Key Issues in Corrections

Ross, Jeffrey Ian

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781447318750
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Key Issues in Corrections is an engaging textbook critically analyzing the most important challenges affecting the correctional system in the USA. Written by a highly respected expert in the field, and building on his best-selling book Special problems in corrections, it examines long-standing and emerging issues, grounding the discussion in empirical research and current events. Updates to this edition include: • Integrating new scholarship, lawsuits, and the use of technology • The introduction and evaluation of new policies and practices • New sections on "The Privatization of Prisons" and "The Death Penalty" Primarily written for undergraduate students who have already had an introduction to the topic, the book offers a no-nonsense approach to explaining the problems of correctional officers, correctional managers, prisoners, and the public.

PART I

Laying the groundwork

ONE

What is corrections, and what are its problems?1

Introduction

It bears mentioning that criminology is primarily the study of the causes and effects of crime, and that criminal justice consists of the analysis of the organizations responsible for monitoring, investigating, and responding to crime, in addition to those processing the individuals who have been charged or convicted of a crime and those who have been victimized by crime. The criminal justice system, in particular, is composed of four interconnected branches: law enforcement, the courts, corrections, and juvenile justice. Corrections encompasses jails, prisons, and a variety of community-based programs and sanctions (for example, probation, parole, and the like).

The term “corrections” usually means “the institutions, policies, procedures and other nuts and bolts of the system” (Welch, 1996: 3). It also subsumes “the great number of programs, services, facilities and organizations responsible for the management of people who have been accused or convicted of criminal offenses” (Cole, 1994: 544). Corrections are typically divided into two parts: institutional corrections, which is the bricks-and-mortar side of jails and prisons, and community corrections, which encompasses such programs and practices as probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions.

Additionally, it must be understood that the practice of corrections is generally intended to have three objectives: punishment, community safety, and rehabilitation. One side benefit of jails and prisons is that they are supposed to deter individuals from committing crime. Sometimes the system achieves these goals, while at other times it does not.

Another important distinction should be made between the state and federal correctional systems. Those who are sentenced to state prisons have violated a state criminal code. People who have committed a relatively minor crime are often given some form of community corrections. If, on the other hand, they are sent to jail, depending on the sentencing structures of the state in which they were convicted, they may be incarcerated for up to one year.2 Individuals sent to federal prisons, run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), have engaged in at least one of a select number of crimes, such as income tax evasion, counterfeiting, trafficking across state lines, kidnapping, bank robbery, political crimes, and crimes on a federal property.

Relevant statistics

Over the past four decades, the United States has experienced one of the largest expansions in its jail, prison, and community corrections populations. This phenomenon has alternatively been called “the imprisonment binge” (Austin and Irwin, 2001) or the “race to incarcerate” (Maur, 2006). In the United States (for the year 2013), 6,899,000 people were under the control of adult correctional systems. Approximately 2.3 million were behind bars in jails or prisons and 4,751,000 on probation or parole (Glaze and Kaeble, 2014). State and federal correctional systems (not to mention private prisons) employ roughly 650,000 people, who work as administrators, correctional officers (COs), case managers, classification officers, probation and parole officers, counselors, and social workers.

Although it is difficult to determine the total costs of operating correctional facilities in the United States, it is not impossible. It currently costs taxpayers approximately $39 billion a year to fund state correctional systems (Henrichson and Delaney, 2012: 69),3 both federal and state systems combined have been estimated to cost about $112 billion (Austin and Irwin, 2001: 13).

Why has this occurred?

Approximately four general reasons account for the increase in the number of people being sentenced to jails and prisons:

1. the construction of new facilities;

2. sentencing guidelines (particularly “truth in sentencing” legislation, mandatory minimums, and determinant sentencing);

3. new laws (for example, “three strikes, you’re out” legislation);4 and, most importantly,

4. the war on drugs.5

These factors include several ironies. Why? The bulk of individuals who are sentenced to jail or prison are there because they were convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes. On the other hand, violent criminals are frequently released back into the community to make way for first-time nonviolent criminals. Many of those who are let out are angry, have not received any special vocational training, and thus leave with few marketable skills. The majority who are released come out worse than when they entered (Clear, 1994). This is why the process of incarceration is sometimes called a revolving door and/or turnstile justice (Gido and Alleman, 2002).

Those entering the system are also disproportionately ethnic or racial minorities (for example, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans), and poor whites from rural and remote areas. They are usually drawn from lower socioeconomic segments of society and are either unemployed or underemployed (Miller, 1996; Welch, 1996; Austin and Irwin, 2001: 3).

One might assume that an increased rate of incarceration might result in a lower rate of crime, and many individuals take comfort in this assumption. However, there is no proven relationship between the crime rate and the number of people who are locked up (Lynch, 2007). Thus, our crime rate increases and decreases in a cyclical fashion, and rarely is this connected to the number of people that are incarcerated (Blumstein et al., 1977; Blumstein et al., 1981).

Finally, although the United States champions itself as a democratic country, putting a disproportionate number of people behind bars restricts the civil liberties of an unnecessarily large number of its citizens. This approach to dealing with individuals who commit crimes seems unnecessarily harsh and counterproductive when the United States is compared with Scandinavian countries (that is, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden), where the crime rates per capita basically match those of the United States, although they have lower incarceration rates (Christie, 1993/1994). Moreover, the United States’ policy and practice of hyperincarceration appears to be hypocritical when you consider that, even though the nation claims to be a protector of human rights, it actually incarcerates more people than the former authoritarian regimes of the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa (Welch, 1996: 4).

What has been the response?

Unsurprisingly, the prevailing impression among many correctional administrators, officers, experts, and activists is that the jail and prison system is failing. One of the classic statements echoing this idea is Reiman’s study, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison (1979/2003). This book argues that the criminal justice system encourages the existence of a criminal class and promotes the notion that the poor are disproportionately responsible for the majority of crimes. That is why Reiman and others “focus on the class bias inherent in the criminal justice system” (Welch, 1996: 5). This approach is shaped by a critical perspective that involves

questioning, challenging and examining all sides of various problems and issues. Instead of uncritically accepting punishment and corrections as natural extensions of society, the critical approach delves under the surface of punishment to explore corrections at greater depths ... it dispels many myths and misconceptions surrounding corrections ... it demystifies the objectives, processes and outcomes of correctional intervention and offers alternative interpretations and solutions. (Welch, 1996: 6)

This combination of ideology and methodology typically looks for the hidden meanings behind myths, and explores their utility, purpose, and function in an effort to better inform the subject matter under investigation (for example, Taylor et al., 1973; Lynch and Groves, 1986/1989; Ross, 1998/2009). I do not suggest that one needs to adopt a critical perspective to examine issues at a deeper level, but this is a central feature of such an approach.

Crime and corrections as social problems

Not only do special problems exist in relation to selected aspects of jails, prisons, and community corrections, but there are also a number of difficulties intrinsic to the American correctional system as a whole. Over the past few decades, because of our inability to solve many of the problems with corrections, some analysts believe that the field in and of itself is a problem (Welch, 1996: 8). It has been called a social problem (Welch, 1996) or a “national tragedy and disgrace” (Austin and Irwin, 2001), while others have suggested that not only our overreliance on jails and prisons, but the way we incarcerate people is part of a correctional industrial complex, an informal network of correctional workers, professional organizations, and corporations that maintain and expand the jail and prison systems (Christie, 1993/1994; Hallinan, 2003).

In the state of California, for example, jails and prisons are the largest state employer. Moreover, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association is one of the most powerful unions in the state, and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the benefit coordinator for the state’s jail and correctional workers, is a multi-billion dollar entity. Therefore, those seeking changes to these systems are always up against powerful lobbying interests.

Some correctional observers and critical criminologists have said that although conditions are problematic, they will not be solved until the underlying causes of crime are addressed. They argue that until we eradicate the conditions and processes that lead to and reinforce inequality, poverty, and racism, and guarantee universal access to housing, health care, and education, we will not be able to solve the prison crisis (Richards, 1998). Thus, it could be argued that requiring COs to have more training or improving classification, for example, are simply inefficient means of tinkering with the symptoms, rather than an actual holistic attempt to deal with the root causes. Undoubtedly, jails and prisons are the consequence of enduring and underlying systemic problems in society.

Although addressing, minimizing, and even solving the underlying issues that cause crime are extremely important, this book is primarily intended to sort out the present-day problems affecting corrections.6 This study recognizes that many of these difficulties have endured for a long time, and their relative importance is subject to change over time. In order to bring us up to date and to contextualize matters, however, a brief history of corrections is provided.7

A short history of corrections in the United States

The origins of corrections in the United States can be traced back to colonial times. In general, during this period, deviance and law breaking were primarily handled through the process of shaming. The Puritans in New England used correctional punishment as a means to enforce their strict moral codes. They viewed the deviant as willful, a sinner, and a captive of the devil. Informal community pressures, such as gossip, ridicule, and ostracism, were found to be effective in keeping most citizens in line. “Fines, confinement in the stocks and the public cage, and whippings were other frequently used methods of control” (Bartollas, 2002: 46). Mutilations, burnings, and brandings we...