Functions, Issues, and Objectives in U.S. Corrections
This paper examines the evolution of the U.S. correctional system from its Pennsylvanian Quaker origins through contemporary practice. It analyzes the functions of state and private correctional institutions, reviews key criminal justice issues including prisoner due process rights established in Wolff v. McDonnell, and evaluates the social justice impacts of incarceration. The paper also addresses culturally sensitive issues such as HIV prevalence, racial disparities in incarceration, and gang dynamics. Two alternative sentencing approaches—restorative justice and electronic monitoring—are discussed, followed by an evaluation of the effectiveness of the South Carolina Department of Corrections and Arizona's Kingman Prison as representative state and private institutions, respectively.
- Introduction: Historical overview from Penn's reforms to today
- Functions of the State Correctional System: Shift from punishment to rehabilitation-focused activities
- Criminal Justice Issues for Corrections Personnel and the Rights of Offenders: Due process rights and correctional management models
- Impacts of Incarceration and Social Justice Issues: Social justice programs in state and private prisons
- Culturally Sensitive Issues in Corrections: HIV, gang culture, and racial disparities in incarceration
- Alternative Sentencing: Restorative justice and electronic monitoring as alternatives
- Effectiveness of Correctional Institutions: Evaluating South Carolina DOC and Kingman Prison
- Conclusion: Synthesis of rehabilitation, rights, and reform themes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Integrates historical context (William Penn's Quaker reforms) with contemporary policy analysis, giving the argument a clear developmental arc.
- Balances legal precedent (Wolff v. McDonnell), empirical data (recidivism statistics, HIV incidence rates), and institutional case studies to support each claim.
- Uses specific, named institutions—the Florida Department of Corrections, South Carolina DOC, and Kingman Prison—to ground abstract arguments in concrete examples.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective comparative institutional analysis. By consistently pairing a state correctional institution with a private one throughout each thematic section, it builds a structured contrast that highlights similarities and differences in how each achieves (or fails to achieve) rehabilitation and social justice goals.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a historical introduction, then moves through a logically sequenced set of topics: system functions, offender rights, social justice impacts (divided into state and private sub-cases), cultural sensitivity, alternative sentencing, and institutional effectiveness. Each section builds on the last, culminating in a conclusion that synthesizes the historical and contemporary threads introduced throughout.
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.
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/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.