Prison Corruption and Control - Essay Example

Corruption and Discretion The link between corruption and discretion is quite obvious since matters placed at the discretion of one individual would certainly give him/her power to do as s/he pleases (SMH, 2006). However, it must be noted that corruption is not a direct result of discretion since there can be checks and balances in place to ensure that corruption does not take place even though there is a significant amount of discretionary powers given to individuals or groups of individuals serving as regulatory authorities.

This is because discretion alone cannot lead directly to corruption (SMH, 2006). For corruption to occur, it requires discretionary powers and a lack of accountability (World Bank, 1998). If accountability is present in any shape or form, the likelihood of corruption becomes reduced. In the same manner, a civil society as well as an organisation within that civil society can reduce corruption if it focuses on accountability wherever there are discretionary powers handed over to a given party (Von Muhlenbrock, 1997).

For example, prison wardens may have discretionary powers to a large extent in terms of how prisons are supposed to be handled and how they are to be governed. This discretion gives them great power in managing prisons and they are able to maintain control of quite a few situations where not having discretionary powers would lead to inefficiencies in the system. Even a prison guard can be given discretionary powers and such powers are required for him/her to perform his/her duties.At the same time, all individuals working in a prison have to be made accountable for their actions.

Situations where it is suspected that discretionary powers were misused, have to be brought to light and if the individual is found guilty of misusing his/her power, appropriate punishments need to be given out to that individual. Unless the process of holding people accountable for their use of power is established, discretionary power would lead to some level of corruption (Von Muhlenbrock, 1997). As long as accountability remains in place, the chances of prisons, societies even business enterprises becoming corrupt remain minimal (SMH, 2006).

The issue of accountability is not limited to social bodies such as prisons and hospitals. On a larger scale it also applies to countries and nations who may use their discretionary powers to establish their own controls over a region or over other countries. Even in such cases, if the country can be made accountable for its actions, the chances of misuse of power become minimized. On the other hand, a country which is allowed at will to use its power could become corrupt to the extent that it chooses to exercise its discretion more than it chooses to cooperate with other nations of the world.

In conclusion, corruption is an unavoidable result of discretion but only if there is no accountability involved where discretionary powers are given.Word Count: 536Works CitedSMH (Sydney Morning Herald). 2006, ‘Monopoly + Discretion - Accountability = Corruption’ [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/editorial/monopoly--discretion--accountability--corruption/2006/12/03/1165080809865.htmlVon Muhlenbrock, G. 1997, ‘Discretion and Corruption’, Crime, Law, and Social Change, vol. 25, no. 1, pp.

335-351 (1997)World Bank. 1998, ‘Regulatory Discretion and the Unofficial Economy’, [Online] Available at: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/library/view_p.asp?lprogram=5&objectid=18287