Criminal justice theory and policy

Criminal Justice Theory and Policy

The Prison Industrial Complex

The national correction-commercial complex is an institution governed by a number of participants who have the power to make certain decisions. The participants are not ordinary individual rather, they are other firms established by the government to work under and part of the criminal justice department. The participants include the federal agencies that work hand in hand with the for-profit corporations besides other professional organizations. These participants carry out their duties within an enclosed network and ensure that the kind of information they hold about the correction-commercial complex remains secured (Kraska & Brent, 2011). The key participants have certain principles that they need to follow in order to ensure that there is no bridging of information within their systems. These participants make decisions together and they have characteristics that act as principles to guide them through influencing of policies as well as decision-making process. The relationship between the participants has to be together with this at all times to guarantee effectiveness during decision-making processes. They, however, rely on each other for a steady substitute of data, convenience, manipulate, personnel in addition to funds. The participants ensure that they carry out their duties away from the public's awareness to ensure that a low profile is a guarantee. Exposure to the public is likely to raise awareness and unavoidable cases of public interest (Kraska & Brent, 2011). There are instances when the key participants tend to have arising issues mostly relating to decision-making. Superiority is a major reason why there arises a difference between the participants.

The federal as well as state organizations have privileges that most of the private industries lack making them more advantageous. The correction budget cannot be at an equivalent level for all institutions since the government organizations depend on material and other applicable facilities provided by the government (Hancock & Sharp, 2004). The private industries are disadvantageous in that they depend on material in addition to facilities at their own cost. Baring this fact in mind, it will be unfair to award all the organizations equivalent funds on preparation of the budget. The best solution is to be considerate because of resources to prepare a budget that does not suppress one party and favor the other. Deciding over such issues requires intelligence since the outcome in terms of performance has to be at an equivalent level. To add to that, it is unjust for one to issue funds in terms of a performance degree. Preparing a budget on such kind of basis results to poor decision-making processes, which eventually influences the outcome where one organization will present excellent performance yet the other poor results despite the fact that they dwell on the field.

To Maintain or to Abolish

Richard Wright supports the idea of retaining the prison systems in that they are correction centers that have the mandate to put away individuals who go against the lawful requirements of the state. He considers the fact that these individuals commit unspeakable criminal acts and the best solution is to reinstate them in the prison system where they have to undergo extremely unbearable life circumstances to survive. According to Richard Wright, the individuals deserve the harsh hostile environments in order for them to be feel penitence for the unjust and inhuman acts that they cause to the community (Miller, 2008). With these reasons in addition to others, Richard Wright argues in support of retaining the prison systems.

Harold Pepinsky is a social science researcher who argues in support of the abolition of present day penal system. The way of life within the penal system is in regard as in human since the individual restrained in the facilities endure a brutal livelihood. Within the penal systems, there is no guarantee of safety that leads to deaths and disappearance of people. The way of survival within the present day penal systems depends with who one associates with as well as the relation with other individuals with the power to offer security within the facilities. There are various gangs dealing drugs within the penal systems and Pepinsky farther points out that the rate of bribery is at its best. The officer on duty at these penal systems engage in the illegal businesses like getting involved in the drug transaction taking place within the systems.

According to the issues tabled by Harold Pepinsky, I agree with the fact that the current penal systems require abolition. It is true that the rate of corruption within these penal systems heightens gradually and it is getting worse with time. The transactions taking place within the penal systems is getting worse in that it extend to the public (Miller, 2008). The chain of command comprises of officers who should be ensuring that there is law and order inside these penal systems. Quit a number of penal systems have corruption issues which is a concrete reason for their abolition since they are turning to corruption centers instead of correctional facilities.

An example of an article that is significant to the reason why I support abolition of the present day penal systems is an article in the New York Times focusing on the increased rate of corruption. The articles publication was on 23/04/2008 titled U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations. On the article, there is evidence of the statistics on the prison population in the U.S. In comparison to the entire globe. On the same article, the prison systems are in reference as horrific with an infinitely harsher living condition. The prison systems are the reason why the U.S. is in indication as a rogue nation according to the article.

California Prison System -- How to Fix it

The Bills AB109 as well as AB117 signing was at the beginning of the year two thousand and eleven. The signing of the bills was to facilitate the state of California with the right to put an end to the gyrating low-level prisoners who constantly came in and out of the state prison. This turned out to be the ultimate solution to dropping the population of inmates inside the state prison. The problem that the policy aimed at was to stabilize and cut down the population of inmates within the state prisons from a one hundred and thirty seven percent that was an over population in the facilities (Sonneborn, 2007). The Bills, inmates in state prisons were under strict obligation not to get transfers to county jails, there were no prisoners living the state prisons early as well as the felons in state prisons to continue serving their time without getting transfers.

The social, political as well as the criminal justice had insinuations on the policy presented regarding the methods to handle the overpopulation within the prison systems in California. There were suggestions that the state had to ensure that up to thirty thousand inmates were out of the state prison to mobilize the current state in that the inmates who frequently in and out be released living the felons with sentences to spend their entire conviction at the facilities. This was however, the best solution of guaranteeing that the state prison population is under proper control and a number that is manageable. An executive committee put the implementation plan forward and it comprised of the chief of police, a probation officer, District Attorney, in addition to a Public defender.

Data relating to the policy alongside the problem was important and the figures had a greater influence on the strategy for the control process. It took the committee quite some time to try figuring out appropriate policies and the only way forward was through a consideration of the current data about the prison population and inmates' records. The data contained the most reliable sources in relation to an essential solution. The alternative solution was to lower the numbers to approximately thirty thousand within a period of two years (Sonneborn, 2007). The alternative solution was coming up with the two Bills that permitted individuals facing non-violent, non-serious, in addition to those with sex offending charges to face imprisonment at the county jails.

M7A1 Case Study 3: California Prison System -- How Do You Fix it?

The origin of the Bills AB109 and AB117

The founding of the AB 109 and AB 117 arose from the need to reduce the population of the prisoners in the United State by more than 30000. In order to achieve the reduction in the number, need arises to transfer the responsibility besides the supervision of certain low-risk offenders from the state to the other 58 counties (Egelko, 2011). The transfer of the responsibility depended on the legislation of the Assembly Bill 109/AB117. The combination of the AB109/AB117 acts as the Public Safety Realignment Act. Further, the strengthening of the AB109/AB117 arose from the changes in the penal code which applied that the sentencing o the new offenders should occur at the local jail and not the state poison.

The main objective of AB109 and its companion AB117 (together forming AB109) is to ensure there is reduction in population found in the California's prison. The reduction occurs through allowing the counties to acquire other methods of jailing apart from the prisons. This includes out-of custody rehabilitative treatments, which could serve in reducing the number of the criminals taken to the prisons. However, the AB109 criminals must be individuals whose crime are not violent and not that serious as provided by the law. This means that that jailing of the A109 criminals in other alternative would involve selection from the other criminals. However the unstated implication is that it would be much difficult to rate a crime as either more serious or not serious. Consequently, the rationale provides higher chances of biasness of selecting some non-serious cases while leaving others.

Implication of the policy

The criminal justice implication of the policy will mainly affect the non-violent arrestees. The decision of keeping them in custody, would affect their ability to avoid recividism future. The social implications include pressure on the local sheriffs and Mims who might not be having enough cash of keeping the inmates. The locals do not have enough cash to keep the large number of realigned inmates. Further, the State government would have to restrain in spending some cash on finding the better accommodation thereby affecting the operation of the economy.

Data

31% of the individuals in the pretrial population had not witnessed incidence of arrests before. Further, 43% of the pretrial population had no record of incidences of prior convictions. Another data shows that 63% of the total pretrial population was on arrest of non-violent properties, drugs or alcohol crimes (California prison plan, 2011). Further, higher percentage of the population was from the local region and presented little risk related to flight.

Alternatives

Apart from the AB109/AB117, there are alternatives to help in solving the problems of overcrowding in the California's prisons. One of the alternatives arises from the question of whether the pre-trial custody should be there. It is not reasonable to hold the people in the custodies yet there trials are not in the process. Instead of keeping these people in the custody, there should be some other places of keeping this people in order to reduce on the population found in the custodies. Keeping these people in the custody also, bears some detrimental effects towards them since the high probability is that there arrest occur for nonviolent behaviors. Consequently, looking for other alternative places will reduce the prison's population while also working for these people. Another alternative is ensuring that there are enough mental health resources, which can help in keeping the victimized individuals in the treatment programs. Keeping the individuals in the treatment programs would help in utilizing jail space that the grand jury has always wasted on them.

Critique

I am against the decision, provided under the AB/109 policy, of scrambling to find rooms for the new inmates. This decision of prison alignment would involve using a lot of cash in accommodating the individuals. The decision also mentions the need to host the individuals at the local level. This cannot happen because the Mims and the sheriffs in California do not have enough cash to feed the large number of the felons to be realigned. My decision concerning this matter would to have the state come up with more facilities. These facilities will accommodate more of the prisoners in that people are likely to commit unlawful acts knowing that they have a bill in support of their sentencing. This happens to be the best solution in reducing the rate of crime and dealing with the over populations within the correction facilities. Setting the inmates free stands a chance of augmenting the rate at which people will commit crime. Impounding discipline on the facilities ensures that the individuals responsible take maximum responsibility. Coming up with committees is wastage of funds that are likely to be efficient for construction of other additional facilities or alternatively expand the existing penal systems.