Supermax Prison and Prison Units - Essay Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: supermax prison and prison units Institution: xxxxxxxxx Date due: xxxxxxxxx To what extent it the supermax prison or unit something new, an example of U.S policy transfer and to what extent is it merely a rebranding of long established secondary punishments and traditions Introduction Units and programs for managing dangerous and disruptive prisoners have been there for a long time. Even though correctional approaches used in handling dangerous prisoners, for example concentration, dispersal and also isolation have been there for long, the development of supermax prisons is a comparatively new development. Numerous states have one or more units created exclusively for their corrections systems’ most ominous inmates. Supermax prisons within the United States hold the nation’s most dangerous convicted inmates and this includes convicted terrorists. Since 1970s, prisoners have been perceived as morally corrupt people where reforming is questionable (Roy 1999). Punitive urges were offered freer supremacy within public discussion on crime control, criminals were condemned and more cruel sentences were handed down. In Australia, the number of incarcerated criminals has risen tremendously whereby imprisonment is being used as the means of punishment and control as well. Supermax prisons and also similar units handling dangerous inmates have been viewed as institutions that violate the rights of the inmates which consequently lead to psychological problems for the prisoners (Deflem 2006). This essay analyses the impact of terrorism and resulting terrorist trials on Australian domestic regimes and whether supermax prisons and similar units have just emerged or whether they are the long established punishments and traditions have only been rebranded. Supermax prisons and similar units separate the most dangerous prisoners from the general prisoners. They hold prisoners within solitary confinement and hence such prisoners have minimal contact with other people and practically there are not offered any educational, religious or similar programs. The key purpose of these units is to effectively control the dangerous, violent and assaultive prisoners, prisoners with high risk of escaping as well as the inmates likely to disturb the common prison population (Roth 2010). Furthermore, these facilities are meant to segregate the most dangerous criminals, to protect prison personnel in addition to deterring the other prisoners from committing crimes while in imprisonment since these units are extremely harsh. However, some argue that order and safety is very vital in the management of prisons; the reason why prisons have in the past had “jails within prisons” (Chase 1999). In the United States, almost 25,000 prisoners are imprisoned within supermax prisons whereas Australia has a small number of prisoners within designated “supermax” facilities. The idea of supermax has taken on a cultural and political life which obscures the long history of secondary punishment and isolation sections and situations within Australian prisons. Accordingly, the presentation that supermax prisons are something entirely new is wrong. The surfacing of supermax should be traced from Australian history of punishment sections, for example Morton Bay, Jika Jika, Katingal, Acacia unit, Norfolk Island and such (Chase 1999). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the Australian long traditions of grave punishments, where “supermax” has employed some practices, for example shackling, lockdowns and such. Similarly, practices such as strip searching have been there for about 25 years and their utilization is increasing progressively. As a result, these practices could end up being spread and engraved more deeply into the entire maximum security zone (Thalia 2008). An example of “supermax” practices is illustrated in the “supermax” prison within a prison” (HRMU) at the Goulburn Correctional Centre”. Just like the supermax prisons in United States, the harsh conditions in HRMU have been established to affect the mental status of the prisoners negatively (Roth 2010). Furthermore, the mentally sick prisoners are also isolated instead of being under psychiatric care. Any inmate convicted of terrorism is not allowed to have any official visitor and the prisoners in HRMU cannot challenge their placement and continued imprisonment in these harsh units. In particular, the courts do not have any jurisdiction to intercede and there is a probability that some of prisoners in HRMU will held there for the rest of their lives (Deflem 2006). In revalorizing the role of supermax prisons, there is a risk of obscuring the long history of secondary punishment and segregation punishment areas from penal colonies on Morton Bay, the HRMU, Port Arthur and such. Accordingly, the latest efforts to fight terrorism provides a renewed authenticity to tighten the prison conditions as this is important in reducing the risks associated with terrorist prisoners. Actually, the coercive application of isolation along with other harsh prison conditions is not a new phenomenon (Morrison, 2004). There is a long history engaging the coercive use of seclusion to infuse total control over inmates who are perceived as dangerous or high-risk in the civil systems. Presently, Australian states are experiencing the rise and strengthening of the coercive utilization of isolation comparable to supermax imprisonment. This propagation can be perceived in the historical context of the use and abuse of contentious and experimental hi-tech prisons, for example Katingal Special Security Unit within NSW and also the Jika Jika High-Security Complex within Victoria (Carlton 2007). Imposed isolation serves as a strong counter-insurgency measure of war to pre-emptively punish the hardcore criminals. For example, the Guantanamo Bay isolation has been used by the US government to make the detainees such as Jose Padilla confess. Such public confessions offer enormous legitimizing power and offers heavy justifications for anti-terror operations and pre-emptive punishments of suspects. This is also applicable to the experience and effects of segregation for terror suspects confined within civil high-security prisons (Baldry et.al 2011). The main effects of penal regime include; separation and isolation. These prisons are designed and have regime features that reduce human contact, restrict exercise and time out of cells as well as restrict association amongst prisoners. There are more regular and intrusive strip searching and orange jumpsuits usage which are also associated with supermax prisons (Baldry et.al 2011). Moreover, the security in these prisons is upgraded and high-tech security devices are installed to tighten security. Such inmates are also restricted from accessing communications and visitors as well. In regard to the prison design, there has been increased militarization of prison regimes, amplification of special armed units and elevated connection between AFP and state Corrections (Carlton 2007). Fear of terrorism has justified the heightening of security based measures, practices and discourses and this includes a raft of anti-terrorist legislation establishing new criminal offences, extending police powers and the utilization of preventive detention. Moreover, domestic criminal justice procedures have been politicized which is manifested in overstretching claims of executive dominion, lack of respect for the separation of powers, political triumphing of judicial decisions and the utilization of the criminal procedure, the courts and the correctional structure as ‘an outline of political theatre’ (Carlton 2007). In the penal sphere the terrorism debate and the confinement of several individuals accused and in some instances convicted of terrorist connected crimes, has led to three major developments. First, it has given importance and legality to the comparatively new form of the ‘supermax’ prisons. As said earlier, supermax refers to a high security unit in a prison whereby those remanded for trial and convicted of offences allied to terrorist, together with other high security categorization inmates are sent, for example Goulburn High Risk Management Unit (HRMU) within NSW and Melaleuca and Acacia units at Barwon prisons in Victoria (Roth 2010). Secondly, it has produced concerns regarding ‘radicalization’ fears that inmates can eventually turn out to be terrorist incubators following terrorism recruitment while in prison. Lastly, it is perceived as an incentive for globalizing tendency within penal regimes whereby several security measures and regime developments are “introduced” within the procedure of a policy transfer, which in most cases are US inspired (Baldry et.al 2011). Essentially, prisons are viewed as a conversion and radicalization zone. In United State, there is a debate regarding the role of religions within prisons, limitations on access to Koran in several states as well as a moratorium on the recruitment of Muslim chaplains in some. In Australia, there is skepticism regarding the conversions associated with gangs, ethnic streaming and the radicalization of inmates. It has been observed that radicalization within prison is not yet a major problem within Australia (Shalev 2009). The important matter facing the prison reformers is how to prevent prisons from turning out to be the breeding grounds for brutal extremism and terrorist enrollment grounds. Progressively, difficult extremists are able to formulate methods of turning prisons into training grounds under their control. This is what has led to separation of violent extremists from other prisoners. Allowing the violent extremists to mingle freely with other prisoners enables them to effectively recruit fellow inmates (Carlton 2008). During colonial era, in Australia, places and regimes of secondary punishment were a major element of convict society; secondary punishment since most of the convicts suffering that time were ‘doubly convicted’, transferred for a crime within Britain and the convicted for another crime within the colony. Subsequently, just like in ‘supermax prisons’ the results of lingering segregation were often mental breakdown, self-harm, suicide and even violence (Morrison, 2004). After colonial era, most State and Territory penal structures had explicit prison units or entire prisons, chosen as high security, punishments and ‘trac’ regimes, regularly showed evidence of an historical ‘progression’ from explicit physical cruelty, for example in Pentridge H Block within Victoria, through to isolation founded sensory deprivation regimes like the ones at Katingal and the Goulburn HRMU within NSW. These units were terrifying, were operated in secrecy, did not aim at shoring up either convict labor but justified as essential to control the worst of the worst and to offer a restraint to resistance within the broader prison system (Baldry et.al 2011). Conclusion Risks allied to terrorism can affect on the way the new prisons are designed. The prisons harboring terrorists have tight security measures. The recent Australian trials clearly indicate that the spectre of terrorism has altered the Australian criminal justice processes. Terrorism has an effect on prisons when it comes to classification, the state of prisons, prison design as well as prison practices which include isolation, segregation and security. The presence of convicted terrorists will reinforce political and public support for high security/supermax/isolation; however, there is a long history of their rationalization with reference to philosophy of dangerous criminals. Prisons are being perceived as terrorist harboring grounds and the matter of converting to Islam in prisons is turning to be a major concern, more so in United States, Europe and also in Australia. In Australia, increased security along with intelligence concern is being dedicated to the ‘radicalization’ of prisoners. Therefore, there is likelihood that the presence of convicted terrorists will reinforce political and public support for “supermax” prisons. All these developments should not be perceived as new since they can be traced back in the history of secondary punishment regimes and practices (Baldry et.al 2011). Bibliography Carlton, B., 2009, Proliferating Coercive Control and Crisis: The Official Uses and Abuses of modern High-Security in Australia, Prison Service Journal, Vol, 183 Carlton, B., 2008, Isolation as Counter Insurgency: Supermax Prison and the War on Terror in C. Cunneen and M Salter (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Australian and New Zealand Critical Criminological Conference, Crime and justice Network , University of New South Wales, Sydney. Carlton, B., 2007, Imprisoning resistance: life and death in an Australian supermax, Institute of Criminology, Sydney. Baldry, E., et.al, 2011, Imprisonment rationalities, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol, 44/24. Roy, K., 1999, The Rise and Rise of Supermax: An American Solution in Search of a Problem? Punishment and Society, Vol, 1/2. Chase, R., 1999, Supermax Prisons, U.S Department of Justice, New York. Deflem, M., 2006, Sociological Theory and Criminological Research: Views from Europe and the United States, Elsevier, California. Morrison, M., 2004, Cultural Criminology Unleashed, Glasshouse Press, London. Roth, M., 2010, Crime and Punishment: A History of the Criminal Justice System, Cengage Learning, Stamford. Shalev, S., 2009, Supermax: controlling risk by solitary confinement, Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Thalia, A., 2008, The Critical Criminology Companion, Hawkins Press, Melbourne. Read More