American Criminal Justice Systems (Papers) University of Colorado at Boulder (**** ROUGH DRAFT publishing -to be finished- ****)
By: Leslie Fischman
EMOTION WORK AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
However education is but one aspect, related to the process of rehabilitating offenders. Some inmates require more than just educational training to help them to overcome problems such as mental health issues, psychological, and emotional problems. Although education may help, some more than others need medical attention to meet their individual specific needs.
Problems with overcrowding, and decreased funding for programs to accommodate the special needs of prisoners, can ultimately affect “their chosen strategies (which can) have an impact on their interaction and thus affect the institutional environment” (Greer 2002, 117). As new inmates become members within this “total institution” (Goffman in Gardner & 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 & 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 & 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 & Gronfein 2005).
The experiences of incarcerated male and female inmates, differ in terms of the ways they cope with their feelings and manage their emotions while confined behind prison walls. 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 & 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 & Smith 2005, 308). Taking on the role as either the “father, mother, daughter, sister” (Cole & Smith 2005, 308) fosters “cooperative relationships (that) help relieve the tensions of prison life” (Cole & Smith 2005, 308).
Of the “141 women’s prisons” (Cole & Smith 2005, 307) in the United States, women makeup “only 6.6% of the entire U.S. Prison population” (Cole & Smith 2005, 307). In general, women’s prisons are “smaller, with looser security and less structured relationships” (Cole & 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 & Smith 2005, 307).
Since there are so few correctional facilities for women, “housing classifications 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 & Smith 2005, 307). Lack of programs in corrections facilities can have severe, and potentially debilitating consequences for inmates with mental health issues whose special needs are not met.
EDUCATION
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).
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 & 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 & Fasenfest 2004, 25).
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 GED level education, prior to their release. Some of the academic programs in place at the DWCF are, academic/high school education, adult basic education, computer instruction, computer learning lab, English as a second language, and a GED programs.
He supported his argument by giving us some example of inmates, whose behavior and attitudes changed from the point the first came to the time they left and the positive outcomes that came from the programs they have put in place. 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.
POLITICAL INFLUENCES ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
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 & Smith 2005, 261) prisons. As a result we have seen a growing numbers of privately-owned facilities and “expensive maximun-security prisons” (Cole & 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 & 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 & Smith 2005, 260). Some people feel that the “administration of justice” (Cole & 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 & 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) 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), 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 & Smith 2005). In the 70’s and 80’s legislation came up with a “crime control model of corrections” (Cole & 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 & Smith 2005, 256). As a result, more people were being arrested, more people were being sent to prison and 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.
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
EMOTION WORK AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
However education is but one aspect, related to the process of rehabilitating offenders. Some inmates require more than just educational training to help them to overcome problems such as mental health issues, psychological, and emotional problems. Although education may help, some more than others need medical attention to meet their individual specific needs.
Problems with overcrowding, and decreased funding for programs to accommodate the special needs of prisoners, can ultimately affect “their chosen strategies (which can) have an impact on their interaction and thus affect the institutional environment” (Greer 2002, 117). As new inmates become members within this “total institution” (Goffman in Gardner & 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 & 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 & 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 & Gronfein 2005).
The experiences of incarcerated male and female inmates, differ in terms of the ways they cope with their feelings and manage their emotions while confined behind prison walls. 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 & 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 & Smith 2005, 308). Taking on the role as either the “father, mother, daughter, sister” (Cole & Smith 2005, 308) fosters “cooperative relationships (that) help relieve the tensions of prison life” (Cole & Smith 2005, 308).
Of the “141 women’s prisons” (Cole & Smith 2005, 307) in the United States, women makeup “only 6.6% of the entire U.S. Prison population” (Cole & Smith 2005, 307). In general, women’s prisons are “smaller, with looser security and less structured relationships” (Cole & 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 & Smith 2005, 307).
Since there are so few correctional facilities for women, “housing classifications 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 & Smith 2005, 307). Lack of programs in corrections facilities can have severe, and potentially debilitating consequences for inmates with mental health issues whose special needs are not met.
EDUCATION
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).
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 & 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 & Fasenfest 2004, 25).
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 GED level education, prior to their release. Some of the academic programs in place at the DWCF are, academic/high school education, adult basic education, computer instruction, computer learning lab, English as a second language, and a GED programs.
He supported his argument by giving us some example of inmates, whose behavior and attitudes changed from the point the first came to the time they left and the positive outcomes that came from the programs they have put in place. 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.
POLITICAL INFLUENCES ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
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 & Smith 2005, 261) prisons. As a result we have seen a growing numbers of privately-owned facilities and “expensive maximun-security prisons” (Cole & 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 & 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 & Smith 2005, 260). Some people feel that the “administration of justice” (Cole & 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 & 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) 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), 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 & Smith 2005). In the 70’s and 80’s legislation came up with a “crime control model of corrections” (Cole & 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 & Smith 2005, 256). As a result, more people were being arrested, more people were being sent to prison and 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.
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.
