia treatment programs are to be considered uniquely, as they must be designed on the basis of ‘curing Aboriginal criminal issues” as opposed to a generalized solution. A more appropriate way would be a circle sentencing in ensuring that recidivism is reduced, especially amongst the aboriginal juveniles. The main programs usually recommended as opposed to prison would be community correction orders, healing lodges adopted from Canada, justice reinvestment, stopping the ‘tough on crime’ approach, culturally appropriate detention, spiritual healing programs as well as shifting the blame as considered by Tom Calma, a former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Recidivism, is commonly known to refer to the relapse of a criminal into criminal activity, and is usually considered on the basis of a person’s return to a correctional facility. (McKean & Ransford, 2004). Recidivism plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of the role that is played by any correctional facility, in ensuring that they get reintegrated into the society and they do not fall back in commission of crimes. It is generally considered, that there can be a better outcome, when the means of correction is matched with the criminological needs and wants of the particular offender. Generally, it is considered that Western Australia has the highest rates of recidivism as well as there is a global trend for increase in recidivism. Each year , there are considerable number of inmates are released, but there is considerable evidence that at least in one year or two, they will be back into the correctional facilities. It is considered that those who are sentenced back are mainly those who are considered as “short term prisoners”, with a minority being serious criminal offenders. The main reason for recidivism is mainly on the basis that a prison is criminogenic, mainly on the basis that once on has served a term in the institution, then there is a high chance of being re-incarcerated, because a prison at times does fail to deter an offender from committing the crime again. The more people any considerable court imprisons, the more the number of offenders will increase, based on both legislative and policy failures (Haney, 2005). It can be considered that there is no appropriate mechanism for dealing with post release and care of offenders to prevent recidivism. There needs to be more approach, than the one take by Justice and Corrective Services Departments across Australia through the through care policy to ensure a reduction in reoffending. This is considered as a continuous, co-ordinated and integrated management of offenders, including the first time in which they did come in contact with the correctional services up and until their successful integration into the community and end of their legal order (Baldry et al. 2006). Release from any correctional facility essentially means, that an offender is to start a new life, and housing or accommodation does present a problem to them. Being in a constant state of homelessness does means that one is prone to criminal activity, to sustain their lives. Access to other basic needs such as employment, access to educational programs, and provision of care services, are things that contribute to recidivism, especially in the Western Australia correctional institutions. After care would be crucial, based on the fact that a reoffender needs guidance on the necessities and how to cope with daily challenges that can expose them to criminal activities as well as unnecessary peer influence. Probation and peer counselling as well as follow up after release would be ideal in guaranteeing that a prison works, without these, then the concept of incarceration would be useless. The issue of recidivism ought to be addressed, by preventing offending or re-offending, especially through childhood education, provision of support for families, court diversion, considering the aspects of restorative justice approaches as well as rehabilitation for alcohol and drug abusers as opposed to incarceration. It is thus doubtful, whether the prison or incarceration, does contribute to the reduction of criminal offenders, or on the other hand it contributes to an increase. Measures are to be ensured that both the deterrence aspects of criminal correctional institutions are met; they are rehabilitated as well as ensuring that proper sentences are meted on a deserving offence. In conclusion, prisons can be better places for correcting multiple offenders as well as if it integrates in its correctional aims, the need to rehabilitate, and provide inmates with coping skills. Treatment programs that are identified are all crucial to any first time offender or those with other needs, but committing them to a jail term, only exposes them to certain risks. Recidivism is noted to have resulted as a consequence, of poor treatment of inmates, thus increasing their chances of re-offending and being incarcerated again. The most crucial thing for any prison is that it adopts a means for ensuring that the proper means of correction is adopted, for any correction facility to work effectively. Prisons do work, however, certain criteria ought to be placed in determining who should be subjected to it, and how they can be helped to be fully rehabilitated. References Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2012). Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 16, 39-55. Baldry, E. , McDonnell, D. , Maplestone, P. & Peeters, M. (2006). Homelessness , ex-prisoners and the State. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39 (1): 20-33 Barry, M. (1997). Remand custody orders: A descriptive analysis of magisterial remand custody orders for offenders who received a non-custodial sentence (pp. 42-57). Unpublished Thesis. Available from Edith Cowan University and Ministry of Justice Libraries, Perth. Copied with the permission of M. Barry (28.4.99). Brown , D., & Wilkie, M. (Eds.). (2002). Prisoners as citizens. NSW: Federation Press. Bull, M. (2010). Punishment and Sentencing: Risk, Rehabilitation and Restitution. (1st ed.) London: Oxford University Press. Dear, G., Thomson, D. M., Hall, G. J., & Howells, K. (2001). Non-fatal self- harm in West Australian prisons: Who, where, when and why. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34, (1) 47-66. Finnane, M. (1997). Punishment in Australia Society . (1st ed.) Sydney: Oxford University Press. Haney, C. (2005). Reforming Punishment : Psychological Limits to the Pains of Imprisonment. Washington Dc: APA Books. Harding, R. W. (1997). Accountability and the political context of privatization. Private prisons and public accountability (Ch 2, pp. 17-32). Buckingham: Open University Press. Howells, K. & Day, A. (1999). The rehabilitation of offenders: International perspectives applied to Australian correctional systems. Trends and issues, 112 Australian Institute of Criminology Canberrra. McKean, L. & Ransford C. (2004). Current Strategies for Reducing Recidivism. New York : Centre for Impact Research. O’Toole, S. & Eyland , S. (2005). Corrections Criminology. (1st ed.) Sydney: Hawkins Press Read More