Correctional Boot Camps - Research Paper Example

Correctional Boot Camps Boot camps refer to programs either in the military or in prisons that are aimed at correcting the behaviors of the wrong doers from another approach. They are also referred to as shock incarceration programs. They are mainly meant for those offenders convicted of less serious cases and thus were to be detained for a short period. For a program to qualify to be referred to as boot camps, some conditions need to be satisfied. The offenders in prisons had to be isolated, there had to be a program of hard work and thorough physical training, and that the program be considered as, an alternative to restricting somebody’s movement like in prisons (Mackenzie & Herbert 10). The conditions have however been modified over the years and the current boot camps for the juvenile do not involve rigorous hard work. The exact activities that are carried out in these camps vary depending on the provisions of the governing authority. For instance, military camps give emphasis on instilling discipline in the offenders, thorough physical training, and promotion of hard work among the offenders. There is a predetermined schedule of all the daily activities to be done by the offenders and a requirement that always you conduct yourself appropriately and with utmost good faith. Whatever one does here he does hurriedly within the specified period. The program thus exposes an offender to a new world and helps him/her be transformed into a respectable and responsible person in the society. A question of who qualifies to be taken to the boot camps has had different answers over the years. Traditionally, young offenders convicted with less serious offences were the target. However, controversies arose over how to evaluate the seriousness of an offence. Some have argued that the reliance on the military systems in running the boot camps can be controversial and in that case, the state should determine whom to be confined in the camps. This is particularly because most of the civilians graduating out of the military camps are absorbed into the military. On the other hand, there have emerged private boot camps other than the normal military or prison camps. For these ones, a parent who has a feeling that his child has gone out of his control can opt to take the child for correction. The provisions are the same. In most cases however, this has been left as a court’s jurisdiction The boot camps have proved not to be very effective in correcting the behaviors of the offenders to whom the camps are established. In the states that this system is used, the politicians have however tried to argue out that, the system is so far the most appropriate and that, more severe conditions need to be imposed on the victims to enable quick transition into better individuals of the society. One question these people need to address first is that what factors determine the behavior of a juvenile. Peer influence, lack of parental love, lack of education, lack of social support and even poor governance are all odds that can stain the little mind of a juvenile. However, such factors can affect not only the youth but also the adults, and so a similar approach needs to apply even for the adult. The governments should first address these causative factors by enacting policies and legislations that promote education, provide social guidance, and do away with illegal groups or sects that can influence the youths into crime (McNelly para2). The boot camps have not been very effective since they are mainly based on the military grounds and as such, the victims are mostly warned on the dangers of such criminal behaviors. In effect, they are only instilled with degree of discipline failing to address the roots of the matter. This does not prevent the future criminals from emerging. When the youths get out of the camps, it will not be very hard for them to go back to their criminal deeds since the staffs that were threatening them in the camps are no longer with them. There is no proximal relationship between the youth in the camps and the staff and worse still the provision of guidance and counseling is not possible since most camps do not have qualified personnel to conduct such activity. The camps are also meant mainly for male youths who are given some sort of military training. This can be very dangerous to the society since ‘the military model may set the stage for abuse of power and encourage increased aggression by both the staff and offenders (Morash & Rucker para1). Other approaches that can be used instead of boot camps include out door education, wilderness therapy, and adventure therapy. They use almost a similar technique but have the advantages of avoiding the odds involved in boot camps. The debates on whether boot camps are the best approach to solving the problems of criminal offences remains a subjective matter today. However, if the programs are well run by adopting a system that responds to the chronological requirement of the offenders ranging from juveniles through women to adults males, boot camps can still be regarded a good approach. Those supporting the move believe that it can effectively work particularly by ensuring that the staffs in these camps have undergone thorough training, that there is no abuse of power by both inmates and the staff and that proper policies and legislation be enacted to govern the running of these camps. As was revealed in Parent’s decade analysis of the successes and failures of the correctional camps, it was clear that camps that succeeded were those that were well manned. He noted that the ‘camps that did not produce lower recidivism rates offered more treatment services, had longer sessions and employed more intensive post release supervision’ (Parent 4). It was also learned that there were some short-term changes in the behaviors of some individuals but that the changes did not reduce recidivism rates. The approaches that can be used to substitute the boot camps are just the implementation of the above-proposed measures. Proper guidance and counseling, provision of both the formal and informal education and doing away with any form of sects that can be identified would be more appropriate in helping transform this juvenile into future responsible members of the society. The boot camps have been seen in various countries like Canada and the United States. There have also been such camps in New Zealand. In the United States, it was first adopted in Georgia and later spread to other states with advancements over the years. In these states, they opted to use boot camps to ease the congestion in their prisons and reduce the cost of implementing the legal penalties. They were also meant to reduce recidivism. In the United States it was observed in the 1980s that the ‘Nation’s prison population grew rapidly, crimes by young nonviolent offenders escalated steadily and prisons outgrew there capacity’ (Mackenzie & Herbert 19). The camps were also used as a buffer to help those who were not used to the hostile environment of the prisons. In Canada, the approach was quite different from that in US with a little emphasis on easing the prisons. However, they managed to achieve a reduced recidivism rate. The program was later banned in some parts of Canada. New Zealand did not ferry on well with the program. A restriction was given here confining the use of the program only on people with drug problems. Most countries have then been reluctant in adopting the program following the odds that have been witnessed in these states practicing it. The juveniles who have gone through the boot camps have the pride of having interacted with others from whom they can acquire some desirable qualities. They learn how to co exist with people of different ages. They also come out able to identify their abilities given that the camps have some work and physical training involved. If the education and social guidance and counseling policies could be adopted by the states with boot camps, then it would be a better place for correcting the behavior of a juvenile given the above-observed advantages. Works Cited Mackenzie, Doris & Herbert, Eugine. Correctional Boot Camps: Intermediate Sanction. National Institute of Justice report, U.S.A. 1996. 18 November 2010. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/bcamps.pdf. McNeely, Allison. Are boot camps Effective? 2009. 18 November 2010. http://www.suite101.com/content/are-boot-camps-effective-a144923. Morash, Merry & Rucker, Lila. “A critical look at the idea of Boot Camps as a Correctional Reform.” Crime & Delinquency, Vol.36, pp. 204-22. April 1990. Parent, Dale. Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a Decade of Research. Washington DC, US Department of Justice. June 2003. 18 November 2010. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf. Read More