Criminal Justice: Philosophies of Corrections
This papers discusses the importance from the Religious, Psychological Health, and Academic programs inside the presidio paradigm (in the particular US), assessed via the lenses from the Deterrence, Incapacitation, Punishment/Retribution, Restorative Justice, plus Rehabilitation philosophies associated with corrections. It furthermore provides some discursive insights into exactly what makes up about the primary obstacles when it comes to these types of programs’ successful execution.
With regard to the implementation from the Religious, Mental Wellness, and Educational plans inside the penology subdomain from the US Division of Justice to be effective, those in cost of the procedure need to have an obvious view of exactly what makes up about the home owners associated objectives. Inside this respect, it is going to prove rather essential for the worried individuals to be capable to access these types of programs through the particular conceptual lenses associated with the Deterrence (1), Incapacitation (2), Punishment/Retribution (3), Restorative Proper rights (4), and Rehab (5) philosophies associated with corrections. This papers is meant in order to exemplify how this might be done in exercise. The paper may also discuss exactly what can be considered the main concerns inside the context associated with how the penology paradigm in america proceeds to undergo the qualitative transformation.
Correctional Schooling Programs
The main objective of correctional schooling programs would be to offer inmates with however additional incentive in order to refrain from getting involved in legal activities in the particular aftermath of getting offered time in prison. This particular goal is reflective associated with the fact that will, as numerous sociological research indicate, the increased is the degree of a particular prisoner’s educational attainment, the particular more unlikely it might be for her or him to consider performing anything illegal, as soon as a free individual.
The particular Correctional Education Organization (CEA) sets the particular all-national standards with regard to the design plus sub-sequential implementation associated with correctional education applications. CEA is inside the position in order to enforce its professional decisions with regard to these applications on the state and federal levels.
The ownership of religious programs inside the country’s penology domain is carried out to adhere to the legal provisions associated with the First Modification to the US ALL Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Take action of (RFRA), plus the Religious Property Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which entitle convicts to the right to enjoy the unrestricted freedom of religious expression while ‘doing time. ’
The American Correctional Association (ACA) is in cost of exercising general control over the enactment of religious programs in jails. As practice shows, the main challenge inside this respect would be to strike a constant balance making it possible for inmates to consider full benefit of such their own right, on the one hand, plus eliminating the possible preconditions for people people to be wanting to abuse it, on the other.
Mental Health Plans
Typically the enactment of these kinds of programs is predicted to increase typically the quality and broaden the scope regarding medical care services supplied to inmates. Between the organizations inside charge of building and implementing emotional health programs found in jails can end up being named the Us Correctional Association (ACA), American Medical Relationship (AMA), American Open public Health Association (APHA), and American Psychological Association (APA).
There is usually still much uncertainness in regards to what can get deemed the very best method for incorporating psychological health programs directly into America’s correctional paradigm. As of these days, prison staff is usually expected to label the Diagnostic in addition to Statistical Manual regarding Mental Disorders with regards to identifying and categorizing mental abnormalities found in inmates.
Though policymakers in the PEOPLE have become in typically the position to experience a much better understanding of precisely how different correctional tactics should be merged because of their practical application to result throughout reducing the criminal offenses rate in the united states, typically the country’s already global largest population involving prisoners continue to be raise rather rapidly. Throughout its turn, this is explained by typically the inconsistency between typically the growing demand for typically the Rehabilitative philosophy involving corrections, on the other hand, and even the fact of which the practical rendering of countless of this kind of philosophy’s provisions generally proves utterly unfeasible, on the various other. All things considered, the quite term ‘corrections’ implies the possibility involving rehabilitation for typically the ‘corrected’ convicts (Carlson, 2014). As well, even so, the penal technique in the US ALL continually become more and more corporatized – typically the process which will result throughout promoting the goal of those which assume that the death of criminals is certainly the main performance of criminal treatment (Jurik, 2004). This, of course, leaves only a few doubts that the issue does require much attention, on the part of the high-ranking politicians/governmental officials in this country.
Custody & Care Programs
The earlier mentioned programs belong to the category of Custody & Care programs, the implementation of which is expected to increase the efficiency of the country’s correctional system, in the sense of ensuring that upon being released from the jail, a former inmate would be truly ‘corrected. ’ This again exposes the unmistakably Rehabilitative philosophy behind the formulation of such a penal objective. In this respect, the assumption is that the stronger could be the person’s ties to the community, the less likely it would be for him or her to course, that this implies that the introduction of Custody & Care programs as an integral part of the Justice Department’s functioning was predetermined by the factor of ‘public interest’ exerting an ever-greater influence on the policy-making process in the domain of penology.
Since it is specifically the government, which is supposed to act on behalf of ‘public interest, ’ this naturally presupposes that these programs should be governmentally funded. The objective reality, however, points out to something entirely opposite – as time goes on, Custody & Care programs are being increasingly used by the private contractors to generate profits. As McShane (2012) noted, “Virtually nonexistent thirty years ago, they (Custody & Care programs) are now commonplace components of the criminal justice system. Almost all are private, and many are run for profit, deriving both their clients and their income from contracts with local government” (p. 139). As a result, the rehabilitation-related societal objectives of the earlier mentioned programs continue to remain essentially declarative.
It is understood, of course, that such a situation can hardly be deemed tolerable. One of the possible ways to address the situation is to impose stricter governmental control over the functioning of the country’s Justice System.
Role of Correctional Facilities
As of today, the role of correctional facilities in the US is concerned with serving the utilitarian purpose of isolating criminals from society, as opposed to helping the latter on their way of trying to reintegrate back into it. This suggests that it is namely the principles of Retributive and Incapacitation justice that continue to define the qualitative aspects of the country’s currently enacted penology paradigm. Partially, this can be explained by the fact that even though the government continued to endorse the policy of multiculturalism for a few decades now, the public discourse in America remains explicitly Eurocentric. Therefore, it will only be logical to assume that the provisions of the Restorative and Rehabilitative concepts of criminal punishment should be referred to as such that represent mainly the theoretical rather than any practical value. This simply could not be otherwise – as practice shows, many America’s jails now function as the ‘hardening joints’ for convicts, rather than the places where these people are provided with the opportunity to learn how to act as the society’s productive members.
In light of what has been said earlier, it should prove thoroughly appropriate to conclude this paper by confirming the existence of a wide gap between theory and practice in the country’s penological domain – something that contributes rather substantially towards undermining the legitimacy of the Constructivist (Restorative/Rehabilitative) outlook on the origins of crime and the purpose of punishment. In its turn, this adds to the intensification of social tensions in the US. Therefore, it will only be logical to suggest that the time has come for the government to begin paying more attention to the issue in question.
Brodeur, J. (2007). Comparative penology in perspective. Crime and Justice, 36 (1), 49-91.
Carlson, P. (2014). Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory . Burlington: Jones & Bartlett.
Dzur, A. (2003). Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and criminal justice policy. Policy Sciences, 36 (3), 279-306.
Jurik, N. (2004). Imagining justice: Challenging the privatization of public life. Social Problems, 51 (1), 1-15.
McShane, M. (2012). The philosophy and practice of corrections . London: Routledge.
Palermo, G. (2011). Jail and prison overcrowding and rehabilitative justice programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (6), 843-845.
Rodogno, R. (2008). Shame and guilt in restorative justice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14 (2), 142-176.
Sims, G. (2009). The criminalization of mental illness: How theoretical failures create real problems in the criminal justice system. Vanderbilt Law Review, 62 (3), 1053-1083.
Strelan, P., Feather, N., & McKee, I. (2011). Retributive and inclusive justice goals and forgiveness: The influence of motivational values. Social Justice Research, 24 (2), 126-142.
Tittle, C., Botchkovar, E., & Antonaccio, O. (2011). Criminal contemplation, national context, and deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27 (2), 225-249.
Verboon, P., & van Dijke, M. (2012). Effect of perceived deterrence on compliance with authorities: The moderating influence of procedural justice. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 1 (2), 151-161.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T., Feather, N., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Be