Within
USA Correction System
Abstract
The principal objectives of punishment in the correction system of America are to prevent crimes and although it has the right objectives they are not working. The only objectives that work are incapacitation and deterrent and they only work because the culprits’ ability to commit crime is taken away.
Analysis of the Principal Objectives of Punishment within the USA Correction System
It does not matter how small a community is, one of the first item on its agenda after choosing its government, is an institution that represents law and order. In the United States there are different branches of the judiciary system; however they share the same principal objectives of punishment: retribution; deterrence; rehabilitation; and incapacitation.
When the United States became a country with its own self-government, it enacted rules and regulations; to uphold these laws it legislated a judiciary system as administrator. In turn the judiciary system developed a group of institutions: the courts; the police; jails; and prisons in an attempt to deter crime. There are only two divisions that empowered to execute punishment in the United States; the state court and the federal court. Both courts share the same objectives for punishment; and although no one can be charged for the same crime twice; there are some crimes that a defendant can be charged with on both the state and federal level. These institutions combined, employ more people than any other conglomerate in America; yet prisons and jails are filling up at an astronomical rate. Despite all the objectives for punishment in the United States correction system, crime is at an all-time high and it seems that the system is dreadfully flawed.
How often does a judge hear a parent stand up in court and says, “Your Honor I do not wish for this person to be punished for killing my child.” The answer is, “never;” and if one judge claims to hear this statement, he or she will never hear it again in his or her lifetime. It is an innate characteristic in human beings to want to hurt the person who hurts them and this is the reason states and federal courts work hard to bring offenders of the law to justice. When the courts meter out sentences on perpetrators of the law they are sending a message to the rest of the population, if they are caught breaking the law the same will happen to them. However, the law of retribution is not fair, in that the same crime does not merit the same punishment everywhere; for every crime that is committed in America there should be a distinct punishment. Judges should not use guidelines when sentencing; they should have a specified punishment for a particular crime.
What is the person who pulls the plug or administers the lethal injection to one condemned to death called? He, I hope he, is not defending himself he is killing a human being who is no threat to him; the message is, not every killing is murder. Once a person is dead he or she loses the ability to think, to feel punishment, therefore I do not believe that the death sentence is really punishment. Years ago a man killed his pregnant wife and the woman’s mother asked the judge to keep a picture of her daughter in the cell of the murderer. That was granted and I believe that that was more punishment than death; if I could I would have ask the judge to keep him in solitary confinement too. Every state and federal court should or should not apply the death penalty, as a matter of fact thirty-two states use the death penalty as means of punishment and eighteen do not. This is saying to criminals that they can go to another state and commit murder and they will die a natural death. There is no proof that deterrence works as punishment. According to Andre X Latallade:
What cannot be argued at all is the simple fact that with or without the death penalty the murder rate in America is substantially higher when compared to other developed countries with no death penalty implemented within their judicial system and it has been so for decades.
All of society knows that if they disobey the law chances are they will be caught and punished. Therefore, saying that imprisonment is a form of rehabilitation might have a grain of truth but the real reason is sending a criminal to prison is to punish him or her for the crime he or she has committed. If rehabilitation was really a means of punishment many young people would have never gone to prison. To keep young people from becoming criminals they need to have more people who care in at risk communities. Many times young people get into trouble by the company they keep and if there are people who would show them a better way of life than becoming gang members they would not get into trouble in the first place. People commit crimes for many different reasons: parents on drugs; single parent household, selling drugs; the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, many people who go to prison return worse criminal; one they were not rehabilitated in prison; and two, even if they were treated to any form of training, their prison records follow them and no one wants to hire them. To make rehabilitation work, it should be monitory that every prisoner who is not serving a life-sentence should be in school while incarcerated; and provision should be made to get these ex-prisoners employment. Some people do enjoy their lives of crime and are unredeemable; nonetheless the majority will welcome the chance to change. Etienne Benson says; “Incarceration is not meant to be fun, of course. But a combination of strict sentencing guidelines, budget shortfalls and a punitive philosophy of corrections [sic]has made today's prisons much more unpleasant--and much less likely to rehabilitate” (45).
Incapacitation is almost like deterrent, it is like a subset of deterrent. The difference between the two is deterrence is criminal is gone; he or she is no longer able to commit another crime. With incapacitation the prisoner is removed from society and his or her ability to commit any kind of crime is taken from him or her. Incapacitation is like a “throw away,” no one really cares what happen to the prisoner as long as he or she can no longer engage in any kind of crime. To be incapacitated, the prisoner is mostly severing a life sentence or is given a death sentence; among the four objectives this seems to be best for making sure that a prisoner will never commit another crime. Applying this type of punishment is to keep that criminal out of society; granted the main goal of all these objectives is to prevent the criminal from committing crimes on society. As it is today, deterrent and incapacitation are the only punishments that work.
If I were to choose one of these objectives for punishment, I would choose rehabilitation; the reason is this system can catch the crime before it is committed. There will never be enough groups or clubs in the communities to wipe out crime in America; yet when caring people work together they can lower rime significantly. Also I believe that inmates should be given skills that will help them to gained employment and lead productive lives. More importantly, prisoners’ records should not follow them; one of the main reasons that prison is a recycling door for prisoners is, no one will employ them and thy carry a stigma; as a result going back to prison or continuing a life of crime is a better alternative. I truly believe that rehabilitation can work but for it to work the public as well as the ex-convicts need to be educated.
Lawlessness has always been a part of society, and that is the reason big countries like America and the smallest undeveloped tribal community share the same common denominator; a system to control the lawless. The courts of America claim that the objectives of punishment is to prevent crimes but one can tell by the number of prisons and the number of crimes that the correction system has gone awry.
Bibliography
Benson, Etienne. (2003). American Physiological Association. “Rehabilitate or Punish.” Vol. 34. no. 7. p.46
Latallade, Andre X. (2009). “What is Deterrence?” Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/what-deterrence-2298433.html?cat=72
Lombardo, D. L., Levy, R. N. (2005). Alternatives to Prisons: Prison alternatives can cut costs and improve public safety. Farmington Hills, Greenhaven Press.
