Historical Origins of Correctional Enterprise
Correctional systems are institutions for rehabilitating criminals. They include prisons and community- based systems. After being convicted in court, criminals may spend time in correctional systems away from friends and family. There are different types of correctional systems classified according to the government level in which they function: private, local, state or federal. They can also be classified according to the level of security, age, and gender (Waldron, et al. 2009). Most correctional systems run Correctional Enterprise programs that provide opportunities for prisoners to learn new skills, be productive, and responsible. This initiative’s objective is to instill values and rehabilitate the prisoners (Ct.gov, 2016). For instance, Maryland’s correctional enterprises (MCE) program started operations in the 19th Century. The new era of MCE began in 1982 when the State Use Industries Act was signed into law. This initiative was important because prisoners participating in the program stood a greater chance of getting employment after release (Maryland.gov, 2015).
Impact of Correctional Theories and Punishment
Different correctional theories suggest ways to rehabilitate inmates. These theories consist of three components: the reason for correction, policies that should be put in place, and effectiveness of such policies. The theory of deterrence posits that criminals should be punished to learn that crime does not pay. For instance, it is less likely for a person to commit a crime if he or she knows that they will be sent to jail as a consequence (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p. 7). Conversely, the incapacitation theory states that criminals should be sent to jail to reduce crime in the community. Supporters of this theory are of the opinion that criminals should be banished from the community to reduce crime. However, building and maintaining prisons is expensive yet this theory does not explain how the criminals can be rehabilitated in these institutions (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p. 9).
Correctional Eras in the U.S
Since 1790, there have been 9 correctional eras in the history of the U.S. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012). The first was the Penitentiary era that took place between 1790 and 1825. During this era, offenders were locked up in penitentiaries. The penitentiary in Leavenworth was among the largest in the country. Prisoners were transferred to this penitentiary from other prisons until it was overcrowded. At one time, an investigations agency found out that there were 3300 prisoners living in a facility designed to accommodate 1300 people. Most of the prisoners stayed idle during working hours because they were too many. Because of this congestion, the government resolved to build more prisons ushering the Mass Prison Era (1825-1876). This era was characterized by the building of about thirty-five more prisons. During this time, the government kept the prisoners there without rehabilitation programs. For this reason, released prisoners often had problems re-integrating with members of the community and getting employment. This challenge caused the government to incorporate rehabilitation programs in 1876. The Reformatory era of 1876 involved teaching prisoners new skills to help them become responsible citizens (Champion, 2008, p.15).
The industrial age took place from 1890 to 1935. During this time, prisoners labored to produce goods to be consumed by the civilians. These goods were sold at fair prices because the labor was cheap. During the punitive era, (1935–1945) prisoners were kept in isolation with maximum security. The end of the Second World War ushered the treatment era (1945–1967). Prisoners were separated according to their needs. These groups received vocational training, education, and counseling. In 1967, the government decided to use a community-based approach to rehabilitating offenders with petty offenses. From 1980-1995, the warehousing era saw overcrowding of criminals in prisons with limited resources and minimal access to rehabilitation programs. Finally, the Just Desserts Era began in 1995 and continues to date. It ensures that the type of punishment matches the gravity of the offense (Champion, 2008, p.15).
Historical Evolution of the Panopticon
The panopticon was a penitentiary structure designed by Jeremy Bentham. The structure of the building consisted of a central tower surrounded by cells. A watchman is positioned at the highest point of the tower while the inmates are positioned in the cells. A bright light shines from the tower for the watchman to observe the cells. However, the inmates cannot see the watchman and thus are not certain whether they are under observation. Therefore, they must behave well because they do not know if they are being watched. The idea of the panopticon was originally conceived by Bentham’s brother who was running a factory at the time and was using the concept to observe his workers. He positioned his workers in a circular fashion and stood at the center to observe their work. The Presidio Modello in Cuba is a perfect example of the panopticon (Mc Mullan, 2015).
CCTV surveillance cameras use the concept of the panopticon. Government agencies have positioned cameras on the streets to observe on-going activities. For this reason, CCTV cameras reduce the crime rate because it is not likely for a person to commit a crime when they are aware of being watched. The American government has taken the Panopticon concept to the next level by conducting surveillance without people’s knowledge. With digital surveillance, the government watches to see people committing crimes when they think nobody is watching (Mc. Mullan, 2015).
Political Changes in Society: Impact of Correctional Rationale
Political change usually begins with the society because leaders are a product of the society. The American criminal justice system has changed its policies many times in accordance with the needs of the people. Correctional rationales and practice are significant in rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders back to the society. In this regard, correctional policies should be based on a rationale that can be defended. These policies have an effect both positive and negative on the offender. According to (Smith, 2006, p.445), solitary confinement policies are based on the rationale that the offender may be a risk to fellow inmates. However, this correctional policy has adverse effects on the offender. For instance, if a person stays in solitary confinement for a year, it is possible that he or she may no longer have the ability to interact with others and may become insane (p.448).
In recent years, correctional policies have changed to accommodate special interest groups. For instance, criminals with mental disorders receive different treatment from other offenders because they have different needs. The number of offenders suffering from mental disorders in prisons is unknown. Even though there is little research evidence, it is known that there are inmates struggling with mental disorders. In the prison setting, the objective is not to provide treatment to mentally ill persons. On the contrary, the objective is to rehabilitate the offenders. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find that mentally ill offenders serve their sentences without receiving treatment. However, they need to be treated regardless the circumstances by which they became mentally ill. In addition, the department of justice needs to determine the mental health condition of an offender before sending him or her to prison to avoid misplacement of mentally ill persons in institutions that cannot help them (Salize, Dreßing & Kief, 2007). Criminal intolerance is another factor that influences the kind of correctional theories that will be implemented. For instance, if the society is intolerant to criminals, there are high chances that the theory of incapacitation will be implemented whereby the offender is separated from the community (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p. 9). Such policies cannot bring sustainable change in the correctional system because rejecting a person who has nowhere else to go leaves them with no choice but to turn to crime.
Impact of Correctional Theories on The effectiveness of the System
The system may be effective or be ineffective in rehabilitating offenders depending on policy implementation. The rationale of the policy used is based on a correctional theory. The objective of a correctional theory may be to punish or to rehabilitate the offender. If the objective is to punish the offender, the system will be ineffective in comparison to a correctional theory intended to rehabilitate an offender. For this reason, policymakers seeking to make the system effective must select correctional theories that facilitate the reintegration and rehabilitation of the offender (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p. 8-9).
Prison Privatization Industry
Privatization of prisons in America begun in the 1980’s. Other countries such as the U.K Canada and South Africa have private prisons. However, most of these prisons do not function according to expected standards. Instead, the stakeholders operate the prisons purely for profit. In 1998, for instance, reports from a healthcare audit showed that twenty private prison inmates died due to staff shortage and negligence (Friedman & Parenti, 2013). In addition, the private prisons engage in controversial activities such as using prisoner labor to manufacture goods to be sold to the public. These prisons do not put the needs of the prisoners first. In 1995, it was discovered that inmates with addiction problems in a Texas private jail were not receiving treatment. It is shocking to discover that most private prisons are trying to make profits at the expense of human lives.
Future Correctional Systems
The prison system in America is evolving each year: changing policies and applying correctional philosophies. However, the system is ineffective in rehabilitating offenders. In addition, building and maintaining prisons is expensive and private prisons are equally mismanaged. Therefore, the government should consider shifting their focus from prisons and think about community-based correctional systems.
The society has a significant impact on the correctional systems. It affects the system both formerly and informally. The society influences correctional systems according to the moral values of the people. In this regard, members of the society influence decision making in the courts of law and the legislature both directly and indirectly. In addition, they also influence the effectiveness of the correctional systems. For instance, before becoming an inmate, a person is first a member of the community. After committing a crime and serving a sentence, the person is still a member of the community. Criminal intolerance causes offenders to become misfits in the community. Societies that accept offenders back to the community facilitate their transition to normal life and reduce the chances of recurrent crime. Therefore, they help the correctional systems reintegrate offenders back to the community.
References
Champion, D. J. (2008). Sentencing: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, California: Abc-clio.
Ct.gov. (2016). Correctional Enterprises of Connecticut. Department of Correction. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?Q=521088
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2011). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Friedman, A., & Parenti, C. (2013). Capitalist punishment: Prison privatization and human rights. California, CA: SCB Distributors.
Maryland.gov. (2015). Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services-Maryland Correctional Enterprise. Maryand.gov. Retrieved from http://dgs.maryland.gov/Documents/PerferredProviderProgram.pdf
Salize, H. J., Dreßing, H., & Kief, C. (2007). Mentally disordered persons in European prison systems–Needs, programmes and outcome (EUPRIS).Mannheim: Zentralinstitut für seelische Gesundheit.
Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2012). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and justice, 34(1), 441-528.
Mc Mullan, T. (2015). What does the Panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham
Waldron, R. J., Quarles, C. L., Mcelreath, D. H., Waldron, M. E., & Milstein, D. E. (2009). The criminal justice system: an introduction. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
