(ACJS) American Criminal Justice Systems Final Paper
By: Leslie Fischman
There are many pros and cons of current methods used throughout the crime-processing system to reduce recidivism and to prevent future crime. Overtime, criminal sanctions and punishments in the United States have changed in accordance to the values shared by society at a particular moment in time (Cole and Smith 2005: 222). However the “four main goals” of sanctioning in the United States have remained the same, including “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation” (Cole and Smith 2005: 222). The positive aspects of the crime-processing system are subject to criticism by those who either agree or disagree with what the main goal of incapacitating criminals in prisons should entail. Some believe that prison should be a place where criminals are to be punished and that sentencing of criminals should function to pay retribution to the victims of the crimes they commit. On the other hand, recent changes in the crime-processing system and recent reforms reflect a emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted offenders while in prison.
Incarceration is one method of punishment used to prevent an individual from committing future offenses. In the crime-processing system, the goal of incapacitation is to “keep offenders from committing further crimes by detention in prison or by execution” (Cole and Smith 2005: 224). Whereby inmates are subject to either determinate or indeterminate sentences based upon the nature of the offense they have committed (Cole and Smith 2005). Those who have committed more serious offenses may be subject to longer sentences, and be placed in higher security prison facilities.
Within the crime-processing system, prisons server two basic functions, to “punish and to reform” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250) criminals giving them an “opportunity for penitence (sorrow and shame for their wrongs) and repentance (willingness to change their ways)” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250). For many prison inmates serving life sentences, their chances of being put on parole are dependent on their ability to show that they have changed, and show remorse for the crimes they have committed. Indeed, some criminals may be able to reduce the amount of time they serve by showing their willingness to change and by complying with corrections officers and program facilitators. Prisoners may earn “good time for good behavior” (Cole and Smith 2005: 226), by “participating in various types of vocational, educational, or treatment programs” (Cole and Smith 2005: 226). However, the inmates capacity to earn “good time” is often dependent upon the amount of programs available within the prison. Due to significant increases in prison populations, and the increase costs of maintenance to accommodate offenders, less money is being spent on such programs to help facilitate the inmate’s rehabilitation. As a result, lack of programs decreases the corrections facilities ability to effectively deal with the “social, intellectual, or biological deficiencies of criminals (that) causes . . . their crimes” (Cole and Smith 2005: 255), in order to successfully rehabilitate offenders and successfully reduce current recidivism rates among them.
As new inmates become members within this “total institution” (Goffman in Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177) they are stripped of those “insignia symbolic of self and those supplies necessary for maintaining and presenting an identity of one’s own choice” (Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177). Not only do they lose a sense of themselves and part of their identity upon entering prison, but they are also faced with the stigmas associated with being an prison inmate. Many inmates may be reluctant to accept their new identity, because they may feel as though they are “unlike (the) others” (Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177) and as a result distance themselves from not only other inmates, but also be resistant to the restraints placed upon them by the institution (Gardner and Gronfein 2005). Being deprived of freedom, causes more than “simple discomfort . . .it threaten(s) the inmates’ psychological well-being and attack(s) their sense of self-worth” (Jewkes 2005: 45).
The experiences of incarcerated male and female inmates, also differ in terms of the ways they cope with their feelings and manage their emotions while confined behind prison walls. The effects of institutionalization on an inmate is related to both their ability to adapt to their new environment as well as their relationship to other inmates and corrections officers. The subcultures existing within male and female prison systems, inmates struggle maintain a “sense of self . . . as they must negotiate their position within a prison hierarchy that is based on excessive displays of manliness” (Jewkes 2005: 46). The values and norms shared among inmates within a prison’s subculture are structured based on both the environmental effects of the prison life and the hierarchical relationships formed between inmates and corrections officers. Subsequently, institutional policies and administrative goals play a fundamental role in structuring relationships among inmates and corrections officers, and shaping the inmates “experience (under) the oppressive and stressful nature of imprisonment” (Martel 2001: 199).
Of the “141 women’s prisons” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307) in the United States, women makeup “only 6.6% of the entire U.S. Prison population” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307). In general, women’s prisons are “smaller, with looser security and less structured relationships” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307) in comparison to male prisons. Not only do the structural relationships differ within women’s prisons, but the structure of the prison facility itself differs in comparison to male prisons. Women’s prisons “lack the high walls, guard towers, and cyclone fences found at most prison’s for men” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307).
In order to further examine the environmental conditions of correctional facilities, I decided for the experiential portion of my research project to go on a tour of the Denver Women’s Corrections Facility (D.W.C.F.). To my surprise, the facilities were very much unlike how I had pictured them to be. Driving up to the D.W.C.F., I expected to see dirt roads, barbed wire, chain gangs, and armed security guard surrounding the premises. My experiential learning exercise helped me to see that not all prisons are maximum security corrections facilities like the one depicted in the movie Shawshank Redemption (1994), and that minimum security level prisons exists as well. In fact, the Denver Women’s Correctional facility looked more like a office building rather than a jail, and the general atmosphere of the facility was calm, orderly, and somewhat peaceful in comparison to what I had envisioned.
Upon my arrival, about a dozen inmates were busy shoveling snow around the parking lot under the supervision of only one or two guards. They were not chained together in a chain gang, instead they were in an orderly manner shoveling snow from the areas they had been assigned. During our tour of the facility our group had only a few brief encounters with the inmates, either when walking past them in the yard or in halls. To my surprise the inmates were not outwardly aggressive and threatening as I had expected them to be. Instead, inmates kept to themselves, were orderly, and courteously excusing themselves as the shoveled snow along side the paths we walked.
My personal experience differed significantly from the portrayal of prison life around the 1940’s in the film Shawshank Redemption (1994). Although the film may have exaggerated the level of corruption and inmates capacity to outwit the warden and escape a maximum security prison, the film also exemplifies how much has changed since then. Today, the treatment of inmates illustrated in the film would be considered a violation of the inmates constitutional rights and be classified as cruel and unusual punishment. At least to the degree that corrections officers would not openly beat an inmate to the point they must be hospitalized in front of other inmates, like they did in the movie.
Unlike the prisons we see in the movies, Denver County Women’s prison is one example of a correctional facility, whose structure is “based on a reintegration program” (The Denver Complex, pamphlet), whose goal is to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for their re-entry into society upon their release. In order to help support their rehabilitation, the corrections facility has developed many programs to educate and help prepare inmates for their future reintegration. By implementing fewer punitive measures, such as the beatings and months of solitary confinement we see used at Shawshank (1994), D.W.C.F. has instead chosen to use more productive means of educating and teaching inmates the life skills needed to change inmate behavior.
Mr. Wallace, the Warden of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility, came to class one day and discussed the historical changes regarding correctional facilities in the area, and the various programs they have put in place. Part of the process of reintegration is to “provide inmates with access to rehabilitation and other programs designed to facilitate transition to life outside prison, including psychological/mental health counseling, education programs, and work skills training” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493). Currently there are 17 vocational programs, including computer skills training, cosmetology, design technology, video technology, printing technology, career services, and several academic programs (Wallace 2006) within the D.W.C.F. The number of programs available to inmates at the D.W.C.F. is based on the “integration model” (Wallace 2006) governing the management and administration of the facility. Mr. Wallace explains that by offering a variety of programs, we can “give them more tools so that when they can get out, they can be o.k.”
Studies suggest that there is a relationship between educational programs in prisons and rates of recidivism among inmates. In one study, James S. Vacca (2004) found that “the right kind of education works to both lower recidivism and reduce the level of violence” (298) among inmates. Educational programs not only help to rehabilitate the inmate, but also improve the overall environment within a prison, “for the officers, staff, and everyone else” (Vacca 2004: 298). Facilities with “limited access to such programs” are more likely to cause “heightened idleness, isolation, and sense of fatalism among inmates” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493). Which may ultimately result in “an antagonistic social atmosphere” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493) between frustrated inmates and staff (Huey and McNulty 2005).
Often times the “prison’s governing officials” (Vacca 2004: 300) and whether or not they see prison “as a place of punishment or rehabilitation” (Vacca 2004: 300) determines what programs are made available, and where funding may otherwise go. In the case of Denver Women’s Correctional Facility, the current Warden, Mr. Wallace,
believes that “education is the key to their rehabilitation.” One of the biggest problems he sees, when dealing with inmates, is their lack of ability to read. In fact he states that “many are below a 5th grade reading level . . . most of them, because they dropped out of school at an early age.” Therefore much of his efforts have focused on developing “basic education programs . . . changing them through education, by changing their thinking patterns” (Wallace 2006). In the state of Colorado, Mr. Wallace said that it is a requirement for inmates to receive at least a G.E.D level education, prior to their release. Some of the academic programs in place at the D.W.C.F. are, academic/high school education, adult basic education, computer instruction, computer learning lab, English as a second language, and a G.E.D programs.
Mr. Wallace supported his argument by giving us some example of inmates, whose behavior and attitudes changed from the point they first came, to the time they left. He believes that those who were able to successfully reintegrated themselves into society, can be associated with the positive aspects of the number of programs provided for them by the institution. Many of the success stories described job placement after prison, and an annual fair held at the prison where employers come to the facility to tell them about potential job opportunities for ex-offenders and those willing to hire ex-inmates.
However education is but one aspect, related to the process of rehabilitating offenders. According to Bourgon and Armstrong (2005) there are three principles governing “effective correctional treatment . . . risk, need, and responsivity” (3). An “offender’s risk and need levels” (Bourgon and Armstrong 2005: 23) should be taking into account while determining the type and length of treatment specific to each inmate (Bourgon and Armstrong 2005). Some inmates require more than just educational training to help them overcome problems such as mental health issues, psychological, and emotional problems. Although education may help, some more than others need special attention to meet their individual specific needs.
Not only does prison life affect the one’s who are incarcerated, but the absence of incarcerated mothers and father’s can have severe detrimental effects on their child’s development. For example, one of the unique aspects of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility are the approved conjugal visits, which allow inmates and their families to stay overnight in apartments built within the facility. In the book Taking Sides, Jill Gordon (1999) argues that conjugal and familial visitations are effective in the process of rehabilitating offenders, “family maintenance, humanitarian purposes, and to weaken the influence of the inmate subculture” (Gordon 1999: 219). Gordon discusses how the imprisonment of women, and separation from their families can have a significant impact on the child’s emotional and psychological growth. She explains how the incarcerated parent’s absence from the home, can lead to negative developmental patterns in child’s growth, that can make them more prone to delinquency as they get older. Therefore, Gordon argues that interaction between children and their incarcerated parents is crucial to help maintain the parent-child bond, and to support the child’s emotional, social, and psychological growth.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the prison system are the lack of correctional facilities for women, which result in “housing classifications (that) are often so broad that dangerous or mentally ill inmates are mixed with women who have committed minor offenses and have no psychological problems” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307). As a result, the inability to segregate female inmates can have severe and potentially debilitating consequences for inmates with mental health issues whose special needs are not met.
In comparison, overcrowding in male prisons and decreased funding for programs to accommodate the special needs of prisoners, can similarly affect “their chosen strategies (which can) have an impact on their interaction and thus affect the institutional environment” (Greer 2002: 117). Overcrowding in male prisons results in increased competition among inmates as they “struggle for resources, space, and personal autonomy (which can) impede (on an) inmate’s adaptation to prison life and (thus) increase (their) likelihood of (committing) suicide” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 494). Studies suggest that increases rates of suicidal inmates are due to the “institutional conditions under which inmates are held” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 491) rather than the presumed biological and medical disorders they are assumed to have.
For women in prison, part of adapting to prison life, involves developing “social relationships in which people can talk about their feelings . . . and significant others can simultaneously confirm individuals’ perceptions of self and the normalness of their emotional experiences” (Greer 2002: 120). In women’s prisons “female inmates tended to form pseudofamilies” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308), in which they attempt to emulate and imitate real-life family relationships. Within these “pseudofamilies,” inmates adopt typical roles of a family, identifying as a “unit, rather than with the larger prison subculture” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308). Taking on the role as either the “father, mother, daughter, sister” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308) fosters “cooperative relationships (that) help relieve the tensions of prison life” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308). Their “shared experiences” (Jewkes 2005: 45) are what bind them together as they cope with the “pain and deprivation” (Jewkes 2005: 45) produced under the conditions of life in prison.
Whether publicly or privately owned, the organization and principles which guide the functioning of correctional facilities in the United states are significantly affected by the politics involved. Political forces involved in legislation and implementation of policies and reforms significantly impact the function and administration of correctional facilities. The politics involved with changing policies, specifically regarding the use of more punitive methods of punishment of offenders, has resulted in the overcrowding of correctional facilities. Producing more strain on publicly-owned prisons to keep up with the “annual cost of operating” (Cole and Smith 2005: 261) prisons. As a result we have seen a growing numbers of privately-owned facilities and “expensive maximum-security prisons” (Cole and Smith 2005: 259).
Political factors “motivate state-level contracting decisions” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 41) which determine the management and the privatization of corrections facilities in the U.S. (Nicholson-Crotty 2004). The efficiency and the effectiveness of corrections facilities is greatly influenced by the politics involved in formulation and development of programs to assist the process of rehabilitating prisoners. Some of the benefits of privately-owned corrections facilities is that “they provide the same level of care as the states but more cheaply and (more) flexibly” (Cole and Smith 2005: 259). Those in charge of management and administration of corrections facilities are “state-level elected officials . . . who play an important role in the final step of the privatization process” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 52). They are the ones in charge of “assessing and awarding contracts for corrections management” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 52). As a result political influences play a key role in determining who is elected and chosen to run the facilities. As a result, the administration of correction facilities run but private investors have a big influence on the way in which that particular corrections facility is run, and is left up to the discretion of those put in charge.
One of the many concerns regarding the shift from publicly-owned facilities to a growing number of privately-owned correctional facilities, are in the “delegation of social-control functions to people other than state employees” (Cole and Smith 2005: 260). Some people feel that the “administration of justice” (Cole and Smith 2005: 260) should not be determined by the politics involved in delegating responsibilities to the administration of policies, which in the end may not always be in “the public’s interest” (Cole and Smith 205: 260).
In turn, the privatization of corrections facilities, not only determines who is in charge, but also the policies to be implemented regarding the treatment of inmates. Therefore the relationship between corrections officers and inmates to a large degree is determined by those in power who influence the ways in which policies are to be administered in a given institution. Therefore, depending on the policies put in place of those in charge, in terms of methods used to punish and detain inmates in prison.
Political influences within the criminal justice system are widely believed to be “punitive, racist, and inattentive to the interests of criminal suspects” (Stuntz 2006: 780) and prison detainees. As a result, current problems existing within prison systems such as, “overcriminalization, overpunishment, discriminatory policing and prosecution, overfunding of prison construction and underfunding in everything else” (Stuntz 2006: 780), has much to do with the politics involved in the regulation and creation of new reforms.
In the past changes in the political climate, influenced changes in the structure of sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders (Cole and Smith 2005). In the 70’s and 80’s legislation came up with a “crime control model of corrections” (Cole and Smith 2005: 256), which emphasized a more “punitive (method of corrections that included), greater use of incarceration, especially for violent offenders and career criminals, longer sentences, mandatory sentences, and strict supervision of probationers and parolees” (Cole and Smith 2005: 256). As a result, more people were being arrested and convicted, and sent to prison for longer periods of time. Consequently, today the U.S. correctional facilities are experiencing problems with overcrowding, due to the lack of facilities available to accommodate the growing number of people being sent to prison.
However, recent changes in prison systems have begun to focus less on more punitive measures of punishing offenders, and have “started to focus attention on rehabilitation” (Case and Fasenfest 2004: 24). The purpose of creating educational programs in prisons for inmates is to help provide them with skills, which can help prepare them for adapting to society upon their release. Live behind bars, can have a significant impact on the inmates perception of self and their ability to succeed outside of prison in a life out of crime. Programs provide inmates with skills they need to “lessen the barriers to reintegration by providing job skills, increased life skills and increased self-esteem” (Case and Fasenfest 2004: 25). The newly developed programs within prison systems hope to create a foundation for inmates, based on “humane and optimistic ideas focused on reforming the criminal” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250). Corrections facilities hope to prevent recidivism among current inmates by developing programs to help prepare prison inmates upon their reintegration into society, which in turn helps to improve the overall environmental conditions of prison institutions. Although changes have been made, the functioning of prisons and the purposes they serve will continue to vary based on the beliefs held by those in positions of power to implement new reforms and make changes to current legislation.
References:
Bourgon, Guy and Barbara Armstrong. 2005. “Transferring The Principles of Effective
Treatment into a Real World Prison Setting.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 32 (1): 3-25.
Camp, Scott D. and Gerald G. Gaes. 2005. “Criminogenic Effects of the Prison
Environment on Inmate Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence.” Crime and Delinquency 51 (3): 425-442.
Case, Patricia and David Fasenfest. 2004. “Expectations for Opportunities Following
Prison Education: A Discussion of Race and Gender.” Journal of Correctional Education 55 (1): 24-39.
Cole, George F. and Christopher E. Smith. 2005. Criminal Justice In America: Fourth
Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gardner, Carol B. and William P. Gronfein. 2005. “Reflections on Varieties of Shame
Induction, Shame Management, and Shame Avoidance in Some Works of Erving Goffman.” Symbolic Interaction 28 (2): 175-182.
Gordon, Jill and Elizabeth H. McConnell. 2006. “Issue 11: Are Conjugal and Familial
Visitations Effective Rehabilitative Concepts?” The Prison Journal 1999, Pp. 218-231 in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology. 7th ed., edited by Thomas Hickey. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill
Greer, Kimberly. 2002. “Walking an Emotional Tightrope: Managing Emotions in a
Women’s Prison.” Symbolic Interaction 25 (1): 117-139.
Huey, Meredith P. and Thomas L McNulty. 2005. “Institutional Conditions and
Prison Suicide: conditional Effects of Deprivation and Overcrowding.” The Prison Journal 85(4): 490.
Jewkes, Yvonne. 2005. “Men Behind Bars: Doing Masculinity as an Adaptation to
Imprisonment.” Men and Masculinities 8 (1): 44-63.
Lanham, MD. 2004. Voices from Prison: An Ethnographic Study of Black Male
Prisoners: University Press America.
Martel, Joane. 2001. “Telling the Story: A Study in the Segregation of Women
Prisoners.” Social Justice 28 (1): 196-214.
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2004. “The Plotics and Administration of Privatization:
Contracting Out for Corrections Management in the United States.” The Policy Studies Journal 32 (1): 41-57.
Stuntz, William. 2006. “The Political Constitution of Criminal Justice.” Harvard Law
Review 119 (3): 780
Vacca, James S. 2004. “Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison.” Journal
of Correctional Education 55 (4): 297-305.
By: Leslie Fischman
There are many pros and cons of current methods used throughout the crime-processing system to reduce recidivism and to prevent future crime. Overtime, criminal sanctions and punishments in the United States have changed in accordance to the values shared by society at a particular moment in time (Cole and Smith 2005: 222). However the “four main goals” of sanctioning in the United States have remained the same, including “retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation” (Cole and Smith 2005: 222). The positive aspects of the crime-processing system are subject to criticism by those who either agree or disagree with what the main goal of incapacitating criminals in prisons should entail. Some believe that prison should be a place where criminals are to be punished and that sentencing of criminals should function to pay retribution to the victims of the crimes they commit. On the other hand, recent changes in the crime-processing system and recent reforms reflect a emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted offenders while in prison.
Incarceration is one method of punishment used to prevent an individual from committing future offenses. In the crime-processing system, the goal of incapacitation is to “keep offenders from committing further crimes by detention in prison or by execution” (Cole and Smith 2005: 224). Whereby inmates are subject to either determinate or indeterminate sentences based upon the nature of the offense they have committed (Cole and Smith 2005). Those who have committed more serious offenses may be subject to longer sentences, and be placed in higher security prison facilities.
Within the crime-processing system, prisons server two basic functions, to “punish and to reform” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250) criminals giving them an “opportunity for penitence (sorrow and shame for their wrongs) and repentance (willingness to change their ways)” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250). For many prison inmates serving life sentences, their chances of being put on parole are dependent on their ability to show that they have changed, and show remorse for the crimes they have committed. Indeed, some criminals may be able to reduce the amount of time they serve by showing their willingness to change and by complying with corrections officers and program facilitators. Prisoners may earn “good time for good behavior” (Cole and Smith 2005: 226), by “participating in various types of vocational, educational, or treatment programs” (Cole and Smith 2005: 226). However, the inmates capacity to earn “good time” is often dependent upon the amount of programs available within the prison. Due to significant increases in prison populations, and the increase costs of maintenance to accommodate offenders, less money is being spent on such programs to help facilitate the inmate’s rehabilitation. As a result, lack of programs decreases the corrections facilities ability to effectively deal with the “social, intellectual, or biological deficiencies of criminals (that) causes . . . their crimes” (Cole and Smith 2005: 255), in order to successfully rehabilitate offenders and successfully reduce current recidivism rates among them.
As new inmates become members within this “total institution” (Goffman in Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177) they are stripped of those “insignia symbolic of self and those supplies necessary for maintaining and presenting an identity of one’s own choice” (Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177). Not only do they lose a sense of themselves and part of their identity upon entering prison, but they are also faced with the stigmas associated with being an prison inmate. Many inmates may be reluctant to accept their new identity, because they may feel as though they are “unlike (the) others” (Gardner and Gronfein 2005: 177) and as a result distance themselves from not only other inmates, but also be resistant to the restraints placed upon them by the institution (Gardner and Gronfein 2005). Being deprived of freedom, causes more than “simple discomfort . . .it threaten(s) the inmates’ psychological well-being and attack(s) their sense of self-worth” (Jewkes 2005: 45).
The experiences of incarcerated male and female inmates, also differ in terms of the ways they cope with their feelings and manage their emotions while confined behind prison walls. The effects of institutionalization on an inmate is related to both their ability to adapt to their new environment as well as their relationship to other inmates and corrections officers. The subcultures existing within male and female prison systems, inmates struggle maintain a “sense of self . . . as they must negotiate their position within a prison hierarchy that is based on excessive displays of manliness” (Jewkes 2005: 46). The values and norms shared among inmates within a prison’s subculture are structured based on both the environmental effects of the prison life and the hierarchical relationships formed between inmates and corrections officers. Subsequently, institutional policies and administrative goals play a fundamental role in structuring relationships among inmates and corrections officers, and shaping the inmates “experience (under) the oppressive and stressful nature of imprisonment” (Martel 2001: 199).
Of the “141 women’s prisons” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307) in the United States, women makeup “only 6.6% of the entire U.S. Prison population” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307). In general, women’s prisons are “smaller, with looser security and less structured relationships” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307) in comparison to male prisons. Not only do the structural relationships differ within women’s prisons, but the structure of the prison facility itself differs in comparison to male prisons. Women’s prisons “lack the high walls, guard towers, and cyclone fences found at most prison’s for men” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307).
In order to further examine the environmental conditions of correctional facilities, I decided for the experiential portion of my research project to go on a tour of the Denver Women’s Corrections Facility (D.W.C.F.). To my surprise, the facilities were very much unlike how I had pictured them to be. Driving up to the D.W.C.F., I expected to see dirt roads, barbed wire, chain gangs, and armed security guard surrounding the premises. My experiential learning exercise helped me to see that not all prisons are maximum security corrections facilities like the one depicted in the movie Shawshank Redemption (1994), and that minimum security level prisons exists as well. In fact, the Denver Women’s Correctional facility looked more like a office building rather than a jail, and the general atmosphere of the facility was calm, orderly, and somewhat peaceful in comparison to what I had envisioned.
Upon my arrival, about a dozen inmates were busy shoveling snow around the parking lot under the supervision of only one or two guards. They were not chained together in a chain gang, instead they were in an orderly manner shoveling snow from the areas they had been assigned. During our tour of the facility our group had only a few brief encounters with the inmates, either when walking past them in the yard or in halls. To my surprise the inmates were not outwardly aggressive and threatening as I had expected them to be. Instead, inmates kept to themselves, were orderly, and courteously excusing themselves as the shoveled snow along side the paths we walked.
My personal experience differed significantly from the portrayal of prison life around the 1940’s in the film Shawshank Redemption (1994). Although the film may have exaggerated the level of corruption and inmates capacity to outwit the warden and escape a maximum security prison, the film also exemplifies how much has changed since then. Today, the treatment of inmates illustrated in the film would be considered a violation of the inmates constitutional rights and be classified as cruel and unusual punishment. At least to the degree that corrections officers would not openly beat an inmate to the point they must be hospitalized in front of other inmates, like they did in the movie.
Unlike the prisons we see in the movies, Denver County Women’s prison is one example of a correctional facility, whose structure is “based on a reintegration program” (The Denver Complex, pamphlet), whose goal is to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for their re-entry into society upon their release. In order to help support their rehabilitation, the corrections facility has developed many programs to educate and help prepare inmates for their future reintegration. By implementing fewer punitive measures, such as the beatings and months of solitary confinement we see used at Shawshank (1994), D.W.C.F. has instead chosen to use more productive means of educating and teaching inmates the life skills needed to change inmate behavior.
Mr. Wallace, the Warden of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility, came to class one day and discussed the historical changes regarding correctional facilities in the area, and the various programs they have put in place. Part of the process of reintegration is to “provide inmates with access to rehabilitation and other programs designed to facilitate transition to life outside prison, including psychological/mental health counseling, education programs, and work skills training” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493). Currently there are 17 vocational programs, including computer skills training, cosmetology, design technology, video technology, printing technology, career services, and several academic programs (Wallace 2006) within the D.W.C.F. The number of programs available to inmates at the D.W.C.F. is based on the “integration model” (Wallace 2006) governing the management and administration of the facility. Mr. Wallace explains that by offering a variety of programs, we can “give them more tools so that when they can get out, they can be o.k.”
Studies suggest that there is a relationship between educational programs in prisons and rates of recidivism among inmates. In one study, James S. Vacca (2004) found that “the right kind of education works to both lower recidivism and reduce the level of violence” (298) among inmates. Educational programs not only help to rehabilitate the inmate, but also improve the overall environment within a prison, “for the officers, staff, and everyone else” (Vacca 2004: 298). Facilities with “limited access to such programs” are more likely to cause “heightened idleness, isolation, and sense of fatalism among inmates” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493). Which may ultimately result in “an antagonistic social atmosphere” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 493) between frustrated inmates and staff (Huey and McNulty 2005).
Often times the “prison’s governing officials” (Vacca 2004: 300) and whether or not they see prison “as a place of punishment or rehabilitation” (Vacca 2004: 300) determines what programs are made available, and where funding may otherwise go. In the case of Denver Women’s Correctional Facility, the current Warden, Mr. Wallace,
believes that “education is the key to their rehabilitation.” One of the biggest problems he sees, when dealing with inmates, is their lack of ability to read. In fact he states that “many are below a 5th grade reading level . . . most of them, because they dropped out of school at an early age.” Therefore much of his efforts have focused on developing “basic education programs . . . changing them through education, by changing their thinking patterns” (Wallace 2006). In the state of Colorado, Mr. Wallace said that it is a requirement for inmates to receive at least a G.E.D level education, prior to their release. Some of the academic programs in place at the D.W.C.F. are, academic/high school education, adult basic education, computer instruction, computer learning lab, English as a second language, and a G.E.D programs.
Mr. Wallace supported his argument by giving us some example of inmates, whose behavior and attitudes changed from the point they first came, to the time they left. He believes that those who were able to successfully reintegrated themselves into society, can be associated with the positive aspects of the number of programs provided for them by the institution. Many of the success stories described job placement after prison, and an annual fair held at the prison where employers come to the facility to tell them about potential job opportunities for ex-offenders and those willing to hire ex-inmates.
However education is but one aspect, related to the process of rehabilitating offenders. According to Bourgon and Armstrong (2005) there are three principles governing “effective correctional treatment . . . risk, need, and responsivity” (3). An “offender’s risk and need levels” (Bourgon and Armstrong 2005: 23) should be taking into account while determining the type and length of treatment specific to each inmate (Bourgon and Armstrong 2005). Some inmates require more than just educational training to help them overcome problems such as mental health issues, psychological, and emotional problems. Although education may help, some more than others need special attention to meet their individual specific needs.
Not only does prison life affect the one’s who are incarcerated, but the absence of incarcerated mothers and father’s can have severe detrimental effects on their child’s development. For example, one of the unique aspects of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility are the approved conjugal visits, which allow inmates and their families to stay overnight in apartments built within the facility. In the book Taking Sides, Jill Gordon (1999) argues that conjugal and familial visitations are effective in the process of rehabilitating offenders, “family maintenance, humanitarian purposes, and to weaken the influence of the inmate subculture” (Gordon 1999: 219). Gordon discusses how the imprisonment of women, and separation from their families can have a significant impact on the child’s emotional and psychological growth. She explains how the incarcerated parent’s absence from the home, can lead to negative developmental patterns in child’s growth, that can make them more prone to delinquency as they get older. Therefore, Gordon argues that interaction between children and their incarcerated parents is crucial to help maintain the parent-child bond, and to support the child’s emotional, social, and psychological growth.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the prison system are the lack of correctional facilities for women, which result in “housing classifications (that) are often so broad that dangerous or mentally ill inmates are mixed with women who have committed minor offenses and have no psychological problems” (Cole and Smith 2005: 307). As a result, the inability to segregate female inmates can have severe and potentially debilitating consequences for inmates with mental health issues whose special needs are not met.
In comparison, overcrowding in male prisons and decreased funding for programs to accommodate the special needs of prisoners, can similarly affect “their chosen strategies (which can) have an impact on their interaction and thus affect the institutional environment” (Greer 2002: 117). Overcrowding in male prisons results in increased competition among inmates as they “struggle for resources, space, and personal autonomy (which can) impede (on an) inmate’s adaptation to prison life and (thus) increase (their) likelihood of (committing) suicide” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 494). Studies suggest that increases rates of suicidal inmates are due to the “institutional conditions under which inmates are held” (Huey and McNulty 2005: 491) rather than the presumed biological and medical disorders they are assumed to have.
For women in prison, part of adapting to prison life, involves developing “social relationships in which people can talk about their feelings . . . and significant others can simultaneously confirm individuals’ perceptions of self and the normalness of their emotional experiences” (Greer 2002: 120). In women’s prisons “female inmates tended to form pseudofamilies” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308), in which they attempt to emulate and imitate real-life family relationships. Within these “pseudofamilies,” inmates adopt typical roles of a family, identifying as a “unit, rather than with the larger prison subculture” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308). Taking on the role as either the “father, mother, daughter, sister” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308) fosters “cooperative relationships (that) help relieve the tensions of prison life” (Cole and Smith 2005: 308). Their “shared experiences” (Jewkes 2005: 45) are what bind them together as they cope with the “pain and deprivation” (Jewkes 2005: 45) produced under the conditions of life in prison.
Whether publicly or privately owned, the organization and principles which guide the functioning of correctional facilities in the United states are significantly affected by the politics involved. Political forces involved in legislation and implementation of policies and reforms significantly impact the function and administration of correctional facilities. The politics involved with changing policies, specifically regarding the use of more punitive methods of punishment of offenders, has resulted in the overcrowding of correctional facilities. Producing more strain on publicly-owned prisons to keep up with the “annual cost of operating” (Cole and Smith 2005: 261) prisons. As a result we have seen a growing numbers of privately-owned facilities and “expensive maximum-security prisons” (Cole and Smith 2005: 259).
Political factors “motivate state-level contracting decisions” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 41) which determine the management and the privatization of corrections facilities in the U.S. (Nicholson-Crotty 2004). The efficiency and the effectiveness of corrections facilities is greatly influenced by the politics involved in formulation and development of programs to assist the process of rehabilitating prisoners. Some of the benefits of privately-owned corrections facilities is that “they provide the same level of care as the states but more cheaply and (more) flexibly” (Cole and Smith 2005: 259). Those in charge of management and administration of corrections facilities are “state-level elected officials . . . who play an important role in the final step of the privatization process” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 52). They are the ones in charge of “assessing and awarding contracts for corrections management” (Nicholson-Crotty 2004: 52). As a result political influences play a key role in determining who is elected and chosen to run the facilities. As a result, the administration of correction facilities run but private investors have a big influence on the way in which that particular corrections facility is run, and is left up to the discretion of those put in charge.
One of the many concerns regarding the shift from publicly-owned facilities to a growing number of privately-owned correctional facilities, are in the “delegation of social-control functions to people other than state employees” (Cole and Smith 2005: 260). Some people feel that the “administration of justice” (Cole and Smith 2005: 260) should not be determined by the politics involved in delegating responsibilities to the administration of policies, which in the end may not always be in “the public’s interest” (Cole and Smith 205: 260).
In turn, the privatization of corrections facilities, not only determines who is in charge, but also the policies to be implemented regarding the treatment of inmates. Therefore the relationship between corrections officers and inmates to a large degree is determined by those in power who influence the ways in which policies are to be administered in a given institution. Therefore, depending on the policies put in place of those in charge, in terms of methods used to punish and detain inmates in prison.
Political influences within the criminal justice system are widely believed to be “punitive, racist, and inattentive to the interests of criminal suspects” (Stuntz 2006: 780) and prison detainees. As a result, current problems existing within prison systems such as, “overcriminalization, overpunishment, discriminatory policing and prosecution, overfunding of prison construction and underfunding in everything else” (Stuntz 2006: 780), has much to do with the politics involved in the regulation and creation of new reforms.
In the past changes in the political climate, influenced changes in the structure of sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders (Cole and Smith 2005). In the 70’s and 80’s legislation came up with a “crime control model of corrections” (Cole and Smith 2005: 256), which emphasized a more “punitive (method of corrections that included), greater use of incarceration, especially for violent offenders and career criminals, longer sentences, mandatory sentences, and strict supervision of probationers and parolees” (Cole and Smith 2005: 256). As a result, more people were being arrested and convicted, and sent to prison for longer periods of time. Consequently, today the U.S. correctional facilities are experiencing problems with overcrowding, due to the lack of facilities available to accommodate the growing number of people being sent to prison.
However, recent changes in prison systems have begun to focus less on more punitive measures of punishing offenders, and have “started to focus attention on rehabilitation” (Case and Fasenfest 2004: 24). The purpose of creating educational programs in prisons for inmates is to help provide them with skills, which can help prepare them for adapting to society upon their release. Live behind bars, can have a significant impact on the inmates perception of self and their ability to succeed outside of prison in a life out of crime. Programs provide inmates with skills they need to “lessen the barriers to reintegration by providing job skills, increased life skills and increased self-esteem” (Case and Fasenfest 2004: 25). The newly developed programs within prison systems hope to create a foundation for inmates, based on “humane and optimistic ideas focused on reforming the criminal” (Cole and Smith 2005: 250). Corrections facilities hope to prevent recidivism among current inmates by developing programs to help prepare prison inmates upon their reintegration into society, which in turn helps to improve the overall environmental conditions of prison institutions. Although changes have been made, the functioning of prisons and the purposes they serve will continue to vary based on the beliefs held by those in positions of power to implement new reforms and make changes to current legislation.
References:
Bourgon, Guy and Barbara Armstrong. 2005. “Transferring The Principles of Effective
Treatment into a Real World Prison Setting.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 32 (1): 3-25.
Camp, Scott D. and Gerald G. Gaes. 2005. “Criminogenic Effects of the Prison
Environment on Inmate Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence.” Crime and Delinquency 51 (3): 425-442.
Case, Patricia and David Fasenfest. 2004. “Expectations for Opportunities Following
Prison Education: A Discussion of Race and Gender.” Journal of Correctional Education 55 (1): 24-39.
Cole, George F. and Christopher E. Smith. 2005. Criminal Justice In America: Fourth
Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gardner, Carol B. and William P. Gronfein. 2005. “Reflections on Varieties of Shame
Induction, Shame Management, and Shame Avoidance in Some Works of Erving Goffman.” Symbolic Interaction 28 (2): 175-182.
Gordon, Jill and Elizabeth H. McConnell. 2006. “Issue 11: Are Conjugal and Familial
Visitations Effective Rehabilitative Concepts?” The Prison Journal 1999, Pp. 218-231 in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology. 7th ed., edited by Thomas Hickey. Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill
Greer, Kimberly. 2002. “Walking an Emotional Tightrope: Managing Emotions in a
Women’s Prison.” Symbolic Interaction 25 (1): 117-139.
Huey, Meredith P. and Thomas L McNulty. 2005. “Institutional Conditions and
Prison Suicide: conditional Effects of Deprivation and Overcrowding.” The Prison Journal 85(4): 490.
Jewkes, Yvonne. 2005. “Men Behind Bars: Doing Masculinity as an Adaptation to
Imprisonment.” Men and Masculinities 8 (1): 44-63.
Lanham, MD. 2004. Voices from Prison: An Ethnographic Study of Black Male
Prisoners: University Press America.
Martel, Joane. 2001. “Telling the Story: A Study in the Segregation of Women
Prisoners.” Social Justice 28 (1): 196-214.
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2004. “The Plotics and Administration of Privatization:
Contracting Out for Corrections Management in the United States.” The Policy Studies Journal 32 (1): 41-57.
Stuntz, William. 2006. “The Political Constitution of Criminal Justice.” Harvard Law
Review 119 (3): 780
Vacca, James S. 2004. “Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison.” Journal
of Correctional Education 55 (4): 297-305.
