Prisoners' Rights: The True Story of Contemporary Correctional Departments
Acknowledgements
This essay is dedicated to all of
the social justice and human rights advocates, serious criminal justice
students, and all of the authors of the books that I read in my
college education. Without their
expertise and dedication, the information in this essay may not have been
found.
“Build your penitentiaries, we
build your schools, it’s a brainwash education trying to make us the fools.”
~ Robert Nesta Marley
“Randy laid there like a slug, it
was his only defense.”
~The Christmas Story
Don’t be a slug.
Abstract
Throughout the criminal justice and
other formal educational requirements, a person should be able to gain some
reasonableness in their chosen profession.
However, after learning about how the criminal justice system (particularly
the correctional agencies) operates I have concluded that it is mostly a farce,
as well as quite prejudice against indigent people. Many questions arose about the
professionalism and personal agendas that the past and present criminal justice
practitioners engage in, and in doing such pondering I decided to write this
essay. Additionally, the main theme of
the essay presents information that many scholars and government agencies have
made readily available, which in turn does suggest that these people acknowledge
the racism, prejudices, and disparaging treatment of the people who are
confined to the grasps of the criminal justice system. Specifically, this essay uses empirical
evidence that adds to the many claims that the correctional departments in
industrialized nations are a farce, and use insidious and pretentious
propaganda to circumvent the constituents within their culture. Lastly, some of the knowledge used to write
this essay stems from entire books and lectures throughout my education. Dr. Ronald Rabin’s "The Rhetoric of Mental
Illness" and Dr. Samuel Walker’s "Sense and Non-Sense about Crime, Drugs, and
Communities" have shaped my intelligence in a new light. Both books are directly cited in this essay
and the information from both validate the information being presented, and
will assist anyone who is struggling with the reality of what occurs in the
contemporary correctional departments, as well as the world. Read them.
Introduction
Correctional
strategies in the United States and many other modernized places throughout the
world have been engraved into the specific cultures and used in a manner that
legally deprives people of their innate and societal rights (Rabin, 2009;
Schmalleger, 2008). Many of these
strategies include various methods of punishment and rehabilitation; however, even with the numerous methods the two attempted outputs remain the same, which
are the two goals of the aforementioned strategies – punishment and
rehabilitation. Among the attempts to
properly restore or punish a person, the human rights dilemma consistently arises
and calls for new legislation or the restructuring of policies. As the correctional systems conform to the
cries of so-called modernization and sensitivity, many of them operate on an
insidious and pretentious proclivity and not the propaganda that they
display. In addition, the attempts to
restore an incarcerated individual to the standards of a society are quite
wretched and a farce because of the implementation of bogus treatment plans or
haphazard agendas as a means for proper rehabilitation (Mays & Ruddell,
2008; Walker, 2011). Moreover, the
punishment that is associated with these facilities is atrocious. The treatment
of inmates is so egregious that constitutional or other governmental enactments
that specify what the parameters of cruel and unusual activity include is not
adhered to, in many facilities it is not even close to administering proper
correctional techniques.
The
antisocial behavior of the administrators and other professionals who run these
facilities are very similar to the behaviors of the criminals who they oversee
(Rabin, 2009; Zimbardo, 2007). With this
callous behavior being the popular discourse in contemporary society, as well
as internally and externally acceptable, the rehabilitative and punishment systems
set into place are only systems set into place, and not adequate means of
modernized punishment and rehabilitation.
Archaic and heinous functionality by the practitioners in the
corrections industry are the gears that run the cycle of occupational retention
and discrimination, as well as recidivism.
Many people argue that punishment and mild forms of torture are
necessary in order to gain sincere justice, however, these people fail to
realize that they are exhibiting very similar thinking to that of a sociopath
or callous criminal (Rabin, 2009; Zimbardo, 2007). As aforementioned, the administrators and
other professionals engage in this type of behavior on a daily basis, by giving
or following commands in a system that confines people and offers them minimal
nutrition, poor healthcare, weak social services, as well as forcing them to
take on negative stereotypes, provides a sound example of characteristics that
are found in society’s criminals and quack-jobs. This ideology suggests that criminal justice
systems, especially the correctional divisions, are managed by criminals or
sociopaths (Rabin, 2009; Zimbardo, 2007).
Respectively,
this essay discusses the disparaging conditions that inmates in industrialized
nations endure, the psychological factors of both inmates and correctional
professionals, as well as how correctional facilities perpetuate the cycles of
discrimination and recidivism, which in turn promotes terrible forms of
punishment and hinders rehabilitation.
Furthermore, because rights for prisoners are the main theme in this
essay an attempt to implement a new correctional strategy will be briefly
incorporated. Lastly, a brief discussion
about the uselessness of stiff sentences and deterrent policies will be
presented in the summation and conclusion of the essay to verify the negligence
in the corrections industry.
Decision on
Implementing Punishment or Rehabilitation
Using
both strategies is a reasonable decision, but meshing the two together is far
short of logical. A decision regarding
whether to utilize one correctional strategy over the other is necessary for
the result that the various criminal justice systems are attempting to reach,
which is punishment or rehabilitation.
For example, the decision about a criminal offender being punished or
rehabilitated must be made prior to their sentencing. This, in turn, would produce the product that
the aforementioned propaganda is suggesting it does, and promote a humanistic
procedure that will increase the likelihood of an offender’s positive reentry
into society, or call for a punishment that fits the standards of contemporary
societies. Blending the ideas of
punishment and rehabilitation into one concoction is ridiculous; these are not
two strategies that are parallel, congruent, or synonymous. Promoting a relationship between punishment
and bunk rehabilitation is negligent, as well as unproductive and more so punishment
than restorative justice. According to
an article published by Northwestern University in the late 1970’s, the
prisoners’ rights dilemma is obviously nothing new, nor is it on a path for
proper methodologies. Specifically, this
essay brings the attention to a United States Supreme Court case involving the formation
of inmate rights unions among the incarcerated, as well as First and Fourteenth
Amendment contradictions. More
interestingly, as the court voted against the alleged violation of
constitutional rights it did suggest how this formation could act as a
beneficiary for maintaining the constitutional rights within this country for
when it comes to those who are incarcerated (Northwestern University, 1977, pp.
594-595). The conspectus of this
decision, and case in general, is a great example when discussing the prisoners’
rights topic in contemporary societies.
As the decision was curtailed to security measures and other ridiculous
projections, it also posits the notion of how even though the highest ranking
constitutional professionals have earned their respect they still participate
in actions that hinder the innate and constitutional rights of the citizens and
non-citizens living in this country.
Hindering the development of a party that seeks to ensure their constitutional
rights is negligent; constitutional and innate rights apply to all people who
are within the borders of the country regardless of the title that they have or
place that they are forced to live in.
To
be more precise, as the rehabilitative model in corrections made its debut many
other outrageous claims have been made to subdue the innate or governmental
rights that modernized societies operate on (Kraska & Brent, 2011; Walker,
2011). In particular, the American Corrections Association (ACA) uses
clearly defined standards and accommodations that must be met to receive an ACA
accreditation. According to David M.
Bogard (2010), the accreditation process can be considered to be flawed, as
well as corrupt, because of the compensation that the ACA requires prior to
conducting their audit (Bogard, 2010, pp. 1650-1651).
Additionally, one of the conditions that the ACA posits is the
notification of their arrival to all inmates within the specific correctional
facility. This is done so that the ACA
can collect an idea of the discrepancies of civil rights that inmates claim to
be undergoing prior to their arrival. Although
this is a standard in the ACA process, it rarely occurs and, in turn, can be
deemed controversial because of the stereotypes that criminals have and the
corruption that prison or jail officials can produce. If an inmate is not notified of the upcoming
ACA audit then their questioning or complaining about treatment may never be
heard, and if an inmate is notified or spoken to during an audit and relays
information about constitutional infringements the prison officials can easily
displace or deny that any record (verification) of such knowledge ever took
place. The idea of controlling all of the
elements of an inmate’s records, mail, programming, or other correspondence
does posit the notion that the correctional practitioners could easily deny or
say that the inmate is attempting to be deceiving (Bogard, 2010, pp.
1649-1651). Surely, it would be wise of
the ACA to administer other methods to counteract the possibilities of
corruption by the correctional professionals, but with the prior knowledge of
knowing the ACA arrival date it gives the parties an ample amount of time to
admonish any traces of disparaging treatment, that is if corruption or abuse of
power is taking place.
Both
examples present vivid demonstrations of the subduing of inmate constitutional
rights in the United States; not only with the terrible treatment and
possibility for egregious treatment, but how easy the infringements are conducted
without much intrusion. Also, this is
where the idea of deciding on a punishment or authentic rehabilitation can be
suggested. Rather than implementing a
system that uses shabby systems of checks and balances, or facades of
acceptable punishment and rehabilitation, an actual third party advocate who
seeks to ensure quality procedures in the corrections industry could be implemented. Also, a new structure of the corrections
ensemble could be initiated and checked by the unbiased third party. This is also where the ACA would intervene
and let it be known that they already do this, again, it is reasonable to
consider that the monetary contributions from the correctional facilities that want
an ACA accreditation or re-certification provide the means for being considered
up to the contemporary standards.
As
previously proposed, the decision about rendering a sentence that provides rehabilitation
or punishment should be delivered prior to sentencing the criminal
offender. The distribution of this
information to not only the offender, but appropriate correctional institution
or therapeutic agency would allow for a preemptive approach that genuinely
works, again, that is if the rehabilitative programs and tactics of punishment
are plausible. Moreover, the
professionals who read this essay shout out statements about how the ideas
being presented are all conjecture have failed to realize that the hard-working
researchers and statisticians that present all of this information operate on
the information that is given to them by the various components of criminal
justice entities and human service professionals. For example, the World Health Organization acknowledges the differences of prisons
that incorporate an actual model of rehabilitation as opposed to prisons in
countries that still implement archaic and callous treatment, and posit
statistical information that verifies that this approach works. Specifically, the correctional system in
Denmark emphasizes a focus on rehabilitation and follow-up services after an
inmate is released from a facility; this humanistic approach and network of
authentic social services has allowed the country to maintain a low
incarceration and recidivism rate for many years (Paschoud, 2012).
Psychological Factors
of Inmates and Correctional Professionals
Antisocial
behavior is found in both correctional professionals and inmates, the “fight
fire with fire” analogy is an easier way to comprehend the congruence of
sociopathic or psychopathic thinking and behavior in these two parties (Rabin,
2009; Zimbardo, 2007). Nonetheless, the
notion of a system that employs people who engage in this type of behavior, as
well as implementing a system that has little humanistic approaches, should
bring the awareness to why there is a lack of law abiding behavior and
eliminate the wondering about why recidivism or crimes within a jail or prison
occur. According to Marvin Zuckerman
(2005) et al., “Psychobiologists are uncovering biological underpinnings of
many individual differences that predict criminal involvement, for example,
intelligence, neuro-cognitive deficits, physical size and strength,
hyperactivity, and personality traits, including low self-control (Moffit,
Ross, & Raine, 2011; Yang, Glenn, & Raine, 2008; Zuckerman, 2005).” All of these characteristics can be found in
the frames of mind and behavior that is associated with the mundane activities
of the practitioners within the corrections industry and people who are forced
to live there. For instance, with the
plethora of civil rights violations, internal criminal charges, and abuse of
power court cases that stem from penal institutions, as well as the permitted
use of coercion within correctional facilities, there is no question that the
correctional professionals are engaging in antisocial behavior. The only difference between the criminality
of the inmates and professionals is that the actions of the employees are
accepted by society, but this does not mean that it is an exemplary way to
punish or rehabilitate individuals who are incarcerated (Rabin, 2009; Zimbardo,
2007).
Additionally,
statistics taken from the United States Bureau
of Justice Statistics and Census Bureau in recent years indicate that all
of the disparaging forms of treatment that are being presented in this essay
are found in all of the American prison systems, as well as throughout the
world. In particular, the lack of formal
education is noticeable, as well as the quality of in-prison programs. Research from Anne Morrison Piehl and Bert
Useem (2011) concurs with the governmental projections. These two scholars posit:
Rehabilitative
programs in prisons are numerous and varied, from educational programs to
vocational training, to therapeutic offerings such as anger management and drug
and alcohol treatment. But the quality
of many programs is low, and the number of program opportunities is not
sufficient to meet the need for them.
Based on data from Surveys of Inmates conducted by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics in 1991 and 1997, Joan Petersilia concluded that the “data suggest
that U.S. prisons today offer fewer services than they did when inmate problems
were less severe, although history shows that we have we never invested much in
prison rehabilitation (2005).” Useem and
Piehl (2008) reinforced this conclusion with more recent data. From 1991 to 2004, in both state and federal
prisons, the proportion of inmates receiving academic training decreased from
46.4 percent to 28.6 percent in state prisons and from 56.3 percent to 35.4
percent in federal prisons. (p. 548)
All of this information can be correlated to
the psychological factors of correctional officers and inmates by posing two
philosophical questions, which are: With the massive amount of criminal
offenders who are attached to the various correctional agencies, and not only
in the United States, and with the so-called restorative justice that many of
these agencies partake in, why is there such an enormous amount of offenders
who return to criminal activity or leave a facility and continue to live a life
that many others would consider to be unsuccessful? And, why do we as a society continue to allow
this ridiculous display of punishment and rehabilitation? As aforementioned, this is where the
sociopathic tendencies and desire for retribution or justice (the mild forms of
torture) come back into effect. Many
civilians in the modern world think that retaining justice is done by forcing
the criminal offender to live a terrible style of living, again, this type of thinking
exhibits very similar behavior or thinking of a criminal, the callous attitudes
and lack of concern for the welfare of others is what is being proposed (Rabin,
2009; Zimbardo, 2007).
Furthermore,
an article published in Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes by Karl Aquino and Scott Douglas
(2003) presents all of the same ideas and even uses the content in the
introduction of the article, which in turn posits the idea that the claims made
about the similar antisocial behavior among inmates and correctional
professionals in this essay is vital for understanding the prisoners’ rights
dilemma. Particularly, they suggest:
Antisocial
workplace behavior has been defined as actions directed toward other employees
or the organization that have the potential for producing physical, economic,
psychological, or emotional harm (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). The study of these behaviors has attracted
considerable interest in recent years and several theoretical models have been
advanced to explain their occurrence. One
model proposed by O’Leary-Kelly and her colleagues (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin,
& Glew, 1996) emphasizes situational determinants like decisions that
affect valued outcomes, incentive inducements that reward aggressive behavior,
and aversive physical environments. (p. 196).
As Aquino and Douglas (2003)
proclaim that the antisocial behavior that is found in organizations can be
explained by the decision making and the rewarding of the behavior, they do not
use a particular organization’s actions to validate the empirical
evidence. However, the numerous
correctional agencies throughout the world can be implemented into their
research and allow for an ideal understanding of the antisocial behavior that
these organizations participate in. For
example, some of the correctional facilities in Russia and China have
military-like regiments in their day-to-day activities, and not only with the
professionals who work at these facilities (Parker, 2013; Terrill, 2013). Inmates who are housed at these institutions
are expected to follow the similar procedures of the discipline involved in the
world’s or specific country’s military forces, obviously without the violence or
weapons training. This form of blended
rehabilitation and punishment is the contradiction of justice in the many
systems throughout the world that is being presented in this essay. How can a society or organization that claims
to be restoring or punishing a person expect the person who is enduring such
hardships to return to society and function properly when the nature of the
systems are not a practical form of transition from incarcerated living to
societal living (Walker, 2011; Zimbardo, 2007)?
In summation, the psychological factors of the correctional
professionals in contemporary societies are a direct influence on the
psychological factors of the individuals who are incarcerated. Meaning that when there is a system that engages
in antisocial behavior and, in turn, uses bogus classical conditioning to
punish or rehabilitate a criminal offender the result is more antisocial
behavior.
Racism and Prejudices in
Contemporary Correctional Facilities
The negative stereotypes that an
inmate is subjected to are unavoidable because of the societal standards in
modern cultures. Regardless of a
person’s race or ethnicity the stereotype of being titled as a criminal is
nothing positive, even if an offender thinks that it is most others within a
society will disagree (Hall, 1959; Rabin, 2009). Prisoners in industrialized nations face
complex difficulties because of their poor decisions, and with the ideologies
that contemporary societies operate on the possibility of being considered
rehabilitated is greatly diminished (Hallet, 2012; Walker, 2011). Also, because of the public knowledge about
how these correctional institutions offer terrible methods of treatment or
punishment an offender who has met the standards of rehabilitation or completed
punishment is recognized as having no validity in their claim of being restored
to a law-abiding citizen (Hallet, 2012; Walker, 2011). This is a direct reflection of the
corrections industry’s ability to properly rehabilitate or punish a criminal
offender, which is correlated to the insidious and pretentious propaganda that
is previously mentioned.
In particular, the racism and
prejudices that occur during the implementation of justice is outrageous and
very blatant. A redundant action of the
various criminal justice systems throughout the modernized world can be used as
an example, which is the tendency to arrest and convict the racial, ethnic,
socioeconomic, and other groups of minorities; which in turn means that these
people are sent to correctional facilities to be punished or rehabilitated
(Alexander, 2012; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Reichel, 2013; Walker, Spohn,
& Delone, 2012). Elizabeth Szockyj
(1999) posits the display of biased justice in her Imprisoning White-Collar Criminals? publication; she states:
Direct
comparisons of white-collar offenders with street offenders should be viewed
with skepticism. Despite the fact that
white-collar crime can be seen as serious conduct carried out for an extended
period of time, other factors frequently weigh in favor of a white-collar
defendant. They may be older,
well-regarded in the community, economic supporters of their families,
unprepared for the emotional and physical trauma of prison, and without
previous criminal records. At
sentencing, defense attorneys argue that their wrongful actions are isolated
mistakes that should be considered in the context of their other “good works.”
(p. 490)
Although
this publication does not directly discuss the application of justice in
contemporary correctional institutions, it does posit logical information that can
be used to make the accusations in this essay merited. The fact remains that many of the
correctional facilities in industrialized nations have a proclivity to house
inmates who are categorized in all of the aforementioned minority groups, and
with this being the popular discourse it is easy to comprehend why the
prisoners’ rights dilemma is ignored. Having
minimal resources to make claims about egregious rehabilitation and punishment,
as well as having a negative stereotype attached, makes the claims and formal
procedures to have a human rights issue processed more difficult to ensue,
which exemplifies the prejudices within the entire criminal justice systems,
particularly in the corrections industry.
Racism
in the many correctional facilities is an easier topic to approach, even though
there are arrays of statistics composed that demonstrate the prejudices the
amount of statistical data that is associated with the various criminal justice
systems’ racial biases is exuberant. For
example, three of the largest industrialized nations (United States, Russia,
and Canada) exhibit the racial biases and prejudices being presented. In the United States, the amount of people
who are involved with the various adult correctional departments exceeds the
six million mark and projects that a decrease has occurred (Glaze & Parks,
2012, pp. 1-10). However, if one were to
peer into the numbers that demonstrate which offenders are mostly involved with
the American correctional departments they will notice that out of the 6.98
million offenders who are associated with the numerous adult correctional
departments there are approximately 1.5 million people incarcerated in state
and federal prisons; out of that 1.5 million there are roughly 58.1 hundred
thousand people of African descent serving a state or federal prison sentence (Carson
& Sabol, 2012, p. 7). A number that
is much worse than the aforementioned data is the total population of the
United States, which is about three hundred million, out of that three hundred million
there are about forty-two million people who are considered to have some African
descent, which is about 13.6 percent of the total population (Drewery, Hoeffel,
Johnson, & Rastogi, 2011, p. 4).
Going further into the statistics, of the 13.6 percent there is
approximately 1.4 percent of people -- of African descent -- who are incarcerated
in a state or federal prison. Although
these statistics, as well as all numerical data, are subjected to margins of
error the only logical conclusion that could discredit these governmental
projections is the lack of accountability towards people who do not have
citizenship status in the United States, although this is rarely disregarded.
Canada’s
prison system is arranged much differently when compared to the United States’
system. Nonetheless, the statistics that
illustrate the type of offenders who are incarcerated in federal prisons to the
total population is quite similar (Reichel, 2013, pp. 253-262). According to the Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator
2011-2012, the Aboriginal population of inmates in federal prisons is
around twenty-one percent, but this category of people only makes up about four
percent of the entire Canadian population (Reichel, 2013; Sapers, 2012). With this official report acknowledging the
racism and prejudices in the federal system, it brings up the previously mentioned
information in respect to the hard-working researchers and statisticians who posit
credible data and throws any claims about conjecture to the wayside. Again, how can a system that claims to be
running on justice, fairness, and equality not comprehend the numerical data
that is being presented, as well as not understand that the information being
used comes from the various criminal justice and other human service entities? Are prisoners’ rights and civil rights ignored
that much? If so, what is the point of doing
all of this research?
The
current Russian correctional system has made many humanitarian changes since
the collapse of the totalitarian regiment, for a long time the prisons in
Russia were not quite the same as correctional facilities in other
industrialized nations (Terrill, 2013, pp. 413-426). The term “corrective labor colonies” best
describes the policies, procedures, and implementation of justice during the
reign of botched socialism, but the term can also be used as a description for the
current prison system (Terrill, 2013, p. 419).
A lecture by the Russian Deputy Minister of Justice, Yuri Ivanovich
Kalinin, in 2002 at London’s King’s College suggested that the Russian
corrections industry has been revamped due to augmented or new legislation,
which claims to have more of a humanistic and rehabilitative approach (Terrill,
2013, pp. 413-426). Yet, the numerical data
posits other implications. The Federal Service for the Execution of
Punishments, part of the Ministry of
Justice, presented that the recidivism rate in Russia is roughly thirty-six
percent, which is not much of a reduction of the recidivism cycle when compared
to prior statistics (Terrill, 2013, pp. 413-428). Moreover, the numerical data of Russian
prisons demonstrates that many of the inmates can be categorized into having a
low socioeconomic status prior to their incarceration (Terrill, 2013, p. 416). Although, the personnel running the labor
camps claim to be providing inmates with training to acquire an occupation upon
release, the Russian ideologies about criminal offenders often hinder this
possibility (Terrill, 2013, pp. 424-427).
This is another direct reflection of the output of a correctional
department, particularly one that claims it is rehabilitating criminal
offenders.
As
some of the racial and prejudicial dilemmas are presented, it is easy to
comprehend why the prisoners’ rights issues are not broadcasted throughout a particular
society. Again, with the proclivity of
incarcerating the minority groups the ability of the others in these groups who
are not incarcerated to seek genuine justice for themselves or others is
greatly diminished because of the lack of concern for their welfare by the
justice systems, and with the minorities having a little voice in society
already there is not much that can be done to counteract the biases. The fact remains that industrialized nations
do have laws against discrimination; however, these enactments fail to be
adhered to when the criminal justice system blatantly disregards the
application of authentic justice and implements a racist and prejudicial
agenda. Also, by using numerous
marketing strategies (propaganda) that imply that humanistic corrective
approaches are being undergone the systems can discredit any claims that
suggest that the practices are cruel and inhumane. Lastly, if a system can become impervious to
external checks and balances the possibility of racism, prejudices, and
disparaging treatment going unchecked is very possible. Also, by reaching a level of sustainability
without any worries, specifically in the correctional departments, the
practitioners can use perverse thinking and behavior to subdue any inmate’s
projection about the callous behavior and use the stereotypes that are attached
to criminal offenders, as well as the propaganda of the criminal justice system,
to eliminate any backlash that may occur.
Conclusion: An
Improved Correctional Strategy
Many
criminologists, other scholars, and public administrators have also made much
of the aforementioned information in this essay available, as well as hinted at
the idea of reforming the correctional departments. However, it is seldom that the many
professionals attempt to pitch a new system of corrections that could provide
the criminal justice systems with the product that it claims to be producing,
which is the rehabilitating or punishing of criminal offenders so that
recidivism does not occur. Additionally,
as a new system is implemented it is fair to acknowledge the many difficulties
that are incorporated with such an effort.
The call for new legislation and public activity becomes relevant; this is
not a simple task to conduct, change, or add when there is decades of history
and political agendas cemented into a particular culture.
To
attack the high recidivism rates, especially in the United States (which is
above 40 percent), the restructuring of harsh and lengthy sentences needs to be
changed. Let’s face it, even with the
many deterrent policies that exist there is never a break or delay in any of
the contemporary criminal justice systems.
This fact posits the idea about how criminal offenders are not deterred
by lengthy sentences, negative stereotypes, or any other consequences that stem
from their criminal activity, and if we are attempting to restore an offender
to the common standards of society then why do we attempt to implement a form
of social control when it does not work?
More precisely, the idea of sending a person to a place so that they can
endure hardships, as well as "therapy," is a similar tendency when punishing an
unruly juvenile. What happens to the
adolescent when they are found sticking their hand into the cookie jar before
dinner? The answer is that they get sent
to their room.
Another
remedy to ensure therapeutic justice is with the aforementioned decision-making
process about sentencing a criminal offender to either punishment or
rehabilitation. By doing this the many
correctional facilities could change their procedures and be designated as a
facility that engages in either of the two implementations of justice; sending
people to a facility that houses people who have no desire to change or seek
assistance is detrimental to any person’s rehabilitation. Also, more investment into the therapy
programs in the corrections industry needs to be done. Providing criminal offenders with genuine
programs that actually help them find jobs, receive authentic vocational and
education training, locate social service programs in their communities, as
well as using good-natured follow up services could decrease the rate of recidivism
and, in turn, allow for the enhancement of societies. Again, many of the correctional practitioners
would declare that these services are already set in place, however, with the
massive amount of research and statistical information about the prison
environment in industrialized nations it is not difficult to make a claim that
an insidious and pretentious use of propaganda is being projected.
All
in all, the prisoners’ rights dilemma is an unusual circumstance and needs to
be addressed sooner as opposed to later.
In this author’s opinion, it seems that the only issues that are being
discussed when it comes to the rights for prisoners’ topic is about how the
haphazard and bogus corrective approaches are not working, and for some
unexplained reason nothing is done to rectify the awful situation that these
people (criminal offenders) are forced to endure. Deprivation of innate or civil rights may be
required at times, but to employ a system that uses general procedures on every
inmate is simply crazy. The racist and
prejudicial agenda, and obvious lies to the public, is a scary thing to
understand, again, what many people fail to comprehend is that when a person,
or a system, is racist, prejudice, inhumane, cruel, and is legally and morally
incorrect in their daily procedures it gives them a title, this title is known
as being a criminal or sociopath.
References
Andreas, P., & Nadelman, E.
(2006). Policing the globe:
Criminalization and crime control in
international relations. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Alexander, M. (2012). The new jim crow: Mass incarceration in the
age of colorblindedness.
New
York, NY: The New Press.
Aquino, K. & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat
and antisocial behavior in organizations: The
moderating effects of individual
differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical
status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208.
Bogard, D. (2010). Effective corrections oversight:
What can we learn from ACA standards and
accreditation? Pace Law Review, 30(5), 1625-1687.
Carson, E.A. & Sabol, W. (2012). Prisoners in
2011. U.S. Department of Justice Office
of
Justice
Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1-34.
Drewery, M., Hoeffel, E., Johnson, T. & Rastogi,
S. (2011). The Black population: 2010 census
brief,
1-20.
Glaze, L. & Parks, E. (2012). Correctional
populations in the United States 2011. U.S.
Departmen
of Justice Office of Justice Programs:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1-10.
Glew, D.J., Griffin, R.W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.
(1996). Organizational-motivated aggression: A
research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21,
225-253.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. United States:
Anderson Books.
Hallet, M. (2012). Reentry to what?
Theorizing prisoner reentry in the jobless future. Critical
Criminology, 20(3), 213-228. doi: 10.1007/s10612-011-9138-8
Kalinin, Y. (2002). The russian penal system: past,
present and future. King’s College London
International
Centre for Prison Studies.
Kraska, P. B., & Brent, J. J. (2011). Theorizing criminal justice: An eight
essential orientations.
Longrove,
IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Mays, G. L., & Ruddell, R. (2008). Making sense of criminal justice: Policies
and Practices.
New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Moffit, T. E., Ross, S., & Raine, A. (2011). Crime and public policy (J. Q. Wilson
& J. Petersilia,
Eds.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Northwestern University. (1977). Prisoners’ rights. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68(4), 591-600.
O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J.
(1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A
research
framework. Academy of Management Review,
21, 225-253.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. & Robinson, S.L. (1998). Monkey
see, monkey do: The influence of work
groups on the antisocial behavior
of employees. Academy of Management
Journal,
41,
658-672.
Parker, L. C. (2013). Crime and justice in Japan and China: A comparative view. Durham,
NC:
Carolina
Academic Press.
Paschoud, C. (2012). Denmark Prisons. World Health Organization. Retreived from
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/health-determinants/prisons-
and-health/who-health-in-prisons-programme-hipp
on Jaunary 25, 2013.
Petersilia, J. (2005). “From cell to society: Who is
returning home?”. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.),
Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America
(pp.15-49). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Piehl, A. M. & Useem, B. (2011). Crime and public policy (J. Q. Wilson
& J. Petersilia, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rabin, R. (2009). The
rhetoric of mental illness. United States. Kendall Hall Publishing.
Reichel, P. L. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach. Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ: Pearson.
Sapers, H. (2012). Annual
Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2011-2012.
Retrieved from
http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20112012-eng.aspx#s4 on
January 25, 2013.
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Szockyj, E. (1999). Imprisoning white-collar
criminals? South Illinois University Law
Journal, 23(3), 490-503.
Terrill, R. J. (2013). World criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Waltham, MA:
Anderson
Publishing.
United States Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(2012). Retrieved from
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov on
January
25, 2013.
Walker, S. (2011). Sense
and non-Sense about crime, drugs, and communities. United States.
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Walker, S., Spohn, C., & Delone, M. (2012). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime
in
America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
Yang, Y., Glenn, A. L., Raine, A. R. (2008). Brain abnormalities in antisocial individuals:
Implications for the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 65-83.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychology of personality. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New
York: Random House.
Source: Public Domain
Comments
Post a Comment