Corrections

Historically, confinement was not used as a punishment. It was utilized to hold individuals who were awaiting trial or punishment. Sentences were harsh and usually involved corporal or capital punishment. In the late 1700s, with the influence of the Quaker’s, the U.S. saw a shift from brutish and primitive forms of punishment to long periods of confinement. This new approach to punishment required the development of a system of institutionalized imprisonment. These institutions were initially run by the state, and eventually by the Federal government as well. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005 there were 1,719 state correctional facilities and 102 federal correctional facilities. In 2009 there were 7,225,800 offenders under the supervision of correctional officials. This number includes offenders on parole and probation. Of that number, 1,613,740 individuals were incarcerated in state or federal prisons.

There is no clear consensus on the objectives of imprisonment and what it should accomplish. Generally, prisons are used to house individuals who have been deemed a threat to society and are therefore isolated from the general public. There is also an expectation of reform of the incarcerated individual. Cox & Wade (1985) write, “It may be said that correctional officials generally pursue two objectives: punishment and rehabilitation” (p. 213). Punishment by confinement and rehabilitation can be conflicting objectives, especially considering the environment of confinement. Jails and prisons are considered total institutions, meaning a place where all decisions are made by institutional staff, including decisions about eating, sleeping, working, and freedom of movement. After release, individuals are expected to reintegrate back into society and take responsibility for these basic needs, along with other essential tasks. This suspension of decision-making and taking responsibility for oneself does nothing to rehabilitate. It may even further damage an individual’s concept of accountability.

The prison environment, coupled with a population with a general lack of education and low socioeconomic status, makes rehabilitation an uphill battle. The public is generally divided on issues of punishment and rehabilitation. There are many who hold the opinion that any type of educational or behavioral service offered to the inmate is a waste of time and money, and that these programs are seen as being to soft on criminals. Others in the public sphere advocate for more prison programming, believing that incarcerated individuals need support in order to reform. The success of educational, vocational, and behavioral programs relies on multiple variables like funding, management and execution of the programming, enough well trained staff, and an atmosphere that encourages rehabilitation. This is not the reality of many prisons or jails. Often these programs create temporary solutions to much more complicated, deep-rooted, and systemic problems that result from a larger failing of society to adequately serve the underserved. On the other hand, studies have shown that well implemented and well run educational programs are linked to lower recidivism rates among participants (Case & Fasenfest, 2004; Vacca, 2004).

References

Baugh, C. M. (incomplete citation, requesting information).

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2316

Case, P., & Fasenfest, D. (2004). Expectations for Opportunities Following Prison Education: A Discussion of Race and Gender. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55(1), 24-39.

Cox, S. M., & Wade, J. E. (1985). The Criminal Justice Network: An Introduction. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Vacca, J. S. (2004). Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.