Correctional institutions and capital punishment

CJ Final Exam

Describe the impact of inmate mental illness on our correctional institutions.

Mental illness is a major problem facing correctional institutions across the country. One source notes, "As many as 90 per cent of prisoners have a mental illness and/or substance misuse (including alcohol) problem (Department of Health, 2001)" (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, p. 220). Substance abusers often have mental health issues and end up incarcerated because of criminality depending on their addiction, and this has a very adverse affect on correctional institutions. Inmate mental illness leads to higher inmate health costs, because it costs more to treat and house the mentally ill. They may have to be separated from other inmates if they are ill enough, and they will probably remain or return to incarceration because they will not have the abilities to make it on their own on the outside. This has an extremely adverse effect on correctional institutions and their employees, and it can lead to higher correction costs and health care costs throughout the system. There is also the issue of capital punishment and the mentally ill, which means that if a mentally ill inmate is sentenced to death, they usually cannot be executed, leading to long-term costs keeping the inmate behind bars.

Is a victims' rights amendment to the United States Constitution necessary? Why or why not?

There are two very different outlooks regarding a victims' rights amendment to the United States Constitution. Many law and order advocates believe that more attention is given to the individuals that commit crimes, rather than the crime victims, and that a federal mandate would even the playing field. Others believe that it violates the principles of federalism and do not support it at all. There is also controversy over the passage of a federal Constitutional amendment, because there are questions whether it would only pertain to federal prisoners in federal institutions, or if it would mandate states to adopt the amendment as well.

In regards to whether there should be a Constitutional amendment, it seems that adopting a victims' rights amendments would impact the correctional system, but it is the right thing to do, and it can actually enhance the corrections process. One corrections expert notes, "For example, parole hearings in which the victim gives an impact statement provides parole boards a fuller understanding of the facts surrounding the crime -- beyond offering a sense of the true magnitude and impact of the crime" (Beatty & Gregorie, 2003). In addition, victims' rights are not just relevant to retribution and punishment; they are related to right to notification and public safety issues, as well. Victims have a right to know they will remain safe even after the inmate is released, and those rights should extend across the nation, so a federal amendment would help ensure this safety, and help victims stay safe even if they relocate to another area. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment seems like a good idea to help ensure public safety and victims' rights.

Differentiate among the ways that capital punishment jurisdictions weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine whether a death sentence is appropriate.

Capital punishment jurisdictions weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances differently in capital punishment cases. For example, juries must be informed of mitigating circumstances such as the offender's mental health status, before they can recommend the death penalty. Other mitigating circumstances might be crimes of passion in cases where the offender killed after years of abuse or torture. While these circumstances do not excuse the crime, they may reduce the severity of the final punishment. The same is true of aggravating circumstances. Another writer notes that this places the jury in a moral dilemma. He writes, "It is, instead, a matter of moral judgment that has to proceed in the absence of any determinate legal standards, other than the instruction to the jurors to weigh aggravating circumstances against mitigating ones and come to their own conclusion" (Garland, 2007). They must weigh if the aggravating circumstances, such as the weapon used, or a murder in conjunction with another crime, and they must decide if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances or vice versa. Much of this determination really depends on the crime, the offender, and the prosecution's use of the different circumstances.

Discuss the impact of the application and execution of professionalism in correctional institutions across the United States.