Functions, Issues, and Objectives in U.S. Corrections

Introduction

The functions of the historical state correctional system have changed significantly since the founding of the nation more than 200 years ago. The Jacksonian Era, the Era of Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the reforms of the 1970s all brought different changes to the function—that is, the goals and activities—of the correctional system. Pennsylvania's state correctional system was the first to introduce solitary confinement as a way of removing the deviant element from society. This was part of William Penn's attempt at social reform, a fundamental characteristic of his Quaker ideals (Fantel, 1974). The goal of Penn's plan was to promote moral rehabilitation; it was believed that through lengthy solitude and reflection on his misdeeds, an inmate would begin to develop the moral resolve to reform himself and become a more productive member of society.

Today, solitary confinement is a controversial option within the state correctional system and is no longer used with the same rehabilitative goal in mind as when Pennsylvania first instituted it. This paper examines the functions of the state correctional system, analyzes criminal justice issues, considers the impacts of incarceration and social justice issues for one correctional institution and one private institution, identifies cultural sensitivity and diversity awareness issues, discusses two methods of alternative sentencing, and evaluates the effectiveness of a state correctional institution and a private institution.

Functions of the State Correctional System

The goals of the contemporary state correctional system, compared to Pennsylvania's historical system, are similar in spirit but quite different in terms of function. Today's activities do not focus on removing the deviant from society but rather on building up the character of the prisoner and providing work, education, health care, and support so that the prisoner can rehabilitate and re-enter society with a new set of skills applicable to sustainable living.

These activities include GED programs and vocational training such as the masonry program that the Florida Department of Corrections offers to inmates (Florida Department of Corrections, 2020). By providing inmates with opportunities to improve themselves using the time available in prison to the best possible advantage, the corrections system makes rehabilitation its central objective. However, punitive approaches remain in some jurisdictions and not every state corrections system is identical. Some adopt more punitive practices than others. Overall, though, the trend is toward more humane practices and meaningful opportunities for self-improvement, as opposed to an exclusive emphasis on punishment.

Criminal Justice Issues for Corrections Personnel and the Rights of Offenders

Corrections personnel must be mindful of prisoners' rights, as the case of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) demonstrated. This United States Supreme Court ruling clarified the due process rights of prisoners, specifically addressing how the corrections system could implement punitive measures with respect to inmates' good-time credits—credits earned through good behavior that can be exchanged for certain privileges. These credits serve as an incentive for reform, and prisoners accumulate them in good faith. When a California prison sought to revoke prisoners' credits without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves at a hearing, the case reached the Supreme Court, which established that prisoners retain a right to due process even while incarcerated. This was an important ruling because due process has been defined as "the highest safeguard of liberty" (Oaks, 1965, p. 243).

Punishments therefore cannot be imposed unilaterally without regard for inmates' due process rights, nor can rehabilitation involve the use of cruel or unusual punishment. As Richmond (2015) points out, solitary confinement has been used as a form of cruel and unusual punishment and has been linked to severe negative psychological effects on prisoners, to the point where it can no longer be justified. Today, there is a mandatory standard of living to which all prisoners are entitled (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019), and the provision of mental health services is one of those rights (Compton et al., 2017).

The challenge facing corrections personnel is how to ensure the safety of staff and prisoners while simultaneously maintaining an environment of cultural sensitivity, support, civility, and due process. In the control model of corrections administration, personnel attempt to exert total control over prisoners, which can appear to deny prisoners their rights and human dignity. The responsibility model has been employed in the past but cannot be applied universally, particularly with prisoners who show no intention of reform. The consensual model, which involves prisoners participating in prison administration and was used in California in the 1970s, presents its own difficulties with respect to maintaining discipline and security (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019).

Impacts of Incarceration and Social Justice Issues

The Minnesota Department of Corrections offers supervised release programs for prisoners who have served two-thirds of their sentence. The final one-third is served through supervised release (MN, 2020). Social justice principles suggest that former prisoners should receive support as they transition from prison to the community, and supervised release programs facilitate that goal while also advancing the criminal justice objective of rehabilitation.

Another example of social justice in a correctional institution is the Florida Department of Corrections' Paving New Roads to Construction program, which teaches inmates a marketable skill that can help them find employment upon release (Florida Department of Corrections, 2020). From a social justice perspective, this program promotes upward mobility by equipping inmates with skills they can use to obtain better social standing once reintegrated into society. From a criminal justice perspective, acquiring such a skill promotes rehabilitation and reduces feelings of isolation, thereby lessening the appeal of criminal activity. It also reduces the risk of recidivism, which has a positive impact on incarceration rates overall.

As Seiter (2014) explains, private corrections institutions are accountable to the public and therefore play a role in achieving social justice goals. However, as the case of Kingman Prison in Arizona illustrates, private prisons must also maintain discipline and a sound institutional culture; otherwise they risk incidents such as the inmate escapes that occurred at Kingman (Hensley & Rough, 2011).

Kingman offers Adult Basic Education (ABE) and contracted outside work crew programs, as well as opportunities for inmates to earn their GEDs. Its treatment programs include an Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program (Corrections Arizona Department, 2020). Thus, the private institution demonstrates a commitment to social justice similar to that of state correctional facilities. The key point is that private institutions are not fundamentally different from state-run facilities: both are accountable to the public and must follow safety regulations (Seiter, 2014). Where administration can become lax, incidents like the Kingman escapes serve as clear opportunities for learning and institutional improvement. The culture at Kingman has evolved since those events nearly a decade ago.

Conclusion

The corrections industry, whether private or state-run, has a responsibility to achieve social goals that benefit both the community and the prisoner. Since the formation of the corrections system, reform and rehabilitation have been central goals, even as punitive approaches have persisted. Under William Penn, the first approach to solitary confinement was adopted—not primarily as punishment, but to give the prisoner time for solitude, prayer, and mental reflection, with the aim of fostering introspection. There was also, however, a desire to remove the deviant from broader society. Over time, over-reliance on solitary confinement came to be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has affirmed that prisoners retain the Constitutional right to due process and that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited.

Today, prisons focus on rehabilitation in proactive ways—engaging prisoners in programs that teach marketable skills or help them earn academic degrees. They also provide mental health services and employ alternative sentencing approaches such as restorative justice and electronic monitoring to keep people in their communities rather than confined in environments that may expose them to further negative influences. The goal, as it has been since the earliest days of the American corrections system, remains the reform and productive reintegration of the individual into society.

References

Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. New Braunfels, TX: Christopher Publishing House.

Compton, M. T., Anderson, S., Broussard, B., Ellis, S., Halpern, B., Pauselli, L., . . . Johnson, M. (2017). A potential new form of jail diversion and reconnection to mental health services: II. Demonstration of feasibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(5–6), 492–500. doi:10.1002/bsl.2319

Corrections Arizona Department. (2020). Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/location/110/kingman

Dryburgh, M. (2009). Policy implications of whistle-blowing: The case of Corcoran State Prison. Public Integrity, 11(2), 155–170.

Fantel, H. (1974). William Penn: Apostle of Dissent. New York: William Morrow & Co.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2020). Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FL_Corrections/status/1234884340296843266

Hensley, J., & Rough, G. (2011). Kingman prison still under scrutiny. Retrieved from http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/30/20110130kingman-prison-still-under-scrutiny0130.html

HIV among Incarcerated Populations. (2015). CDC. Retrieved from

Jannetta, J., & Okeke, C. (2017). Strategies for reducing criminal and juvenile justice involvement. Building Ladders of Opportunity for Young People in the Great Lakes States, brief 4. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94516/strategies-for-reducing-criminal-and-juvenile-justice-involvement_2.pdf

Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D. A., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C. (2015). Restorative justice hubs concept paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(2), 2340–9754.

MN. (2020). Retrieved from https://mn.gov/doc/community-supervision/

Oaks, D. H. (1965). Habeas corpus in the states: 1776–1865. The University of Chicago Law Review, 32(2), 243–288.

Rich, J. D., Chandler, R., Williams, B. A., Dumont, D., Wang, E. A., Taxman, F. S., . . . Osher, F. C. (2014). How health care reform can transform the health of criminal justice–involved individuals. Health Affairs, 33(3), 462–467.

Richmond, C. (2015). Toward a more constitutional approach to solitary confinement: The case for reform. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 52, 1.

Seiter, R. P. (2014). Private prisons: Myths, realities, and educational opportunities for inmates. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 33(1), 415–428.

Sentencing Project. (2016). Trends in U.S. corrections. Retrieved from

Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2019). Corrections: An introduction (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

Wood, G. (2014). How gangs took over prisons. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/how-gangs-took-over-prisons/379330/