Introduction
The way how a correctional department handles inmates may vary from state to state. However, these state correctional departments may have something in common. Australian and British correction department authorities usually assign incarcerated individuals in areas that require human resources for community services, public projects and other civic-related works . Now what makes this idea great? Is it beneficial? Can it be considered ethical or a direct violation of human rights? Either way, that is what this presentation will be all about.
Community Service Sentencing among Low Risk Inmates
Some sources argue that community service cannot really be termed as a punishment because it is not something you assign to anyone who has been incarcerated for the past couple of years and has just been on parole since the past few months, weeks, or even as short as days. According to that specific group of sources, community servicing is a privilege that inmates regardless of the seriousness of their crime or crimes, have to earn . It would be more ethically and at the same time, politically correct to classify the community servicing done by inmates as a form of compensation for being caught and apprehended of their sins against society . In a way, community servicing is also a form of mediation that most correctional departments use to prepare the inmates to come back to a normal, free, and independent life. What an individual who has been a prison inmate for the past couple of years can relearn from community servicing is the fact that society is filled with rules and one has to abide by those rules if he wants to jive, become successful, and simply blend in. Now that is just one of the two biggest advantages of using community servicing as a preparation for the inmates’ reintegration to the community. The other biggest benefit of this strategy is the fact that the government, especially the cabinet departments responsible for public works, highways, internal government projects, civic works, social activities, rescuing and emergency planning, and basically any government field that would benefit from additional human resources would be able to convert the inmate population which will be assigned for community servicing or parole into a consistent and reliable source of disposable human resource. In summary, it benefits the inmates—by serving as a good training ground for community reintegration, and the government and society as a whole—by provisioning an additional source of labor and human resource.
Now let us go to the question why only mostly low risk civil and criminal offenders are being allowed to be a part of either the Bureau of Correction or the Department of Justice’s parole and community servicing programs. Low risk offenders are usually the ones who have not committed very serious crimes or those who did not face felony or felony-related charges during their trial period. Before considering how parole and community servicing departments could benefit prison inmates, they of course have to consider the possible safety, security, and overall welfare implications of such decision on the community . The modification which puts only low-risk offenders on the top of the list of inmates who will be prioritized for reintegration into the community. They are the ones that pose the least level of risk towards the safety and the security of the people living within the vicinity of the community they would be assigned to. Another way to put it is that they are also the ones that are least likely to commit another civil or criminal violation or recommit their past crime or crimes . Compared to the low risk offenders, high risk offenders would be the least ideal candidates to be put right next to or within a community filled with peaceful settlers.
Work Crews and the Principle of Punishment
There is a principle in the field of criminal law enforcement termed as Retributive Justice which suggests that the extent, duration, and the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the committed crime, the times the crime has been committed and apprehended , and a lot of other mores specific factors. Oftentimes, this principle is being used when the law enforcement officials find it hard to match the extent of the crime with a possible activity that would be used as a punishment. One important thing to remember here is that the punishments do not necessarily have to be the same with the type of crime committed. A murdered for example does not have or should not be murdered. According to a famous principle in law enforcement crime and ethics, “let the punishment fit the crime” . This is actually a fairly agreeable principle but committing the same crime to a person who did that crime recently or in the past would be an entirely different story. That would not only be illegal but also unethical.
Conclusion
Literatures support that the process of assigning low risk criminal offenders in community service duties is both a legal and ethical process. It is actually a double edged sword that brings in benefits for the government, the inmates, and the state economy. The principle of retributive justice may also be used as a basis in explaining why some inmates are being required to be involved in longer durations of community service than others, according to the principle that suggests that the punishment should fit the crime but not a replica of it.
References
Johnston, N., Leonard, S., & Wolfgang, M. (1970). The Sociology of Punishment and Correction. John Wiley.
Lester, J. (2008). Why Libertarian Restitution Beats State Restitution and State Leniency. Journal of Criminal Justice.
Martin, J. (2005). The Australian Legal System. Hodder Arnold Publishing .
Melossi, D. (2005). The Sociology of Punishment: Sociocultural Perspectives. Brookfield,VT: Ashgale Publishings.
Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Oxford, England: Hart Publishing.
Umbreit, M., & Greenwood, I. (1999). National Survey of Victim Offender Mediation Programs in the United States. Mediation Quarterly, 235-251.
Valier, C. (2004). Crime and Punishment in Contemporary Culture: UK. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercouse, PA: Good Books.
