Institution-Based Corrections

Institution-Based Corrections

What are the traditional and practical approaches for the agency’s dealing with the problem?

Institutional-based corrections include placing individuals in jail or prison under supervision (Moraro, 2020). In some states, the institutional correctional agency is in charge of managing prisons and making decisions on parole releases and supervision. In other states, the authority in charge of parole is separate. In parole release decisions, institutional correctional agencies are required to notify crime victims and their families in advance about parole hearings if they had previously provided their addresses and names, allow crime victims, their representatives, or families to attend parole hearings and inform them about the impact of the offender’s crime on them. They are also required to take all necessary steps to ensure that parolees found guilty of a crime while on parole are immediately taken into custody and kept there until the adjudication of the case. The institution-based corrections agency also uses correctional officers to enforce rules and maintain order in the correctional facilities, search for contraband items, supervise inmate activities, report on the conduct of inmates, inspect families to ensure that they meet standards, and help in counseling and rehabilitation of the offenders. They also have the training required to attend to emergencies such as medical emergencies, conflicts between inmates, and riots. They also regularly inspect the facility to maintain the needs of the inmates and identify areas that need to be repaired. Shifts are routed to enhance the safety of the guards based on the fact that correctional facilities are stressful working environments. Various states are also embracing the use of private correctional facilities because they allow prospective prisons to be located, financed, and constructed within a shorter time compared to government prisons.

Why is/has there been a reluctance to change approaches/strategies?

Mass incarceration in the United States creates various human rights and constitutional rights concerns. The violation of human rights in the mass incarceration system includes various fronts. One of them is the racial disparities in arrests, sentencing, and convictions, resulting in a high number of disadvantaged groups in incarceration. The second front is the draconian sentences that require non-violent offenders to serve the rest of their lives in incarceration, hence creating overcrowding in prisons because there are many prisoners being sent to prison, and few of them are released. The third front is the negative impact of incarceration on vulnerable populations such as the mentally ill and children, hence increasing the rest of violating human rights. These fronts have created a debate on the need to establish private correctional facilities that can meet the specific needs of offenders. There has, however, been a reluctance to the development of private prisons because most people argue that they are only set up to benefit owners. For instance, there has been a growing concern that private prisons are being established to make money and have less concern for inmates. Another concern is that they mainly focus on getting more inmates to increase their population so that they can get more money from donors and other investors. The owners of private prisons also have less concern about crime rates because a rise in crime rates generates more profit for them. Over the past ten years, the practice of local and state correctional agencies collaborating with private entities for mental health, medical care, food services, maintenance, education, and administrative roles has increased significantly (Gould & Pate, 2020). Under these conditions, the correctional agency is the sponsor and continues maintaining policy control over the quality and type of services offered. Another issue is discrimination in the justice system, whereby incarceration is mainly based on race. This has resulted in a high number of minority groups in prisons.

Economic, social, and environmental changes in correctional administration are affected by the changing trend in the population of prisons, improvement of prison conditions, overcrowding in correctional facilities, increase in drug-related offenders, and limited effective treatment programs (Penn, 2015). Private prisons also face management problems due to poorly drafted contacts, transferring inmates with cataloging level requirements to private prisons that do not have the capabilities and resources to handle such inmates, and lack of oversight by contracting agencies. The presence of private prisons has also encouraged public facilities to adopt the same cost-saving approaches in the deployment of staff and procurement policies. Prison overcrowding is among the most serious problems facing the criminal justice system and the primary catalyst of the privatization of correctional facilities (Cliquennois & Birch, 2020). As the number of inmates in jails and prisons and those on parole and probation increases, the corresponding surge in prison spending occurs. There are also additional problems created by the rising demand for funding and prison space hence creating a lack of public confidence in the quality of correctional services offered by municipal, state, and federal governments. Penal programs aimed at rehabilitating offenders have also failed to demonstrate a reasonable reduction in recidivism or crime and have lost credibility with policymakers and the public.

What motivations would be required to affect a different approach or strategy (other than direction from a higher jurisdictional authority)?

There are various motivations required to embrace the privatization of institution-based correctional facilities. One motivation is creating awareness of the need for private prisons to reduce overcrowding in prisons, which is often attributed to increased violence in correctional facilities, inmate deaths, and a high risk of riots. This will play a vital role in creating the desire to want change, thus reducing the opposition of private prisons. Another motivation is creating partnerships between the government and private prisons to ensure that inmates are treated in the most humane way and that the required resources are available. The government should regularly send its officials to inspect private correctional facilities to ensure that they meet the required standards. This will play a significant role in reducing public resistance to the establishment of these facilities. Another motivation is reviewing sentencing policy to reform policies governing the release of offenders from correctional facilities. For instance, the federal and state governments could reconsider policies restricting or abolishing discretionary parole release or curtailing the use of education release, work release, and halfway houses and promoting the use of compassionate release. Policymakers could also implement reforms that would create a reduction in the flow of offenders back to prison because their probation or parole has been revoked for technically violating the conditions of their release. A thorough inquiry needs to be conducted to determine the value of longer sentences, including life sentences without parole. Establishing new sentencing parameters could result in a substantial reduction in the population of prisons in the long run hence making it easier to meet the needs of all prisoners and control offenders in the facilities. The government also needs to eliminate restrictions that make it hard to establish private prisons and promote the growth of private prisons by guiding them on the conditions that need to be met so that offenders from public prisons can be transferred to private prisons to reduce overcrowding.

References

Cliquennois, G., & Birch, P. (2020). Prison overcrowding. Prisons and Community Corrections, 43-56. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003010562-4

Gould, L. A., & Pate, M. (2020). The evolution of privatized corrections in America. Routledge Handbook on American Prisons, 14-41. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429397899-3

Moraro, P. (2020). Frameworks for punishment. Prisons and Community Corrections, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003010562-1

Penn, J. V. (2015). Standards and accreditation for jails, prisons, and juvenile facilities. Oxford Medicine Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199360574.003.0063

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Group Project: presented with a problem involving multiple agencies, each student assumes an agency role and a project role to identify a collaborative, optimal solution. Individually, each student will present an agency description, the agency’s perspective and role, and research the available resources. Students will then form groups, and each group will present a collaborative, optimal solution. In the last week of class, each group will present the consequences for not finding or not fully implementing the solution. Throughout this project, each student is to assume the character (role play) of the leader of their assigned component agency when dealing with their counterparts from other agencies within their jurisdiction.

Phase 2 – Agency Perspective and Role The student will describe the perspective and role their agency has in dealing with the Group Project problem as assigned by the instructor.

What are the traditional and practical approaches for the agency’s dealing with the problem?
Why is/has there been a reluctance to change approaches/strategies?
What motivations would be required to affect a different approach or strategy (other than direction from a higher jurisdictional authority)?
The student will submit a paper describing the perspective and role of the designated criminal justice component and including the considerations referenced above.