Criminal Justice

User Generated

ZnfrengvZ21

Business Finance

Description

Part I

A minimum of 150 words(total assignment) and two scholarly sources. The references does not count towards the word count!

Criminal Justice Reform is something that is widely discussed. Research the topic and provide an overview of what Criminal Justice Reform means. Do you believe that reform is necessary? What do you believe needs to be changed? Why?

Part II

A minimum of 1100 words(total assignment) and three scholarly sources. The references does not count towards the word count!!

  1. Summarize the purposes of confinement in Europe before it became a major method of punishing criminals. Describe how offenders were punished before the large scale use of confinement. Explain why confinement began to be used as a major way of punishing offenders in Europe.
  2. Describe the recent trends in the use of incarceration in the United States. What are the most common characteristics of the incarcerated population in the United States?
  3. Summarize what recidivism research reveals about the success of the prison in achieving deterrence and rehabilitation. Summarize the research findings on recidivism rates among offenders on probation. How do the recidivism rates of parolees and probationers compare?4.
  4. Explain the functions of a parole board. According to a recent study, what are the four most important factors parole boards consider before granting release on parole?
  5. You are a probation or parole officer. Your caseload averages 100 clients. A client tells you that her boss is treating her unfairly at work because of her criminal record and probation or parole status. Your client is afraid of being fired and having her probation or parole revoked. What do you do?
  6. You discover that a client is using marijuana. You like the client, and other than the marijuana use, he has been doing well on probation or parole. What do you do?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 354 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles 10 Institutional Corrections M I Learning Objectives L After completing this chapter, you should be able to: E 1. Summarize the purposes of confinement in Europe before it became a major way of punishing criminals. S , 2. Describe how offenders were punished before the large-scale use of confinement. Chapter Outline Historical Overview of Institutional Corrections European Background Developments in the United States The Incarceration Boom Recent Trends Prison Inmate Characteristics Incarceration Facilities Organization and Administration by Government Classification and Other Special Facilities Men’s Prisons Women’s Prisons and Cocorrectional Facilities Jails and Lockups Institutional Security, Services, and Programs Security and Inmate Discipline Services and Programs 354 3. Explain why confinement began to be used as a major S way of punishing offenders in Europe. H 4. Describe the recent trends in the use of incarceration in the United States. A N 5. List some of the characteristics of the incarcerated population in the United States. N how incarceration facilities are structured, O 6. Describe organized, and administered by the government in the N United States. 7. Name some of the common types of correctional facilities in the United States. 1 9 8. Identify some of the procedures that institutions employ to maintain security and order. 0 9. List the services and programs that are commonly 9 available to inmates. T S boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 355 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections 355 CRIME STORY R osevelt Richardson (pictured) is what jail administrators call a “frequent flyer.” In May of 2009, he was booked into the Orange County Jail in Orlando, Florida, for the 124th time. Since 1999, no one has been booked into the Orange County Jail more times than the 59-year-old Richardson. Most of the Orange County Jail’s frequent flyers are transients, all of them are men, and most of them are black. Besides Richardson, they include Freddie Thornton, a 59-year-old black man who has been booked 95 times; Jerome Mills, a 56-year-old black man who has been booked 89 times; Lexie Martin, a 56-year-old black man who has been booked 84 times; and John Wright, a 49-year-old white man who has been booked 83 times. They generally have been arrested for city or county ordinance violations, such as panhandling, trespassing, or public intoxication, or for drug offenses and petty thefts. Occasionally, they have provided with shelter, a bed, and three been arrested for violent crimes. Many meals a day. He says that he would of them are alcoholics, homeless, and rather be walking the streets hungry suffer from mental illness. than to be full in jail. When he is Richardson has four children, but he arrested and taken to jail, he loses his left his family when his youngest son few possessions, which are thrown was six months old. He has not spoken away or stolen by other homeless to any of his family members since 1986. people. When he is released from jail, Richardson’s most recent arrest was M I trespassing and panhandling case. Panhandling isL illegal in Orlando, but Richardson’s arthritis E makes it very difficult for him to work at the only trade S he knows: migrant fieldwork. He only , attended school until the sixth grade all he has are the clothes he wore to for a probation violation on a prior jail. He has to start over. before he left for the fields to pick Chapter 10 examines institutional cor- watermelons, tomatoes, oranges, and S rections of which jails are a primary cucumbers. Since he is short of stature, H A He would like a judge to order him to a N work-release program. RichardsonN says that he does not know how to get out of the arrest-andO release cycle in which he finds himN self. He is weary of it. He does not component. What can be done about he rarely gets picked for day-labor jobs. frequent flyers? Are jails the appropri- want to be in jail, even though he is corrections. Frequent flyers are not unique to the Orange County Jail. They are a nationwide problem. They contribute to the overcrowding problem of many jails, which have become the dumping ground for many of society’s problems. ate place for them? Are there communitybased alternatives that may better serve both frequent flyers and the communities in which they live? Frequent flyers are only one of the many problems facing institutional 1 9 0 9 Historical Overview of T Institutional Corrections S history of institutional Students often wonder why they must learn about the corrections. One reason is that it is impossible to fully understand (and improve) the present state of affairs without knowledge of the past; the present developed out of the past. To paraphrase the philosopher George Santayana, people who fail to remember the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. Another reason is that nothing helps us see how institutional corrections is linked to our larger society and culture better than the study of history. EUROPEAN BACKGROUND In Europe, institutional confinement did not become a major punishment for criminals until the 1600s and 1700s. (In the United States, institutional MYTH Throughout history, imprisonment has been the primary sentence for lawbreakers, and it still is today. FAC T Viewed historically, imprisonment is a relatively recent sentence for lawbreaking. Even today in the United States, the number of people in prison is small compared with the number on probation or under other types of supervision in the community. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 356 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 356 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections confinement was not used extensively as a punishment until the 1800s.) As a practice, though, institutional confinement has existed since ancient times. Before the 1600s, however, it usually served functions other than punishment for criminal behavior. For example, confinement was used to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. FYI Detain people before trial. Hold prisoners awaiting other sanctions, such as death and corporal punishment. Coerce payment of debts and fines. Hold and punish slaves. Achieve religious indoctrination and spiritual reformation (as during the Inquisition). Quarantine disease (as during the bubonic plague).1 Forerunners of Modern Incarceration Unlike modern incarceration, which Mamertine Prison Although it surely did not resemble today’s prisons, one of the earliest known prisons was the Mamertine Prison, built around 64 B.C. under the sewers of Rome. Source: Robert Johnson, Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002), 19. banishment A punishment, originating in ancient times that required offenders to leave the community and live elsewhere, commonly in the wilderness. strives to change the offender’s character and is carried out away from public view, popular early punishments for crime, which predated the large-scale use M of imprisonment, were directed more at the offender’s body and property; one I 2 Furthermore, those punishments were commonly basic goal was to inflict pain. carried out in public to humiliate the offender and to deter onlookers from crime. L Examples of such early punishments are fines, confiscation of property, and diverse methods of corporalEand capital punishment. Some popular methods of corporal and capital punishment were beheading, stoning, hanging, crucifixion, S boiling and burning, flogging, branding, and placement in the stocks or pillory.3 As this brief list illustrates,, the eventual shift to incarceration reduced the severity and violence of punishment. Two additional forerunners of modern incarceration were banishment and transportation. In essence,Sthey were alternatives to the more severe corporal punishments or capital punishment. Originating in ancient times, banishment H the community and live elsewhere, commonly in required offenders to leave the wilderness. The modern A version of banishment is long-term incarceration (for example, life imprisonment without opportunity for parole). As population N frontiers across Europe and as demands for cheap and urban growth displaced N O N 1 9 0 9 T S Besides being painful, placement in the stocks or pillory was intended to humiliate and shame offenders. Is a greater emphasis on the shame of punishment needed today? If so, how should it be accomplished? boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 357 06/07/11 8:12 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections labor increased with the rise of Western capitalism, transportation of offenders from their home nation to one of that nation’s colonies gradually replaced banishment. England, for instance, was transporting hundreds of convicts a year to North America by the early 1600s.4 Transportation fell into disuse as European colonies gained independence. The closest European forerunners of the modern U.S. prison were known as workhouses or houses of correction. Offenders were sent to them to learn discipline and regular work habits. The fruits of inmate labor were also expected to pay for facility upkeep and even to yield a profit. One of the first and most famous workhouses, the London Bridewell, opened in the 1550s, and workhouses spread through other parts of Europe thereafter. Such facilities were used extensively throughout the next three centuries, coexisting with such responses to crime as transportation, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. In fact, crowding in workhouses was a major impetus for the development of transportation as a punishment. Reform Initiatives As described in Chapter 3, the Enlightenment was a time of M faith in science and reason as well as a period of humanistic reform. The Enlightenment thinkers and reformers of the 1700s and I 1800s described the penal system of their day with such terms as excessive, disorderly, inefficient, arbiL unjust. Three reformers trary, capricious, discriminatory (against the poor), and who were important to initiatives in corrections were E Cesare Beccaria (1738– 1794), John Howard (1726–1790), and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). S contend that Milanese Criminologists Graeme Newman and Pietro Marongiu philosopher Cesare Beccaria’s famous book, On Crimes and Punishments , (1764), although often acclaimed for its originality, actually brought together the reformist principles espoused by other thinkers of the era, such as Montesquieu and Voltaire.5 One of those principles concerned replacing the discreS tionary and arbitrary administration of justice with a system of detailed written laws describing the behaviors that constitute crime and the associated punishH ments. Beccaria believed that people need to know exactly what punishments A criminal behavior. As are prescribed for various offenses if the law is to deter part of his quest to deter crime, Beccaria declared that N the punishment should fit the crime in two senses. First, the severity of punishment should parallel the severity of harm resulting from the crime. Second, N the punishment should be severe enough to outweigh the pleasure obtainable from the crime. FurtherO and swift to deter more, he believed that punishment needed to be certain crime. Certainty implies that the likelihood of getting Ncaught and punished is perceived as high. Swiftness implies that punishment will not be delayed after commission of the crime. Beccaria did not ground his thinking firmly in empirical observations and 1 did little to actively campaign for the reforms he advocated.6 The work of 9 presents an interesting John Howard, an English sheriff and social activist, contrast in that regard. Howard’s 1777 book, The State of the Prisons in 0 England and Wales, was based on his visits to penal institutions in various parts of Europe. The crowding, overall poor living conditions, and disorderly 9 and abusive practices he observed in those facilities appalled him. He advoT and orderly. Howard’s cated that penal environments be made safe, humane, opinion was that incarceration should do more than S punish—that it should also instill discipline and reform inmates. Toward that end, he proposed an orderly institutional routine of religious teaching, hard work, and solitary confinement to promote introspection and penance.7 Howard’s work inspired the growing popularity of the term penitentiary to refer to penal confinement facilities. In penology, the study of prison management and the treatment of offenders, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham is perhaps best remembered for his idea that order and reform could be achieved in a prison through architectural design. His panopticon (“all-seeing” or “inspection-house”) prison design consisted of a round building with tiers of cells lining the circumference and facing a central inspection tower so that staff from the tower could watch prisoners. Although no facilities completely true to Bentham’s panopticon plan 357 transportation A punishment in which offenders were transported from their home nation to one of that nation’s colonies to work. workhouses European forerunners of the modern U.S. prison, where offenders were sent to learn discipline and regular work habits. MYTH The reason punishment fails to adequately deter crime in the United States is that it is not severe enough. FAC T The United States has a higher rate of imprisonment and longer sentences than virtually any other nation. It is also one of the few advanced, industrialized nations to have retained the death penalty. It is hard indeed to support the argument that our punishment is not severe enough. Certainty and swiftness, however, are lacking, and that is the failure to which Beccaria would probably point. penology The study of prison management and the treatment of offenders. panopticon A prison design consisting of a round building with tiers of cells lining the inner circumference and facing a central inspection tower. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 358 06/07/11 8:57 AM user-f494 358 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections were ever constructed, structures similar in design were erected at Illinois’s Stateville Penitentiary (now Stateville Correctional Center), which opened in 1925. In sum, the historical roots of the modern prison lie in Europe. It was in America, however, that the penitentiary concept was first put into wide practice. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES In colonial America, penal practice was loose, decentralized, and unsystematic, combining private retaliation against wrongdoing with fines, banishment, harsh corporal punishments, M and capital punishment. Local jails were scattered about the colonies, but they were used I primarily for temporary holding rather than for L punishment.8 Some people, such as William the famous Quaker and founder of PennE Penn, sylvania, promoted incarceration as a humane S alternative to the physically brutal punishStateville Correctional Center in Illinois is similar in design to Bentham’s panopticon ments that were common. However, that idea plan. Why wasn’t this prison design used more widely in the United States? , was largely ignored because there was no stable central governmental authority to coordinate and finance (through tax revenue) the large-scale confinement of offenders. S The Penitentiary Movement H In the aftermath of the American Revolution, it rapidly became apparent that the colonial system of justice would not suffice. A Economic chaos and civil disorder followed the war. Combined with population growth and the transition N from an agricultural society to an industrial one, they created the need for a strong, centralized government to achieve political and economic stability. The N rise of the penitentiary occurred in that context.9 Philosophically, it was guided by Enlightenment principles. In 1790, the Walnut Street Jail in PhiladelphiaOwas converted from a simple holding facility to a prison to which offendersN could be sentenced for their crimes. It is commonly Pennsylvania system An early system of U.S. penology in which inmates were kept in solitary cells so that they could study religious writings, reflect on their misdeeds, and perform handicraft work. Auburn system An early system of penology, originating at Auburn Penitentiary in New York, in which inmates worked and ate together in silence during the day and were placed in solitary cells for the evening. regarded as the nation’s first state prison. In a system consistent with Howard’s plan, its inmates labored in solitary cells and received large doses of religious teaching. Later in the 1790s, 1 New York opened Newgate Prison. Other states quickly followed suit, and the penitentiary movement was born. By 1830, 9 had constructed additional prisons to supplement Pennsylvania and New York their original ones. 0 Pennsylvania and New York pioneered the penitentiary movement by developing two competing systems of confinement.10 The Pennsylvania system, 9 sometimes called the separate system, required that inmates be kept in solitary T religious writings, reflect on their misdeeds, and cells so that they could study perform handicraft work.SIn the New York system, or the Auburn system (named after Auburn Penitentiary and also referred to as the congregate or silent system), inmates worked and ate together in silence during the day and were returned to solitary cells for the evening. Ultimately, the Auburn system prevailed over the Pennsylvania system as the model followed by other states. It avoided the harmful psychological effects of total solitary confinement and allowed more inmates to be housed in less space because cells could be smaller. In addition, the Auburn system’s congregate work principle was more congruent with the system of factory production emerging in wider society than was the outdated craft principle of the separate system. If prison labor was to be profitable, it seemed that the Auburn plan was the one to use. It is interesting that although penitentiary construction flourished and the United States became the model nation in penology during the first half of the boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 359 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections 359 nineteenth century, there was serious discontent with the penitentiary by the end of the Civil War. There were few signs penitentiaries were deterring crime, reforming offenders, or turning great profits from inmate labor. In fact, prisons were becoming increasingly expensive to run, and opposition was growing to selling prisonermade goods on the open market. With faith in the penitentiary declining, the stage was set for a new movement—a movement that, rather than challenging the fundamental value of incarceration as a punishment, sought to improve the method of incarceration. The Reformatory Movement The reformatory movement got its start at the 1870 meeting of the National Prison Association in Cincinnati. The principles adopted there were championed by such leaders in the field as Enoch 11 Wines (1806–1879) and Zebulon Brockway (1827–1920). M A new type of institution, the reformatory, was designed for younger, less hardened offenders between 16 andI 30 The Elmira Reformatory, which opened in 1876 in Elmira, New years of age. Based on a military model of regimentation, York, was the first institution for men that was based on reformaL it emphasized academic and vocational training in additory principles. What caused the change in penal philosophy? tion to work. A classification system was introduced Ein which inmates’ progress toward reformation was rated. The sentences for deterS with indeterminate minate periods of time (for example, 5 years) were replaced terms in which inmates served sentences within given , ranges (for example, between 2 and 8 years). Parole or early release could be granted for favorable progress in reformation. It has been observed that indeterminate sentences and the possibility of S parole facilitate greater control over inmates than determinate sentences do. Many inmates are interested, above all else, in gaining Htheir freedom. The message conveyed by indeterminate sentences and the possibility of parole is this: A “Conform to institutional expectations or do more time.” N tablish separate facilities for women. Women prisonersNwere usually confined in segregated areas of male prisons and generally received O inferior treatment. The reformatory movement, reflecting its assumptions about differences between categories of inmates and its emphasis on classification, Nhelped feminize punish12 Institutions for Women Until the reformatory era, there was little effort to es- ment. The first women’s prison organized according to the reformatory model opened in Indiana in 1873. By the 1930s, several other women’s reformatories were in operation, mainly in the Northeast and the Midwest. 1 Most employed cottages or a campus and a family-style living plan, not the cell-block plan of men’s 9ll stereotypical domestic prisons. Most concentrated on molding inmates to fulfi roles upon release, such as cleaning and cooking. 0 9 has provided a useful Twentieth-Century Prisons Criminologist John Irwin typology for summarizing imprisonment in the last century.13 According to T Irwin, three types of institutions have been dominant. Each has dominated a different part of the century. The dominant type for about S the first three decades was the “big house.” In Irwin’s words: The Big House was a walled prison with large cell blocks that contained stacks of three or more tiers of one- or two-man cells. On the average, it held 2,500 men. Sometimes a single cell block housed over 1,000 prisoners in six tiers of cells. Most of these prisons were built over many decades and had a mixture of old and new cell blocks. Some of the older cell blocks were quite primitive.14 Note that big houses were not new prisons distinct from earlier penitentiaries and reformatories. They were the old penitentiaries and reformatories expanded in size to accommodate larger inmate populations. Originally, big-house prisons exploited inmate labor through various links to the free market. Industrial boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 360 06/07/11 8:12 AM user-f494 360 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections M I L E Big-house prisons, which consisted of large cell blocks containing stacks of cells, were the dominant prison design of the early S twentieth century. What are some problems with the big-house prison design? , medical model A theory of institutional corrections, popular during the 1940s and 1950s, in which crime was seen as symptomatic of personal illness in need of treatment. prisons predominated in the North, while plantation prisons dominated much S of organized labor and the coming of the Great of the South. With the rise Depression, free-market inmate H labor systems fell into demise during the 1920s and 1930s. Big houses became warehouses oriented toward custody and represA sion of inmates. What Irwin calls the “correctional institution” arose during the 1940s and N became the dominant type of prison in the 1950s. Correctional institutions Nmore modern in appearance than big houses. Howgenerally were smaller and ever, correctional institutions did not replace big houses; they simply suppleO mented them, although correctional-institution principles spread to many big houses. Correctional institutions emerged as penologists turned to the field of N medicine as a model for their work. During that phase of corrections, a socalled medical model came to be used because crime was viewed as symptomatic of personal illness in need1of treatment. Under the medical model, shortly after being sentenced to prison, inmates were subjected to psychological assessment 9 cation processes. Assessment and diagnosis were and diagnosis during classifi followed by treatment designed to address the offender’s supposed illness. The 0 main kinds of treatment, according to Irwin, were academic and vocational education and therapeutic 9 counseling. After institutional treatment came parole, which amounted to follow-up treatment in the community. Importantly, T over inmate behavior shifted from the custodial the ways of achieving control repression typical of the big S house to more subtle methods of indirect coercion: Inmates knew that failure to participate in treatment and exhibit “progress” in prison meant that parole would be delayed. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the effectiveness and the fairness of coerced prison rehabilitation programming began to be challenged,15 and the correctional institution’s dominance began to wane. In Irwin’s view, the third type of prison, the “contemporary violent prison,” arose by default as the correctional institution faded. Many of the treatment-program control mechanisms of the correctional institution were eliminated. Further, many of the repressive measures used to control inmates in the big house became illegal after the rise of the inmates’ rights movement during the 1960s (to be discussed later). In essence, what emerged in many prisons was a power vacuum that was filled with inmate gang violence and interracial hatred. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 361 06/07/11 8:12 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections 361 Privatization As will be readily apparent in the next section of this chapter, the last three and a half decades are likely to be remembered for the largest incarceration boom to date and for desperate attempts to deal with prison crowding by developing alternatives to traditional incarceration. The principal alternative to traditional confinement has undoubtedly been the move toward privatization, the involvement of the private sector in the construction and operation of confinement facilities. The private sector has a long tradition in institutional corrections. For instance, such diverse services as food, legal aid, medical and psychiatric care, and education have long been provided through private vendors. There is a rich history of private labor contracting in the operation of prisons, and it is now witnessing something of a revival in certain jurisdictions. Also, the private sector has operated juvenile institutions for many years. But mounting prison populations, combined with space and budget limitations, have helped give privatization new twists. One of those twists entails having the private sector finance construction of institutions under what amounts to a lease-purchase agreement. The Potosi Correctional Center in Missouri was constructed under such M a strategy. In another twist, the state contracts with private companies like Corrections Corporation I of America to have them operate prisons. One of the earliest privately operated state prisons for adult felons, Kentucky’s minimum-security Marion AdjustL ment Center, was opened in January 1986. At the beginning of 2010, 31 states and the federal E prison system reported that 129,366 prison inmates (8% of all state and federal prison inmates) were held in privately operated facilities. Private facilities S confined 6.8% of all state prisoners and 16.4% of all federal prisoners. Since, 2000, the percentage of state prison inmates held in private facilities has increased nearly 33%, while the percentage of federal prison inmates in private facilities has increased about 120%. The federal prison system with 34,087 inmates, Texas with 19,207 S inmates, and Florida with 9,812 inmates had the largest number of prison inmates held in private facilities at the beginning of 2010. States with the largH est percentage of their prison populations in private facilities at the beginning A Alaska (30.8%), and of 2010 were New Mexico (43.3%), Montana (39.8%), Vermont (30.1%). Regionally, the South had the most N state prison inmates in private facilities (9%) followed by the West (8.3%), the Northeast (3.1%), and the Midwest (1.9%).16 N In 2010, private contractors operated about 14% of all state prisons and O of privately operapproximately 11% of all federal prisons.17 The vast majority ated prisons were either minimum- or medium-security facilities. Few of them N were maximum-security institutions, which gives rise to the criticism that private prisons are relatively successful because they do not house the most difficult and dangerous inmates.18 1 State and federal prisons represent only a small part of private contactors’ correctional-institution inventory. Private contractors9operate many more community-based and juvenile institutions. They also operate county and local 0 jails; detention facilities for the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and correctional institutions in other coun9 tries, such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. T Corporation of AmerTwo corporations dominate the industry: Corrections ica (CCA) and the GEO Group, Inc. (formerly the Wackenhut Corrections CorS poration). A third corporation in the industry, the Cornell Companies, merged with the GEO Group August 12, 2010. CCA is the founder of the private corrections industry and is the fifth largest correctional system in the United States, behind only the federal system and the systems of California, Texas, and Florida. CCA manages more than 50% of all beds in the United States under contract with private contractors. It has more than 80,000 beds in more than 60 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The corporation owns 44 of those facilities. CCA manages about 75,000 inmates, including males, females, and juveniles, at all security levels for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, nearly half of the states, and more than a dozen municipalities. The GEO Group provides correctional and detention management services at the federal privatization The involvement of the private sector in the construction and the operation of confinement facilities. FYI The Convict Lease System One of the darkest chapters in the history of American corrections involves the convict lease system that was adopted by many Southern states following the Civil War. It perpetuated slavery in the states that embraced it. Counties and states leased thousands of prisoners (mostly black) to private individuals and companies to work (and die) in cotton fields, mines, and forests of the Deep South. Governments made millions of dollars in lease payments, and those who leased prisoners and brutally exploited them made millions more. The practice did not end until the 1930s. Source: Fletcher M. Green, “Some Aspects of the Convict Lease System in the Southern States,” in Essays in Southern History, vol. 31 (Durham: University of North Carolina Press, 1949). boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 365 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections M I L E Chain-gang prisoners on burial detail. Do you think chain gangs are S a good idea? Why or why not? , between the Depression and World War II, though it was not until the late 1970s that Alabama abolished the practice. S H THINKING CRITICALLY 1. Do you think any of the early forerunners to modern corrections A (such as banishment, etc.) could be used today? Why or why not? N 2. Do you think that private prisons have any merit? Why or why not? N O N The Incarceration Boom From 1925 until about 1973, the incarceration rate in the United States was fairly steady; however, from 1973 until 2008, the incarceration rate increased 1 each and every year. Then, in 2008, the rate decreased for the first time since 9 shows the incarceration the early 1970s; it decreased again in 2009. Figure 10.2 rate from the mid-1920s through 2009. Because of the 0 growing incarceration rate, several states in the United States now have as many or more prisons in 9 operation as some entire Western nations. At the beginning of 2011, the states and the federal government, combined, operated about 1,100 adult prisons. The T states operated more than 990 of them, and the BOP managed 113. Private 25 prison companies operated another 180. S RECENT TRENDS There were 329,821 inmates in state and federal prisons at the end of 1980 (305,458 state prison inmates and 24,363 federal prison inmates). By mid-decade, the total number of prison inmates had increased 52% to 502,752 inmates, and by the end of the 1980s, there were a total of 712,967 inmates, which was an increase of 116% over 1980.26 That represents an average increase of about 9% per year. Nearly two decades later, at year-end 2009, the adult prison population stood at 1,613,740 (1,405,622 state prison inmates and 208,118 federal prison inmates), an increase of 126% over the beginning of 1990 and an increase of 389% over 1980. About 13% of all inmates at year-end 2009 were in federal 365 boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 366 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 Part Four Corrections Figure 10.2 Sentenced Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions 600 500 Prisoners per 100,000 residents 366 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles 400 300 M I L E S , 200 100 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 S H A prisons. The remaining 87% were in state prisons.27 The total number of prison N inmates at year-end 2009 was about 15% more than the record high of 1,404,032 inmates at year-end 2001.N (Between 1980 and year-end 2009, the state prison population increased 360% and the federal prison population increased 754%.) O and year-end 2009, the adult prison population In other words, between 1980 (both state and federal) had N more than quadrupled.28 Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, Table 6.28.2009, accessed February 12, 2011, www.albany.edu /sourcebook/pdf/+6282009.pdf; Heather C. West, William J. Sabol, and Sarah J. Greenman, “Prisoners in 2009,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 20, 2010), 1, accessed February 12, 2011, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf. However, the growth of the prison population slowed somewhat in the 1990s to an average of about 6.5% per year (from approximately 9% per year during the 1980s). Between year-end 1 2000 and year-end 2009, the state and federal prison population increased at an average annual rate of 1.6% (the state prison population increased only91.3% per year, while the federal prison population increased 4.3% per year). The overall growth of the state (but not federal) prison 0 population has been slowing since 1995. For example, between year-end 2008 and year-end 2009, the prison 9 population grew 0.2% (the state prison population decreased 0.2%, while the federal prison population increased 3.4%). The level of growth (0.2%) in T the state and federal prison population in 2009 was the lowest annual rate recorded since 1972 and is entirely attributable to the S slower growth in the state prison population.29 Table 10.1 shows the jurisdictions with the largest and smallest numbers of prison inmates and the highest and lowest incarceration rates per 100,000 residents at year-end 2009. (We will discuss incarceration rates later in this section.) The approximately 1.6 million state and federal prison inmates incarcerated in the United States and its territories at year-end 2009 include 129,336 prisoners held in privately operated facilities and 86,653 state and federal prisoners held in local jails or other facilities operated by county or local authorities. This figure does not include the 767,620 local jail inmates (more about the jail population later); the 13,576 inmates held in territorial and commonwealth prisons (2008); the 9,957 inmates held in facilities operated by or exclusively for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (2008); the 1,651 boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 367 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections 367 Table 10.1 Jurisdictions with the Largest and Smallest Numbers of Prison Inmates and Incarceration Rates per 100,000 Residents in 2009 Prison Population Number of Inmates Prison Population Incarceration Rate per 100,000 State Residentsa 208,118 171,275 171,249 103,915 58,687 Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Alabama Texas 881 702 657 650 648 Maine Minnesota New Hampshire Rhode Island Massachusetts 150 5 Largest: Federal California Texas Florida New York 5 Smallest: North Dakota Wyoming Maine Vermont New Hampshire 1,486 2,075 2,206 2,220 2,731 189 M 206 I 211 213 L E Note: The number of prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year per 100,000 residents in the state population. Based on census estimates for January 1, 2008. S Source: Calculated from Heather C. West, William J. Sabol, and Sarah J. Greenman, “Prisoners in 2009,” in Bureau of Jus, Printing Office, December 2010), tice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government a 16, Appendix Table 1, and 24, Appendix Table 9. S in jails in Indian coun- incarceration rate A figure derived by inmates in military facilities (2008); the 2,135 inmates try (2008); or the 92,845 inmates (as of 2006) in juvenile H facilities (discussed dividing the number of people incarcerated by the population of the area and in Chapter 13). Overall, the United States had approximately 2.5 million peoA multiplying the result by 100,000; used to ple incarcerated at year-end 2009.30 compare incarceration levels of units Similar, although somewhat less drastic, trends are evident when local jails N with different population sizes. are examined. Between 1982 and 1990, the number of jail inmates increased nearly 89%, from 209,582 to 395,553. On June 30, 2009, N the local jail population stood at 767,620 inmates, an increase of about 94% over the beginning of Orecord high of 785,556 1990 and 266% over 1982, but down 2.3% from the 31 persons being supervised inmates on June 30, 2008. If the additional 70,213 N outside a jail facility (in community service programs, weekender programs, by electronic monitoring, and so on) at midTable 10.2 The 10 Largest Local Jail year 2009 are added to the 767,620 confined inmates, the total Jurisdictions with Their 1 number of people under the supervision of local jails increases Average Daily Populations to 837,833, a decrease of about 2.4% from the previous 9 year.32 at Mid-Year 2009 Table 10.2 lists the 10 largest local jail jurisdictions in the 0 United States, along with their average daily populations at Average Daily mid-year 2009. Jurisdiction Population 9 We must be cautious about looking exclusively at changes Los Angeles County, CA 19,437 T such in the sheer number of people incarcerated because New York City, NY 13,365 changes do not take into consideration changes in the S size of Harris County, TX 10,000 the general population. We might wonder whether big Cook County, IL 9,900 increases in the number of people incarcerated simply reflect Philadelphia City, PA 9,359 growth in the U.S. population. Researchers typically convert Maricopa County, AZ 9,215 a raw figure to an incarceration rate to deal with that probOrange County, CA 6,255 lem. The incarceration rate is calculated by dividing the numMiami-Dade County, FL 6,051 ber of people incarcerated by the population of the area and Dallas County, TX 6,039 multiplying the result by 100,000: Shelby County, TN 5,943 Incarceration rate 5 number incarcerated/population 3 100,000 As shown in Figure 10.2, the U.S. adult prison incarceration rate was comparatively stable from the period before 1930 Source: Adapted from Todd D. Minton, “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2009— Statistical Tables,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, June 2010, 12, Table 9, accessed February 12, 2011, http://bjs.ojp .usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim09st.pdf. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 368 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 368 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections CJ Online Incarceration Rates For the incarceration rates of 216 nations, access the International Centre for Prison Studies website at www.kcl.ac.uk /depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief /wpb_stats.php?area=all&category =wb_poprate. Why do you think incarceration rates vary so greatly among different nations? until the mid-1970s, when the dramatic upward climb began. Between 1980 and year-end 2007, the prison incarceration rate rose 264%, from 139 to an all-time high of 506 prisoners per 100,000 residents. However, in 2008, the incarceration rate declined for only the second time since 1968, from the high of 506 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2007 to 504 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2008. The rate declined again to 502 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2009. (The rate also declined in 2001.)33 Likewise, between 1982 and mid-year 2007, the jail incarceration rate rose from 90 to an all-time high of 259 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or 188%. However, in 2008, the jail incarceration rate declined for only the third time since the early 1980s, from the high of 259 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2007 to 258 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2008. The jail incarceration rate declined again to 250 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2009. (The rate also declined in 1999 and 2001.)34 Whether these recent declines in incarceration rates are an aberration, like 2001 for both prisons and jails and 1999 for jails, or the beginning of a new downward trend, only time will tell. Incarceration rates also differ significantly among nations. The data in Figure 10.3 show the prison population rates for 20 selected nations as of the M most recent year available. Note that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. I An article on the front page of the April 23, 2008 The New York Times entitled “Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’” L has less than 5% of the world’s population but noted that the United States 35 almost a quarter of the world’s E prisoners. Annual incarceration rates such as those depicted in Figure 10.3 and discussed earlier reflect the numbers S of people admitted to institutions, the lengths of time , Figure 10.3 Incarceration Rates for Selected Nations S H A N N O N Nation United States Russian Federation St. Kitts and Nevis Virgin Islands (USA) Bermuda Belarus Israel South Africa 743 577 551 539 428 385 325 319 Chile 304 Puerto Rico 303 1 200 9152 120 102 0 94 9 85 79 T 71 S Mexico England and Wales China Greece Cambodia Germany Switzerland Norway 71 Denmark 60 Iceland Japan 59 Pakistan 58 Haiti 53 India 32 Nigeria 29 Nepal 24 Source: Kings College London: International Centre for Prison Studies, accessed February 12, 2011, www.kcl.ac.uk /depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 369 06/07/11 8:12 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections those people serve, and (for purposes of international comparisons) the nations’ levels of crime. Nations with higher levels of crime, with more people admitted to prison, and with prisoners serving longer terms can be expected to have higher annual rates of incarceration. Thus, sociologist James Lynch argues that the type of international comparisons depicted in Figure 10.3 may be misleading because the United States has a more serious crime problem than most other nations.36 Lynch contends that if the analysis is controlled for nations’ levels of crime, the differences between the United States and other nations in the use of imprisonment are smaller. Still, Americans are incarcerated for such crimes as writing bad checks or using marijuana, which would rarely result in prison sentences in other countries.37 Cost Estimates Total spending on state and federal prisons in 369 Table 10.3 Ten States with Highest Correctional Budgets (as of 2010) State Budget California New York Texas Florida Michigan Ohio Pennsylvania North Carolina Georgia Illinois $8,739,283,480 $3,644,920,980 $3,059,137,158 $2,434,076,496 $1,956,122,800 $1,695,126,943 $1,605,505,000 $1,400,629,083 $1,205,969,689 $1,149,335,400 2010 was approximately $45 billion (about the same as in 2007). Table 10.3 shows the ten states with the highest correctional Source: American Correctional Association 2010 Directory: Adult and Juvenile M budgets in 2010. If the BOP were included, it would rank second Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole behind California with a 2010 budget of about $6.2 billion. I Of the Authorities (Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 2010), 24. approximately $45 billion spent in 2010, by far the largest L $5.3 billion were for amount was for salaries and benefits ($24.6 billion). About inmate healthcare, $2.1 billion were for capital improvements (new construction, E Corrections Spending physical plant improvements, and equipment), about $1.3 billion were for food, S Corrections is currently the second-fastest and about $1.4 billion were for treatment programs. California spent the most of growing spending category for states, beany state (about $8.7 billion); South Dakota spent the least (about $62 million).38 , hind Medicaid, costing about $50 billion a The average daily cost of incarceration per inmate in 2010 was $79.64 year and accounting for 1 of every 14 dis($29,068.60 per inmate per year). New York had the highest daily cost ($152.52, cretionary dollars. or $55,670 per year), and Montana had the lowest ($30.87, or $11,267.55 per S($2.2 billion), and West year). California spent the most on inmate health care Source: The Pew Center on the States, Virginia spent the least ($0). The state of Washington spent “Corrections and Public Safety,” accessed H the most per inmate February 13, 2011, www.pewcenteronthestates for health care ($7,773), and Alabama spent the largest percentage of its Depart.org/topic_category.aspx?category=528. A 39 California also spent ment of Corrections budget for inmate health care (30%). the most on food services ($203 million), while New Hampshire spent the least N ($2.3 million). California spent the most on treatment programs ($510 million), and Delaware and New Hampshire spent the least ($0). N 40 FYI O The Crowding Issue Crowding has always been a problem in American prisons, but it has become especially troublesome over the Npast three decades. The increase in prison construction across the nation of late, while staggering, has failed to keep pace with the increase in prison populations that has been produced partly by the War on Drugs. At the beginning1of 2010, for example, 27 states and the federal prison system reported operating at 100% or more of their 9 at 36% over its highhighest capacity. The federal prison system was operating est capacity. Moreover, these capacity figures do not include prison inmates held 0 in local jails, in other states, or in private facilities because of insufficient prison 41 under court order space. In 2007, at least 11 states had at least one institution 9 to rectify crowded conditions. Crowded prisons are often volatile prisons, and T end up diverting reefforts to address problems related to crowding frequently sources from inmate services and programs. How didSwe arrive at this state of affairs? The most obvious explanation is that a massive outbreak of crime in the United States has fueled the growth of the prison population. But as criminologist Nils Christie and a number of other observers have pointed out, that explanation is simply not supported by the data, which show relatively stable, and in some cases even declining, rates of crime for much of the period of the incarceration boom.42 Likewise, there has not been an increase in the proportion of young adults, who constitute the most prison-prone age group, in the general population. Criminologist Michael Tonry, in a cross-national analysis, attributes high incarceration rates to high levels of income inequality, low levels of trust and legitimacy, weak welfare states, politicized as opposed to professionalized criminal justice systems (for example, the popular election of judges and prosecutors), and conflictual rather than consensual political cultures.43 boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 370 01/07/11 6:03 AM user-f494 370 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections MYTH Six percent of America’s criminals commit 70% of all violent crimes. Thus, crime control could be improved dramatically if only those 6% were imprisoned. FACT This well-publicized statistic comes from a misinterpretation of two studies focusing on criminal activity by boys born in Philadelphia. Dr. Marvin Wolfgang of the University of Pennsylvania discovered that 6% of the boys born in Philadelphia in 1945 were responsible for more than half of the serious crimes committed by the entire group. Of those born in 1958, 7.5% committed 69% of the serious crimes. Those who cite these outdated studies focus erroneously on 6% of “criminals”—as if future high-rate offenders could be predicted—instead of 6% of all male children born in a given year, whose future criminal behavior is also not predictable. Source: Seeking Justice: Crime and Punishment in America (New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1997), 12. Law professor Franklin Zimring offers an interesting public opinion explanation.44 Zimring claims that members of the public will think punishment for crime is too soft and will demand more imprisonment as long as they think crime is too high. The problem is that prisons generally do an unsatisfactory job of controlling crime, so the public continues to perceive crime as high, despite increases in the prison population. The inability of prisons to control crime fuels the public demand for still more punishment (such as more imprisonment). Zimring uses the analogy of a person who finds that the medicine he or she has been taking for a headache is not helping and decides to increase the dose of the same medication. We can expand a bit on Zimring’s perspective. Over the last 200 years, Americans have developed a tradition of strong reliance on the prison to control crime. It has never done very well. As Zimring observes, the typical response to high crime and high recidivism is to conclude that criminals are not being punished enough and to gradually increase the use of imprisonment. In pursuing that strategy, we get caught in a loop. We are continually forced to direct the greatest portions of our overall correctional budgets toward imprisM onment. Relatively few resources are left to develop effective programs in community corrections and crime I prevention programs that might reduce reliance on imprisonment. Data show, for example, that about two-thirds of all money L to finance institutions. Roughly a quarter of all spent on corrections is used persons under correctional E supervision are incarcerated. Therefore, about three-quarters of the correctional population must be accommodated with onethird of the resources. TheSlack of resources devoted to community corrections and crime prevention helps ensure that programs in those areas will fail to , control crime. So there will always be an abundant supply of offenders to feed the prison population and escalate the cost of maintaining that population. The irony is clear and substantial. While crowding in correctional institutions sugS alternatives in community corrections and crime gests the need for effective prevention, that same crowding and the resources it consumes preclude such H alternatives. Ineffectiveness in community corrections and crime prevention A worse, thereby consuming even more resources. simply makes the crowding N N PRISON INMATE CHARACTERISTICS O and why are they there? First, we must distinWho are the people in prison, guish between federal andN state prisoners. At year-end 2009, 87% of all prison- The incarceration boom of the past three decades has required the construction of dozens of new prisons. Was this construction boom necessary? Why or why not? ers in the United States were state prisoners, while only 13% were federal prisoners.45 Since most prisoners are state1prisoners, we will focus on them. At the end of this section, however, we will indicate some important differ9 between state and federal prisoners. One last point ences before we begin: The characteristics of both state and 0 federal prisoners are remarkably stable over time, that is, they9do not change much from one year to the next. From Table 10.4 it is evident that the largest proportion T prisoners are male and black. In addition, a large of state proportion had not completed high school or did not have S a GED, were under 35 years of age and never married, and were employed prior to arrest. Three things about these data bear mention. First, even though there is actually a greater percentage of females than males in the U.S. population, males make up about 93% of the state and federal prison population; this is what is meant by saying that men are disproportionately represented in prison. Put differently, at year-end 2009, the imprisonment rate for men was 949 per 100,000 men, compared with 67 per 100,000 for women.46 Second, more than 72% of the prisoners were employed in the month preceding their arrests; however, many of them held low-paying jobs. Third, boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 371 06/07/11 8:18 AM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections Table 10.4 Selected Characteristics of State and Federal Prison Inmates Characteristics Gender Male Female State Prison Inmates Federal Inmates 93.1% 6.9 93.5% 6.5 38.6% 42.8 15.8 2.8 57.7% 38.8 32.9 3.5 0.1% 17.2 33.1 30.5 14.1 4.1 1.0 34 yrs. 0% 9.0 38.4 28.8 17.2 5.5 1.1 39 yrs. Race/Ethnicity White Black Hispanic Other* Age 17 or younger 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65 or older Median age Marital Status Married Widowed Separated Divorced Never married 16.4% 2.0 5.1 19.7 56.8 Educational Attainment 8th grade or less Some high school GED High school graduate Some college College graduate or more Median education 12.3% 24.3 29.9 21.6 8.8 3.1 12 yrs. M I L E S , S H A N N O N 26.0% 1.1 5.1 20.3 47.5 10.8% 16.0 28.8 24.1 13.7 6.6 12 yrs Employed in Month before Arrest 72.4% 1 27.6 9 Notes: All data are based on 2004 data, except state inmate gender and race/ethnicity 0data, which are based on 2009 data. Federal inmate gender and race/ethnicity data are based on 2010 data. State and federal inmate race/ethnicity data are not directly comparable because the federal government records ethnicity separately from 9 race, so Hispanics also could be either white or black. Some states record race and ethnicity differently. Some states combine race and ethnicity, so there is no separate category for Hispanics. They are recorded as either white or black. T In 2004, federal inmate data were missing on marital status for 0.2% of the inmates; on education, 2.2%; and on employment, 4.4%. S *Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Hawaiian Natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, inmates who specified more than Working Not working 72.4% 27.6 one race, and inmates whose race was unknown. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, unpublished data from 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities; American Correctional Association 2010 Directory: Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Probation and Parole Authorities (Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association, 2010), 32–33; Federal Bureau of Prisons, “Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons” (December 25, 2010), accessed February 13, 2011, www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp. blacks are disproportionately represented in state prisons. While blacks make up approximately 13% of the general U.S. population, they account for approximately 43% of the state prison population. Further, the vast majority of blacks in prison are male, and black males constitute about half of all black persons in the United States. The overrepresentation of blacks in prison is a very heated 371 boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 372 06/07/11 8:12 AM user-f494 372 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Part Four Corrections M I L E The largest proportion of state prisoners are male and black. Why, and what can be done about it? S , and research has not established a consensus on issue in criminal justice today, the reasons for that overrepresentation. However, the weight of the evidence suggests that offense seriousness and prior criminal record generally exert a S to imprison than extralegal factors such as race.47 stronger impact on decisions At year-end 2008, moreH than half (52%) of state prison inmates were serving sentences for violent offenses, about 18% were serving sentences for property A serving terms for drug offenses, and most of the offenses, another 18% were remainder were doing time for public order offenses. A more detailed breakdown for the violent and N property offense categories is shown in Table 10.5. The overall profile of federal prison inmates is very similar to the overall N profile of state prison inmates (see Table 10.4). However, there are some difO percentage of federal prison inmates are white; ferences. For example, a greater while median ages are about N the same, federal prisons hold about half as many 18- to 24-year-old inmates as state prisons; and federal inmates are more likely to be married and have a higher level of education than state inmates, even though both state and federal inmates had the same median level of education. 1 9 Table 10.5 Most Serious Offenses for Which State Inmates Were Serving Sentences in 2008 0 Percentage Percentage Percentage 9 Inmates Offense of Inmates Offense of Offense of Inmates Violent offenses 52.4 Property offenses Drug offenses 18.4 T 18.4 Murdera 12.9 Burglary 9.0 Public order offensesb 9.2 S 3.5 Manslaughter 1.0 Larceny Other/unspecified offensesc 1.3 Rape Other sexual assault Robbery Assault Other violent offenses 4.9 7.4 13.6 9.9 2.6 Motor vehicle theft Fraud Other property offenses 1.6 2.4 1.8 Notes: Data are for inmates with a sentence of more than 1 year under the jurisdiction of state correctional authorities. a Includes nonnegligent manslaughter. b Includes weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency charges, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses. c Includes juvenile offenses and unspecified felonies. Source: Heather C. West, William J. Sabol, and Sarah J. Greenman, “Prisoners in 2009,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2010), 30, Appendix Table 16c, accessed February 13, 2011, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p09.pdf. boh11536_ch10_353-401.indd Page 373 06/07/11 1:38 PM user-f494 /201/MHSF270/boh11536_disk1of10/0078111536/boh11536_pagefiles Chapter 10 Institutional Corrections 373 Also, 51.4% of federal inmates were serving time for drug offenses in 2010 (not shown in table) compared to 18.4% of state inmates (in 2008).48 One last characteristic of both state and federal prison inmates is that many of them are parents. In 2007, for example, more than 1.7 million children had at least one parent in state or federal prison (down from nearly 1.9 million in 2004): 52% of state inmates and 63% of federal inmates were parents.49 THINKING CRITICALLY 1. Why do you think prison and jail incarceration rates have decreased in recent years? 2. What do the characteristics of prison inmates say about American society as a whole? Incarceration Facilities M In the United States, the organizational and administrative structure of institutional corrections is diffuse and decentralized. Primary administrative I responsibility for facilities lies with the executive branch of government, but the legislative and judicial branches are also involved. L For example, the legislative branch appropriates resources and passes statutes that affect sentence E length. The judicial branch sentences offenders to facilities and oversees the legality of institutional practices. S , ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION BY GOVERNMENT Incarceration facilities exist at all three levels of government (federal, state, and S are widely distributed local), and power and decision-making responsibility both among and within levels. Within broad guidelines, H the federal level and the various state and local (county and city) jurisdictions have much autonomy to organize and carry out incarceration practices. As A a general rule, the federal government operates its own prison system, each state Noperates its own prison system, and local jurisdictions operate their own jail systems. Decentralization and autonomy notwithstanding, there are interrelationships N between levels. For example, federal requirements affect the operation of state prisons, and local O jails are affected by both federal and state regulations. Federal institutions are administered by the Federal N Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which was established within the U.S. Justice Department in 1930 under the Hoover Administration. Before the BOP was created, there were seven federal prisons, each separately funded and each 1 operated under policies and procedures established by its warden. The BOP’s mission is “to protect 9 society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prison and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, and appropriately secure and 0 that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders 50 in becoming law-abiding citizens. The BOP’s central 9 office is in Washington, DC, and there are six regional offices, in Philadelphia; Annapolis Junction, T Kansas; and Dublin, Maryland (near Baltimore); Atlanta; Dallas; Kansas City, California (near San Francisco). The BOP also has twoSstaff training centers and 22 community corrections offices. At the end of 2010, the BOP operated 116 institutions (see Figure 10.4). The bureau’s facilities hold inmates convicted of violating the U.S. Penal Code. In 2001, the BOP assumed the added responsibility of incarcerating the District of Columbia’s sentenced felons because of federal legislation passed in 1997.51 By mid-year 2002, the federal prison system, with 161,681 inmates, for the first time in U.S. history had more inmates than did any state system. By year-end 2009, the federal prison population stood at 208,118 inmates and was still the largest. (California was second with 171,275 inmates. See Table 10.1.)52 The administrative organization of the bureau is shown in Figure 10.5. The bureau has come to serve as a source of innovation and professionalization in the field of institutional corrections. Although states vary in the way they organize institutional corrections, each state has a department of corrections or a similar administrative body to coordinate Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons. What do you suppose are the major challenges for the director of the BOP? boh11536_ch11_402-430.indd Page 423 02/07/11 1:14 AM user-f494 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Chapter 11 Prison Life, Inmate Rights, Release, and Recidi vism 423 precisely because they are defending against new suits and trying to comply with past court orders. The result is that even more money must be spent for legal defense and compliance with court orders. This cycle is difficult to break. Court litigation is not just an expensive way to reform prisons; it is also a very slow and piecemeal way. A high percentage of lawsuits filed by inmates are judged frivolous and are therefore dismissed. If an inmate’s suit is not judged frivolous, the inmate must still win the case in court and many lose in the process. Even when inmates win a case, their success usually does not lead to wide-scale reforms. Successful, large-scale, class-action suits that have farreaching impact on the prison system are relatively uncommon and will become more so under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Moreover, winning a case and then getting the desired changes implemented can take many years. Prison systems do not comply automatically with court decrees. Achieving compliance with court orders often requires sustained monitoring by court-appointed officials as well as considerable negotiation and compromise by all parties involved to agree on a timetable and the specific nature of reforms. Finally, the transformation of traditional, ingrained practices in a M prison system can render the prison environment chaotic and unstable, at least in the short run. I L E What do you think are legitimate complaints from prisoners? S What constitutional rights do you think should be extended to prisoners? Or do you think , prisoners already have too many rights? Why? THINKING CRITICALLY 1. 2. S H Most inmates (approximately 93%) will eventually be released from prison. A death or life sentences The 7% of inmates who will not be released are serving and likely will die in prison. Figure 11.1 shows the N causes of death of the 3,430 state prison inmates who died in prison in 2007. More than 80% died of illnesses other than AIDS. N Depending on the jurisdiction and the specific case, inmates may be released O from prison in a number of ways. Examples include expiration of the maximum sentence allowed by law (known as “maxing out”); commutation , or reduction N Release and Recidivism commutation Reduction of the original sentence given by executive authority, usually a state’s governor. parole The conditional release of prisoners before they have served their full sentences. of the original sentence by executive authority; release at the discretion of a good time Time subtracted from an inparole authority; and mandatory release. Of those ways, the two most common mate’s sentence for good behavior and are release at the discretion of a parole authority and mandatory release. other meritorious activities in prison. 1 The term parole has two basic meanings. It can refer 9 to a way of being released from prison before the entire Figure 11.1 sentence has been served, or it can refer to a period of 0 community supervision following early release. We are Causes of State Prison Inmate Deaths, 2007 (Total 5 3,430) concerned here with the former meaning. In jurisdictions 9 that permit parole release, inmates must establish eligiT 0.8% Accident bility for parole. Eligibility normally requires that inmates 3.5% AIDS have served a given portion of their terms minus time S 1.2% Execution served in jail prior to imprisonment and minus good 1.7% Homicide time. Good time is time subtracted from the sentence for 6.2% Suicide good behavior and other meritorious activity in prison. Other/unknown 2.0% Once eligible, an inmate submits a parole plan stipulatDrug/alcohol 1.2% ing such things as where he or she plans to live and work intoxication upon release. The parole authority, which may consist of 83.4% Illness a board, members of the board, or a representative of the board, then considers the inmate’s plan. The parole authority also considers reports from institutional staff Source: Calculated from data in Margaret E. Noonan, “Deaths in Custody: State Prison who have worked with the inmate. The decision to grant Deaths, 2001–2007 Statistical Tables,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department or deny parole is announced at a parole-grant hearing. of Justice, October 28, 2010, accessed February 20, 2011, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index Parole will be discussed more fully in the next chapter. .cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2093. Execution data were taken from a different source. boh11536_ch11_402-430.indd Page 424 02/07/11 1:14 AM user-f494 424 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Part Four Corrections M I L Eby administrative boards whose members are appointed by Most parole decisions are made state governors. An inmate’s eligibility S for release on parole depends on requirements set by law and on the sentence imposed by the court. Should parole be abolished? Why or why not? If , process be improved? not, how could the decision-making mandatory release A method of prison release under which an inmate is released after serving a legally required portion of his or her sentence, minus good-time credits. recidivism The return to illegal activity after release from incarceration. Most offenders who receive lengthy prison terms (for example, 25 years) do not serve the entire term, S and many do not even come close to doing so. The reason is the availability ofHparole, good time, and other mechanisms for reducing time served. Some opponents of those reductions in terms fail to understand that the mechanismsA are essential to the operation of many current prison systems. Without them, many N systems would be rendered dysfunctional by crowding. In addition, without early release incentives for inmates, it would be extremely difficult to maintain order in prisons. N Mandatory release is release under the provisions of law, not at the discreOinmate is released after serving his or her sentence tion of a parole board. The or a legally required portion N of the sentence, minus good-time credits. Mandatory release is similar to parole in that persons let out under either arrangement ordinarily receive a period of community supervision by a parole officer or the equivalent. Their freedom1from prison is conditioned on following the rules of their community supervision (for example, obeying curfew, abstaining from 9 gainful employment) and on avoiding criminal drug use, and maintaining activity. 0 In 1977, approximately 72% of inmates released from state prisons were released at the discretion9of parole boards; only about 6% left prison under mandatory release that year. By contrast, in 2009, 29% were released by parole T boards, compared with approximately 50% who received mandatory release.50 This shifting pattern indicates the strong emphasis placed on determinate senS tencing during the 1980s and 1990s and the use of statistical guidelines to structure early-release decisions. When inmates are released from correctional institutions, the hope is that as a result of deterrence or rehabilitation (discussed in Chapter 9), they will not return to criminal activity. Hence, we will conclude this chapter by considering recidivism—the return to illegal activity after release. Measuring recidivism and attributing the lack of recidivism to the influence of correctional programs are complicated by scientific methodological problems. Nevertheless, until recently, numerous studies conducted during the past couple of decades in several different jurisdictions revealed that recidivism rates, when recidivism was defined in a similar way, had remained remarkably stable. The research found that a good predictor of whether an inmate would boh11536_ch11_402-430.indd Page 425 02/07/11 1:14 AM user-f494 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Chapter 11 Prison Life, Inmate Rights, Release, and Recidi vism continue to commit crimes following release was the number of times the inmate had been arrested in the past. Prisoners with longer prior records were more likely to be rearrested than prisoners with shorter prior records. The research also showed that the first year of release is the most critical one. Nearly two-thirds of all the recidivism of the first 3 years occurred in the first year. The American Correctional Association (ACA) recently reported 2009 data from 45 states, which suggest that recidivism rates may be declining.51 The average recidivism rate for the 37 states that separated rates by gender was 37.6% for males and 29.3% for females, considerably lower than the 60%plus rates of earlier studies and slightly lower than the 38.3% for males and 31.4% for females reported by the ACA in 2007. Different definitions of recidivism were used (for example, rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration) but, for the most part, it appears to refer to a return to prison within 1 to 16 years. As shown in Table 11.2, in 2009, males and females combined in Utah had the highest recidivism rate (64.9%), and females in Pennsylvania had the lowest recidivism rate (7%) but the latter was only for a 1-year follow-up. M Whether these data represent the beginning of a new trend or simply an aberration will not be known for some time. Regardless,I the fact that more than three of every ten inmates are returned to prison within 4 years is nothing L to celebrate. Obviously, those research findings are not good news E for people who believe that imprisonment can achieve large-scale deterrence of crime and rehabilitaS tion of criminals. More bad news for deterrence advocates comes from the research of sociologist Ben Crouch, who found that newly incarcerated offend, ers frequently express a preference for prison over probation sentences. Crouch explains: S H A N N O Similar research by criminologist Kenneth Tunnell shows that most repeat property offenders are not threatened by the prospects N of imprisonment.53 A fundamental irony emerges in our justice system. That is, the lawbreakers whom middle-class citizens are most likely to fear and want most to be locked away . . . tend to be the very offenders who view prison terms of even two or three years as easier than probation and as preferable. To the extent that these views among offenders are widespread, the contemporary demand for extensive incarceration (but often for limited terms) may foster two unwanted outcomes: less deterrence and more prisoners.52 Unfavorable news for advocates of rehabilitation began trickling in even before the release in 1974 of the famous Martinson report, which cast grave 54 In a later study, crimidoubts on the ability of prisons to reform offenders.1 nologist Lynne Goodstein demonstrated that the inmates who adjusted most 9 to life in the free comsuccessfully to prison had the most difficulty adjusting munity upon release. About her research, Goodstein0writes: 9 T S These findings provide a picture of the correctional institution as a place which reinforces the wrong kinds of behaviors if its goal is the successful future adjustment of its inmates. In the process of rewarding acquiescent and compliant behavior, the prison may, in fact, be reinforcing institutional dependence.55 Of course, some people are deterred from crime by the threat of imprisonment, and the prison experience does benefit some inmates in the way rehabilitation advocates envision. Criminologists Frank Cullen and Paul Gendreau conducted a comprehensive review of research that evaluated the effects of correctional interventions on recidivism rates.56 They found that across studies, the correctional interventions reduced recidivism rates, on average, 10%. The most successful interventions reduced recidivism 25%. They used cognitivebehavioral treatments, targeted known predictors of crime for change, and intervened mainly with high-risk offenders. Cognitive-behavioral treatments emphasize the important role of thinking in how people feel and behave. Therapists help offenders identify the thinking that is causing their problematic 425 boh11536_ch11_402-430.indd Page 426 02/07/11 1:14 AM user-f494 426 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Part Four Corrections Table 11.2 Recidivism Rates of State Prisoners in 45 States, 2009 RECIDIVISM RATE State Male Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Average 28.7% 21.9% 60.0 57.0 43.2 35.9 43.3 23.0 60.4 48.3 53.6 48.9 34.7 20.4 28.7 24.9 33.3 28.5 52.9 36.5 38.4 31.1 15.6 9.2 36.2 30.0 46.9 34.2 47.8 (male & female) 39.0 42.0 50.1 42.2 36.0 33.0 32.8 22.2 39.7 30.7 41.9 28.1 26.8 18.2 45.2 34.6 43.0 (male & female) 46.2 38.6 42.0 30.0 50.2 (male & female) 40.0 26.4 25.0 14.7 23.9 21.5 10.0 7.0 57.0 54.0 35.1 22.3 30.7 25.8 45.0 (male & female) 28.0 20.7 64.9 (male & female) 53.6 50.3 21.2 14.0 27.6 19.2 38.9 29.6 10.3 10.3 37.6 29.3 M I L E S , S H A N N O N 1 9 0 9 T S Female Number of Years Tracked 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 16 1 3 15 3 Note: KS return rate for 2006 releases (3-year follow-up) not available by gender; return with new sentence 5 10.5%; return with no new sentence (technical) 5 36.9%: ND 2005 recidivism cohort group measured over 3 years, male technical rate 5 25.3%, male new crime rate 5 17.35%, female technical rate 5 24.3%, female new crime rate 5 6.8%. Source: American Correctional Association 2010 Directory: Adult and Juvenile Corrections Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities (Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 2010), 44. feelings and behavior and then teach them how to replace those thoughts with thoughts that will lead to more desirable feelings and actions. Cullen and Gendreau also reported that punishment-oriented, correctional interventions generally had no effect on offender criminality. We must be careful not to hold unrealistic expectations about what imprisonment can accomplish in our society. Traditionally, we have placed undue boh11536_ch11_402-430.indd Page 427 02/07/11 1:14 AM user-f494 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Chapter 11 Prison Life, Inmate Rights, Release, and Recidi vism confidence in the ability of imprisonment to control crime. But imprisonment is a reactive (versus proactive) response to the social problem of crime, and crime is interwoven with other social problems, such as poverty, inequality, and racism, in our wider society. We should not expect imprisonment to resolve or control those problems. Another impediment to the successful reintegration of released inmates is their loss of civil rights. Depending on the jurisdiction, convicted felons lose a variety of civil rights. Among the most common rights forfeited are the rights to vote, hold public office, serve on a grand or petit jury, practice a profession that requires an occupational or professional license, be a parent (termination of parental rights), and carry or possess firearms. In many states, women convicted of drug offenses may be denied welfare benefits. If convicted of a federal felony, a person is ineligible for enlistment in any of the armed services, may have public housing benefits restricted under certain circumstances, and, depending on the crime, may lose veteran benefits, including pensions and disability. A majority of jurisdictions provide a means for restoring lost rights. Some rights are restored automatically. Other M rights are restored by executive or judicial proceedings that are often based on the ex-offender’s demonstration that he or sheI has been rehabilitated. Some rights are lost permanently.57 It is difficult enough for released prison inmates to reenter society and succeed. The loss ofLcivil rights and the hurdles that make them difficult to restore (when theyEcan be restored) do not make it any easier. THINKING CRITICALLY S , 1. Do you think anything could be done to lower recidivism rates among offenders? If so, what? 2. In your opinion, should prisoners be allowed to reduce their timeSin prison through parole or good time? Why or why not? H A N N O N 3. Should convicted felons lose civil rights? If yes, which ones and why? If not, why not? 1 9 0 9 T S 427 boh11536_ch12_431-476.indd Page 432 02/07/11 4:13 AM user-f494 432 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Part Four Corrections CRIME STORY O n January 24, 2011, California prison inmate Damon Cooke received the bad news: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he had no constitutional right to be paroled. In 1991, Cooke had been convicted of attempted first-degree murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 7 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, plus a 4-year enhancement for using a firearm. In 2002, the Board of Prison Terms (California’s parole board) denied his parole petition, citing as its reasons the “especially cruel and callous manner” of his crime, his failure to participate fully in rehabilitation programs, his failure to develop marketable skills, and three incidents of misconduct while in prison. California’s parole statute provides that the Board of Prison Terms “shall set a release date unless it determines that . . . consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration.” The statute further provides that if the Board denies parole, the inmate can seek judicial review in a state habeas petition. The California Supreme Court has declared that “the standard of review properly is characterized as whether ‘some evidence’ supports the conclusion that the inmate is unsuitable for parole because he or she currently is dangerous.” Cooke sought a writ of habeas corpus in state court, claiming that the Board’s decision violated his right to due process. A state superior court and the California Court of Appeal denied Cooke’s peti- tions for a writ of habeas corpus, and valid sentence, and the States are the California Supreme Court denied his under no duty to offer parole to their petition for direct review, all finding that prisoners.” The Court added, however, the Board’s decision was supported by that when “a State creates a liberty “some evidence” of unsuitability. interest,” as California had done, “the In 2004, Cooke filed a habeas peti- Due Process Clause requires fair pro- tion in federal District Court challenging cedures for its vindication—and federal the parole board’s determination. The courts will review the application of court denied his petition. He then M I Court of Appeals, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower federalLcourt, ruling that “California’s parole statute E created a liberty interest protected by the Due S Process Clause, and that California’s , ‘some evidence requirement’ was a those constitutionally required proce- sought relief in the Ninth U.S. Circuit dures.” The Supreme Court had previ- ‘component’ of that federally protected habeas courts’ inquiry into whether liberty interest.” The NinthS Circuit then Cooke received due process.” concluded that “the state court had Admonishing the Ninth Circuit, the made an ‘unreasonable determination Court emphasized that “the responsibil- H A of the facts in light of the evidence,” N consulstating that Cooke, a financial tant with no criminal record Nbefore his conviction, had mentored other inmates O and had done nothing to support the N Board’s conclusion in 2002 that he would be dangerous if released. The State of California 1 then ously ruled that the procedures required are minimal and, under that standard, concluded that Cooke had received due process. That, according to the Court, should have been “the beginning and the end of the federal ity for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business.” Among the topics examined in Chapter 12 on community corrections appealed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to 9 0 the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that 9 granted the Ninth Circuit inappropriately habeas relief to Cooke because T it wrongly assumed “either that federal S is parole. Historically, parole has been the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed an important correctional tool as a habeas corpus relief is available for an parole has been heavily criticized as error of state law, or that correct appli- (1) undermining both retribution and cation of the State’s ‘some evidence’ deterrence because inmates are standard is required by the federal Due spared from having to serve their maxi- Process Clause.” The Supreme Court mum sentences; (2) jeopardizing public explained that “there is no right under safety because prisons generally fail to the Federal Constitution to be condition- reform inmates and parole boards ally released before the expiration of a means to ease an inmate’s transition from prison to the free community, reduce prison overcrowding, and control inmate behavior. Nevertheless, continued boh11536_ch12_431-476.indd Page 433 02/07/11 4:13 AM user-f494 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Chapter 12 Community Corrections cannot accurately predict which several states have abolished parole required to serve their entire sentences? inmates will commit new crimes; and release at the discretion of parole If they should be eligible for parole, (3) being unfair to inmates because boards. Other states have abolished should the parole decision be made by parole leads to disparities in time discretionary parole release for parole board members or by legislators served for inmates who should be serv- inmates who have been convicted of through statutory regulations? These ing similar amounts of time. For these certain crimes. Should prison inmates questions focus on two of the many reasons, the federal government and be eligible for parole, or should they be issues surrounding the parole process. 433 Community Corrections: Definition and Scope M subfield of corrections Community corrections can be broadly defined as the consisting of programs in which offenders are supervised and provided serI vices outside jail or prison. For this reason, community corrections is sometimes referred to as noninstitutional corrections. Community L corrections includes such programs as diversion, restitution, probation, parole, halfway houses, and Eor jail. Those programs various provisions for temporary release from prison are the subject of this chapter. S Note that community corrections is a generic term. Federal, state, and local , administer community jurisdictions differ widely in the way they organize and corrections and in the specific procedures they use. Criminologist David Duffee’s delineation of three varieties of community corrections illustrates this diverby local governsity.1 Community-run correctional programs are controlled S ments, with minimal connection to state and federal authorities. In effect, local H the broad guidelines officials determine how such programs will be run within of state and federal laws. In community-placed programs, A as in community-run ones, offenders are handled by agencies within the local district. But agencies N state or federal authorin community-placed programs are connected to central ities, or both. Consequently, central authority affectsNprogram operation, and community-placed programs tend to be more isolated from local affairs than O programs are a comcommunity-run programs. Community-based correctional bination of the other two types. Connection to central authority for resources N and other support services (a feature of community-placed programs) is combined with strong links between the program and the surrounding locality (a feature of community-run programs). 1 9 GOALS AND STAFF ROLES 0 As described in Chapter 9, the goals of sentencing, which also are the goals of corrections, include punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. 9 Yet, as a subfield of corrections, community corrections has traditionally T are concerned with emphasized rehabilitation. Although community programs supervising and controlling offenders and ensuring that S they follow the rules of their sentences, there is frequently great emphasis on assisting offenders with personal problems and needs. Another emphasis is establishing stronger ties between the offender and the community, by helping the offender get and keep a job, for example. However, the traditional preoccupation of community corrections with rehabilitation has given way in recent years to concern with the other goals. The staff members of community correctional programs have two potentially competing roles that reflect different goals. The first amounts to a law enforcement role: seeing that offenders comply with the orders of community sentences. This means that staff members must supervise offenders, investigate possible rule infractions, and take action to address any serious or repeated rule violations. community corrections The subfield of corrections in which offenders are supervised and provided services outside jail or prison. boh11536_ch12_431-476.indd Page 434 02/07/11 4:13 AM user-f494 434 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Part Four Corrections M I L E One aspect of probation and parole is client counseling. What kinds of counseling problems are S probation or parole officers likely to encounter? , MYTH Modern community correctional programs are invariably “soft on crime.” They focus too much on rehabilitation, to the exclusion of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation. FACT Major prison crowding in the past 15 years or so has made it necessary to channel into the community, under supervision, many felons who formerly would have gone to (or stayed in) prison. The priorities and operations of community agencies have shifted to meet this challenge. Many community programs—especially the newer “intermediate sanctions,” such as electronic monitoring—emphasize punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as much as, if not more than, rehabilitation. The staff’s other role is to help offenders identify and address their problems and needs. This roleShas three aspects. The first is the direct provision of services, such as counseling, to offenders. The second is commonly H broker” role. In this role, staff members identify described as the “resource particular problems and A needs and refer offenders to various community agencies for help. An important advantage of community corrections is that correctional agencies can N draw on the services of other agencies in the locality. For example, a probation N officer may refer a client to a local mental health center for counseling. The third is advocacy. A community may not offer services that a significantO number of offenders require—for example, opportunities for vocational training. It is the staff’s responsibility to advocate N greater availability for services that are lacking and to work with community leaders to develop those services. Many people believe that community correctional staff should occupy the 1 law and helping clients. Those people maintain dual roles of enforcing the that supervision and control 9 are necessary to facilitate rehabilitation and that rehabilitation enhances supervision and control. Opponents of that position 0 ict between roles. They argue that such conflict point to the potential for confl creates undue stress for staff and makes it difficult to accomplish anything 9 of value. A study of the attitudes Tof community correctional staff toward their work found that staff attitudes have been shifting away from the helping role and S role. The findings of this study indicate the declintoward the law enforcement ing emphasis on rehabilitation in community corrections and suggest that the potential for role conflict may lessen as well.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS A discussion of the definition and scope of community corrections would not be complete without stressing how other components of criminal justice depend on community programs. It is not feasible to send all convicted persons—or even all felons—to jail or prison; resources are simply too limited. The sheer number of cases would overwhelm the courts and institutional corrections were it not for the availability of community programs. boh11536_ch12_431-476.indd Page 435 02/07/11 4:13 AM user-f494 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Chapter 12 Community Corrections 435 Figure 12.1 Corrections Populations in the United States 8 2009 7 6 5 M I L E S , Millions 2009 4 3 1980 2 S H 1980 1 2009 A 2009 N 1980 1980 1980 N 0 Probation Jail Prison Parole Total O Number of Adult Offenders N Source: Lauren E. Glaze, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. 2009 Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2010), 2, Table 1, accessed February 21, 2011, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pf/cpus09.pdf.; Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2008), Tables 1, 2, & 3, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus07st.pdf; Heather C. West and William J. Sabol, “Prisoners in 2007,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2008), 1, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf; William J. Sabol and Todd D. Minton, “Jail Inmates at Midyear 2007,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 2008), 1, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jim07.pdf. Figures for 1980 are from Ann L. Pastore and Kathleen Maguire, eds., Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1999, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000), 484, Table 6.1. 1 9 0 9 T S To illustrate, examine Figure 12.1, which presents data on the number of adults under the supervision of state and federal corrections agencies at the end of 1980, compared with the end of 2009. Note that at the end of 2009, the number of offenders in jail and prison combined is considerably smaller than the number serving community sentences on probation and parole. Approximately five million adults were on probation or parole at the end of 2009, compared with more than two million in jail or prison. Figure 12.1 also shows that large increases in the prison and jail populations have been accompanied by large increases in the probation and parole populations. Between 1980 and 2010, the probation population increased by 276%, and the parole population by 272%. The comparable increases in the prison and jail populations were 377% and 317%, respectively. FYI Funding Corrections Of all adults under some type of correctional supervision in the United States, approximately 30% are confined in prisons or jails. Approximately 70% are serving community sentences. Approximately 80% of all funds allocated to corrections in the United States are spent to build and run institutions, and about 20% are spent on community corrections. Thus, 80% of the funds are spent on 30% of the correctional population, and 20% of the funds are left to accommodate 70% of that population. Source: Lauren E. Glaze, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009,” in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 2010), 2, Table 1, accessed February 21, 2011, http://bjs .ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus09.pdf; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, accessed February 21, 2011, www.albany.edu /sourcebook/pdf/t192006.pdf. boh11536_ch12_431-476.indd Page 436 02/07/11 4:13 AM user-f494 436 /202/MHSF288/pap35147_disk1of1/0078035147/pap35147_pagefiles Part Four Corrections THINKING CRITICALLY 1. Which do you think is more beneficial to society: community corrections or prison? Why? 2. Which role of community corrections staff do you think is more important: the law enforcement role or the helping role? Why? Probation probation A sentence in which the offender, rather than being incarcerated, is retained in the community under the supervision of a probation agency and required to abide by certain rules and conditions to avoid incarceration. diversion Organized, systematic efforts to remove individuals from further processing in criminal justice by placing them in alternative programs; diversion may be pretrial or posttrial. Probation can be defined as a sentence imposed by the courts on offenders who have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty. Instead of being incarcerated, an offender placed on probation is retained in the community under the supervision of a probation agency. The offender is provided with supervision and services. Continuation of probation (that is, avoidance of incarceration) depends on the offender’s compliance with the rules and conditions of the probation sentence. Probation M is the most frequently imposed criminal sentence in the United States. Table 12.1 shows the states with the largest probation populations and the Ihighest and lowest rates of persons under probation supervision per 100,000 adult L U.S. residents at year-end 2009. Probation should be distinguished from diversion, although, in broad terms, probation can be thought E of as a type of posttrial diversion from incarceration. Diversion refers to organized and systematic efforts to remove people from the S criminal justice process by placing them in programs that offer alternatives to the next, more restrictive ,stage of processing. Although diversion is commonly associated with juvenile justice, it is also used in adult criminal justice. Diversion can occur at any point from the initial police contact up to, and even in conjunction with, formal Ssentencing. For example, the police may divert a domestic-violence case by making a referral to a family-in-crisis center instead Hof filing charges against an arrestee who is an alcoof making an arrest. Instead holic, a prosecutor may divert A the case to a detoxification and counseling agency. Those are examples of pretrial diversion. Posttrial diversion—for example, Noffender who has pleaded guilty or has been found probation—occurs when an guilty is placed in a program that is an alternative to a more restrictive sentence, N such as incarceration. O N Table 12.1 States with the Largest Probation Populations and the Highest1 and Lowest Rates of Persons Under Probation Supervision per 100,000 Adult U.S. Residents 9 at Year-End 2009 States with the Largest Probation Populations Texas Georgia ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

I have attached...


Anonymous
Awesome! Perfect study aid.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4