Canadas Military Correctional System and the US Military Correctional System - Research Paper Example

? Topic: Comparison between Canada’s Military Correctional System and the United s Military Correctional System. Code Date of Submission Introduction The undertaking of the United States Military correctional system is to offer custody and ensure handling of military prisoners in accordance to the law and regulation. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army- review Board (DASA-RB) as the responsibility of supervising the military Correctional Systems for the Secretary of the Military and operates the Army Clemency and Parole Board. The U.S Military correctional System also consists of the Army Corrections Command which is organized within the Military office of the Provost Marshal General. The responsibility of the Army Correctional Command ACC is the management of resources like force structure, budget, personnel and the day to day operations of the U.S Military Corrections System (Grande, 2009). The U.S Military Corrections system has two oversees facilities in Germany and Korea, two medium security regional facilities in Fort Sill Oklahoma and Fort Lewis Washington, and one maximum security prison ( U.S Disciplinary Barracks ) in Fort Leavenworth Kansas. Both the regional Military Corrections facilities and U.S Disciplinary Barracks provide a complete range of custodial and correctional treatment programs to military offenders regardless of the branch of service, and the only maximum security facility in the department of U.S defense is the U.S Disciplinary Barracks. The military corrections system comprise of three level tiers: Level-1 accommodates inmates with sentence of less than one year. The level-1 tier has no different from the public prisons and most programs are the same in comparison. The marine corps operates two facilities; the navy is in charge of six facilities, while the air force manages 36 facilities. The level-1 tier is not controlled by the Army. The level-2 tier accommodates inmates with sentence of less than 7 years and is the middle tier. The majority of military offenders are retained in level two. The army is in charge and controls the better part of level two while the marine corps operates and controls 3 facilities. The Air force does not operate any facility in level two, thus majority of inmates are retained in at two Naval consolidated brigs. The level-3 accommodating inmates with sentence of more than 7 years and inmates whose character pose threat to the national security of the United states. Females are majorly confined in this level so as to benefit from the health facilities, assets and consolidated space. Level-3 tier includes male military. The level-3 does not accommodate pre-trial inmates and its mission is “Our mission, Your Future”. Unlike the United States of America, Canada has only one Military forces prison named, the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks (CFSPDB), located at the Canadian Forces Based Edmonton. The Canada military prison is maintained and controlled by the Canadian Forces Military Police, although non-commissioned officers NCOs from various branches of the Canadian Forces also serves as staffs at the prison. The prison confines inmates with the jail term not exceeding two years. Military offenders with a crime sentence of more than two years imprisonment are then referred to the public prison after they have been relieved of their duties as Canadian Force Personnel. Rights/Treatment of Inmates The Canada’s detention facilities at Edmonton Alberta have unforgettable experience in store for any soldier who dares to go the wrong path of the law, which is very useful in military personnel behavior corrections purposes. The Canadian Forces Service Detention Barracks (CFSPDB) inmates go through training, counseling and are assigned various duties majorly hard labor like performing drills. For about two weeks from their arrival, the military prisoners have limited privileges like sleeping and eating, but are not allowed to make phone calls, interacting with fellow prisoners, interact with relatives, drinking, smocking, reading and watching television. Restriction of smocking does not always go down well with smokers, who at some many scenes feel denied of their fundamental right. The first two weeks act as the begin stage and is believed to the difficult stage for inmates. What follows after the first stage is somehow bearable, with most of the privileges like reading, watching and interaction with families allowed (Rodley & Pollard, 2009).  The privileges of the military prisoners are based on point system which is always compiled from the activities they undertake on a daily basis. These points are achieved by how a soldier carries himself/ herself from morning till evening. How tidy the cells are and what workload inmates undertake from morning till evening. Everything around should be in perfect order for the inmates to score the highest points. This confirms how basic the cells in the detention are, the inmates are required to keep them spotless, because it defines the point score. If a prisoner refuse to attend to his/her assignment, them what follows is solitary confinement. In most cases, inmates always come out very refined and natured after the solitary confinement. Not any of them would prefer being confined. Just like the Canada’s military correction system, but a bit more complex, United States of America military correction system also subjects harsh conditions to soldiers who go the wrong way of the law. Previously, before the creation of the military prison in 1875, the army corrections systems were based on very heavy and fatal punishment like corporal punishment to discourage other soldiers from going the wrong route and ensure firm discipline (Tocqueville & Reeve, 2007).  The disciplinary actions included a penalty of beating, payment, keelhauling, detention and even death penalty. Theses were horrible conditions no single inmate would ever wish to come across. The correction methods were termed as brutal and against the rule of law. Currently, the military corrections systems are well structured in three-tiered structure consisting of 59 facilities considered to confine prisoners as per the prison period, conduct and geographical location. Apart from the level-1 tier which is much more equivalent to the public prisons, inmates in other levels i.e. level-2 and level-3 are entitled to services like stress management, anger management, treatment, education. In addition, the facilities also have specialized sex offender programs, Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig and Charleston naval Consolidated Brig. Custodial Sentencing; Imprisonment, Full and Day Parole, Conditional Release The Canadian military personnel found on the wrong side of the law are normally convicted by the military court and, those found guilty to serve a sentence of 14 or more days are imprisoned at the Canadian Forces Service Detention Barracks (CFSPDB), while those convicted of major crimes are deemed to be in prison and serve their sentence after which they are relieved of their duties as Canadian force personnel (Turner, 2005). . In extreme cases involving serious crimes attracting a jail term of more than two years, the military personnel are transferred to the Canadian Federal Prison System after 729 days of imprisonment, to complete his/her sentence in a public prison system. The military personnel serving crime sentence of less than 14 days are sent to local military Police detachment cells within Canada (Roberts& Cole, 1998).  Unlike Canada’s military correction system, the United States military correction system is based on three levels tiers defined by the nature and year of sentence. Level-1 includes pre-trial and post-trial inmates with sentence of up to a period of one year. This is the lowest level of the correctional System. The facility hosting the level-1 is equivalent to the local prison with limited programs. Level-2 is for pre-trial and post-trial military personnel with up to 7 years imprisonment. The level-2 is up graded with facilities to ensure treatments including educational, vocational and mental health. The facilities also have specialized sex offender programs, Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig and Charleston naval Consolidated Brig. The last and the highest level is Level-3 which is the supreme correctional system and is the only confinement of department of Defense maximum security. Inmates includes offenders with more than 7 years imprisonment, prisoners with shorter sentence period but with national security related crimes and also uncontrollable offenders form other facilities are also retained in level-3. The level-3 also offers services like treatment, stress management, rehabilitation and even anger management to inmates. Non- Custodial Sentencing; Diversion, Probation, Community Service, Economic Sanctions/Fines, and Prison Overcrowding Canadian military personnel who are convicted of minor offences are deemed to be in “custody” and go through a strict Military procedure aimed at rehabilitation for their return to the regular Military services. These conditions include training, counseling, and restriction to other basic rights Unlike the Canada’s military corrections system, United States military corrections system does not offer non-custodial sentencing for military personnel. Military personnel with minor charges and those with offences not exceeding a jail term of one year are convicted and retained in Level-1 tier which shares common features with the local prisons (Clear, Cole & Reisig, 2013).  References Clear, T. R., Cole, G. F., & Reisig, M. D. (2013). American corrections. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Grande, P. J. (2009). United States Disciplinary Barracks. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub. Roberts, J. V., & Cole, D. P. (1998). Making sense of sentencing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rodley, N. S., & Pollard, M. (2009). The treatment of prisoners under international law. Oxford [etc.: Oxford University Press. Tocqueville, A. ., & Reeve, H. (2007). Democracy in America: (volumes 1 and 2, unabridged). Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing. Turner, F. J. (2005). Canadian encyclopedia of social work. Waterloo, Ont: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Read More