The Work of American Correction System - Essay Example

American Correction Systems: An Analysis of What Works American Correction System: An analysis of What Works. Introduction The correctional system in America works as a network of government agencies in charge of prison systems, jurisdictions and parole. All these three are forms of punishing offenders in the criminal justice system (Simonsen, Allen, & Latessa, 2004). This is because punishment involves deprivation of property, life and liberty in law. Federal offenders get punishments ranging from time in prison, sanctions like community corrections, home confinement, and electronic monitoring. Other penalties used in the correctional system include restitution, forfeiture and fines. In some cases, corporal punishment s used, but in the modern era, prison is the most desired type of punishment. This paper will look at the various forms of correctional philosophies in the prison system and various issues in correctional management. Throughout historical times most societies have been known to have some places where they hold criminals. Confinement in form of prisons is a new thing since in ancient times corporal punishment was the best kind of punishment; beheading, hanging, whipping and rack stretching to take a few examples. Early jails were overcrowded, dark and filthy and there was no separation of the inmates. In America, imprisonment was realized in 1600s after the abolishment of death penalty (Simonsen, Allen, & Latessa, 2004). The federal prison system was established to hold inmates who are sentenced to time in prison and those who await trials. It contains of prisons and detention facilities. The organizational structure of American correction systems gives the department of justice the authorization to control all operations in the system. The governor, who is the second in rank, is in charge of supervision of the activities in correctional facilities (Todd, George, & Michael, 2011). There are four directors who are mandated to supervise the legislative affairs, information, quality assurance, medical docket and public communication; all these in the attempt to make the correction system a perfect place for reformation. The hierarchy follows to the support administration in charge of matters relating to field operations, operations support, community development, and correctional facilities administrations. Under them there are junior officers who oversee research, parole, human resources, operations, and security and general inmate’s welfare. Correctional management considers several philosophies for corrections. This paper will look into five main philosophies namely, rehabilitation, restorative justice, incapacitation, retribution and restoration. Each of these has their advantages that make them worthwhile, but as this paper will discuss, rehabilitation has the best positive impact and should therefore be the guiding philosophy that correction facilities aim to implement in all cases (Todd, George, & Michael, 2011). In the implementation of these philosophies however, correction systems have a wide range of issues regarding the security and safety of offenders. Most policies are formulated as soon as an incident occurs, some of these policies may be unbearable for the prisoners. Not only will this paper discuss the issues in the philosophies and philosophies of corrections but will also provide evidence that strongly supports rehabilitation. Philosophies Retribution The society is determined to revenge against any offenders that violates the societal norms. It seeks to give the offenders a just dessert for their crime. This is retribution, and it is based on the law of retaliation or according to Seiter, (2005) an eye for an eye. This urge for vengeance is enough to stand as a philosophy in the correction system. First of all forms of punishments, probation, fines, imprisonment etc, are retribution in a way. Thus retribution in this case is a broad concept unfit for the goal of crime reduction. Cullen says that balancing the wheels of justice by getting even does not serve the purpose of reducing crime or creating a safer place. Deterrence This is established on the theory that offenders make logical choices when they choose to perpetrate. According to Cullen et al (2002) this theory indicates that when a person is faced with a decision, they examine the available alternatives and scrutinize the potential consequences of each alternative. The response chosen is one that brings maximum pleasure to the individual and at the same time minimizing pain or negative impacts. In criminal justice system, the offender evaluates the chances of being caught and the severity of the punishment if so. If the probability for being caught or being punished is low, there is no deterrence to the crime. This means that criminal activities can be reduced by creating an environment where offenders find the probability of getting punished very high and painful. Offenders will not commit crimes because of the fear instilled in them by the system. However, deterrence is not an effective way in the correction system as the individuals vary in their perception of income. There are those individuals who thrive in taking risks and they believe that the higher the risk, the more the pleasure and the bigger the reward. These people are willing to commit a crime no matter the deterrence factor instilled in the society. In a study conducted by Reynolds (1997) high incarceration rates and long imprisonment periods seemed to deter the crime commitment rates in Texas. He continues to report that in 1991 however, a large number of inmates were released due to overcrowding in the prisons. In a spun of three years, 48% of this number had been re-incarcerated. If imprisonment was effective in deterring crimes, such a high percentage of re-incarceration would not have occurred. Reynolds’s study did not put into consideration various factors that would lead to reduction in crime rates. The simple perception of being imprisoned for a period of time does not work (Pratt & Cullen, 2005). Other factors that affect the crime rate may include culture, peer associations and socio economic status. Lynch (1999, p. 164) on the other hand concluded that incarceration has no effect in crime deterrence. There is no evidence that supports Reynolds hypothesis. In such deterring crime through any kind of program is not a strong form punishment for the American correction system, thus not a good guiding philosophy. Restorative Justice The criminal justice system seeks to make the offender whole again after they have committed a crime. Braithwaite (1998, p. 328) describes restorative justice as a method of “repairing” offenders, victims and the community at large. Its aim is to repair any losses, injuries, restore dignity and a sense of security in the community. This approach does not however indicate any possible methods of controlling crime, nor dealing with persistent offenders. The fact that this philosophy does not address the important goal is clear evidence it should not be in the system. Incapacitation This is a theory outlining that the capacity for an offender to commit a crime can be reduced through physical isolation. Seiter (2005) compares this to time in prison or jail. Home confinement might also fall under incapacitation in the case of community corrections. Death penalty is the height of incapacitation, but as earlier stated this form of punishment was abolished in American correctional systems. Incapacitation takes two forms; selective and collective. Collective incapacitation involves collectively isolating people who fit in a certain group. Selective incapacitation isolates those individuals whose incapacitation serves best for the society. It seeks to improve the effectiveness of imprisonment as a strategy to control crime. The extent of its effectiveness is highly debated. Rehabilitation In the beginning of American Corrections Association, rehabilitation was used by correctional administrators. This method seeks to “restore” drug users, habitual offenders and those with mental issues (Simonsen, Allen, & Latessa, 2004). Correctional institutions conduct this exercise with the help of professional doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and any other medical staff deemed useful. The correctional system has issues everyday but is how these issues are solved that matters. Rehabilitation aims at intervening the offenders’ behaviours that caused criminality and make them less likely to break the low again. Rehabilitation focuses on individual aspects like attitudes, personality, social interaction, cognitive processes, education, mental health, employment and vocational skills that are the source of criminality. Work programs and education are the most used forms of rehabilitation in American correction systems for both adults and juvenile prisons. This includes, vocational training and counselling, academic education, drug counselling, positive peer culture, mental health counselling, recreation, and sex offender counselling and treatment. These forms are used because there is a belief that educational skills and work are essential in getting an employment in this era. Some programs however, do not have a documented impact on reduction of post release recidivism. Programs that are known to be ineffective include deterrence based programs or control oriented programs, in fact some of these have been reported to increase recidivism (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). These programs include training in life skills which gives the offender an understanding of the functionality of the American society. These courses teach one to manage their finances, good parenting, property management, and living healthy. Inmates are prepared for employment by the time they leave correctional facilities. Besides this some correctional facilities offer counselling to offenders so as to change the underlying causes of criminality. Substance abuse programs are the most common in this category. According to American correction systems records, about half of the incarcerated individuals have done drugs a few times before their arrest. Most of them have confessed to being under the influence of drugs at the time they committed the crime. In some correctional facilities drug addicts are housed in different units called therapeutic communities residential treatment. Group and individual counselling is encouraged in the general population but no one is forced to participate. According to McKenzie (2000), rehabilitation has seen more than half of the offenders’ reform and lives a normal life after release. Cognitive behaviour treatment is used as a treatment and its growing appeal can be attributed to its success stories. In spite of its different forms, this form of treatment targets the attitudes and the disoriented ways of thinking of the criminals. Counsellors are the role models and they focus on the offenders reasoning and thinking by challenging rationalizations. This makes them face the criminal mistakes they have committed rationally and improve their conduct in future. Mentally ill and sex offenders get special treatment. Sex offenders get counselling classes as well as being involved in therapeutic communities. Mentally ill offenders on the other hand receive therapy, counselling and prescribed medication or even admissions in mental institutions. Other forms of correctional programs include religious groups and chaplains who provide counselling to inmates. This treatment does not only concentrate in religious matters but also digs deeper into the offender’s life issues (MacKenzie, 2000). Peer mentors, meditation sessions and worship services are held in support of this treatment. In all the rehabilitation programs available in American collection facilities, at least every inmate can fit in one. In addition, correctional management is done through direct supervision which includes proactive monitoring. Officers spend time with the inmates as required by the “walking and talking” philosophy of American correction systems. Officers thus become aware of inmates behaviours and concerns and identify behavioural changes that have negative impacts. This way the correct rehabilitation program can be induced to the inmates. Conclusion When all is taken together, there is empirical evidence that distinguishes rehabilitation as the best guiding principle to follow in correctional systems. This philosophy, unlike the others, meets the ultimate goal of crime reduction by reducing recidivism. It aims at presenting those people who commit crimes in the society other opportunity to make amends by contributing to the society without further crimes. Even though this philosophy is not a hundred percent guarantee in reducing crimes, it is the most effective among all those discussed. References Braithwaite, J. (1998). Restorative justice. In M. Tonry, The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 323-340). New York: Oxford University Press. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Washington: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Cullen, F. T., Pratt, T. C., Miceli, S. L., & Moon, M. M. (2002). Dangerous liaison? Rational choice theory as a basis for correctional intervention. In A. R. Piquero, & S. G. Tibbetts, Rational choice and criminal behavior (pp. 279-296). New York: Taylor and Francis. Lynch, M. (1999). Beating a dead horse: Is there any basic empirical evidence for the deterrent effect of imprisonment? Crime, Law and Social Change , 348-360. MacKenzie, L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency , 458-471. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. In M. Tonry, Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 373-450). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reynolds, M. O. (1997). Crime and punishment in America: 1997 update. Dallas: National Center for Policy Analysis. Seiter, R. P. (2005). Corrections: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall. Simonsen, C., Allen, H., & Latessa, E. (2004). Corrections in America: An introduction. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall. Todd, R. C., George, F. C., & Michael, D. R. (2011). American corrections, 10th ed. US: Cengage Learning. Read More