Issues and Constitutional Rights in Corrections 2 pages

02CH_Corrections_Stojkovic.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Issues and Constitutional Rights in Corrections 2 pages

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

▪ Define the various correctional aims and explain how these are often competing in nature. ▪ Describe the “correctional menu” and why it is important for understanding corrections. ▪ Analyze how correctional systems are organized at the federal level of government. ▪ Analyze how correctional systems are organized at the state level of government. ▪ Describe the current state of affairs in corrections in terms of incarceration rates and figures.

Reed Saxon/Associated Press

Correctional Aims and Correctional Systems

Introduction

Introduction The U.S. corrections enterprise is enormous. At the end of 2016, there were approximately 6,613,500 adults under correctional authority (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). This includes approximately 1,505,400 people in state and federal prisons, 740,700 in jails, 3,673,100 on probation, and 874,800 on parole (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Probation and parole totals also include those under extended supervision in the community.

In a country of over 300 million, there were approximately 2,640 people per 100,000 adult residents under correctional supervision as of 2016, or 1 in 38 adults in the United States (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). These numbers are astounding. (See Applying Criminal Justice: Cali- fornia’s Prison Overcrowding Dilemma, later in this chapter, for more on this topic.) Between 2007 and 2016, however, there was an 18% reduction in the number of adults under cor- rectional supervision (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Figure 2.1 shows the number of adults under various forms of correctional authority.

Figure 2.1: Adult correctional population, 1980–2016

The number of adults under correctional authority (probation, parole, jail, or prison) rose steadily from the 1980s through the early 2000s. However, since 2007 that number has been in decline.

From “Key Statistic: Total Correctional Population,” by Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/index. cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=487).

Corrections efforts are organized at various levels of political autonomy in the United States. In other words, there are corrections organizations at federal, state, and local levels. Each

Number

Year ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘16

Total

Probation

Prison

Parole

Jail

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Section 2.1Correctional Aims

level features organizations that have been established as a result of the authority and capaci- ties of these governing bodies to create, fund, and operate them.

This chapter describes the very large corrections organizations that exist and operate at fed- eral and state levels of government. Keep in mind that corrections functions are parceled out among the various governmental levels, that no one organization has the authority or scope of operation to carry out or administer all the corrections functions at the federal level, and that corrections efforts are not entirely centralized under one organization (such as a Depart- ment or Division of Corrections) in any of the 50 states. In addition to governmental agencies, there are many private correctional efforts and organizations, both nonprofit and for-profit. This chapter focuses on governmental correctional agencies. (Subsequent chapters of this book will examine private correctional entities.) It also examines both correctional aims and the correctional menu.

2.1 Correctional Aims Correctional aims are the varied purposes of corrections. They are made up of many com- peting and often contradictory objectives. For our purposes, we can identify six primary correctional aims: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reintegration, and restoration.

Retribution Retribution is the application of punishment as the primary response to criminal wrongdo- ing. The aim of retribution is singular in that it does not seek any further aim outside of pun- ishment. “The retributivist believes that the punishment is right in itself ” (Close & Meier, 1995, p. 423). Retribution also holds that the role of correctional agencies is to exact punish- ment as defined by law. The punishment a correctional agency applies may take many forms. Take, for example, deprivation of liberty, which typically involves placing an offender inside a correctional facility. Other punishments include exacting a monetary fine for committing a criminal act. (See Applying Criminal Justice: How Much Punishment Is Enough? for further dis- cussion on this topic.) Factors associated with punishment and proportionality have long attracted outside inquiry. Deigh (2014) notes that proportionality “bears on the question of how the severity of legal punishment is to be matched to the seriousness of the crimes for which it is inflicted” (p. 191). Deigh’s work explores the challenges in connecting and consid- ering proportionality between an offense and punishment.

Applying Criminal Justice: How Much Punishment Is Enough?

Retribution has always been part of the American landscape of correctional aims. As noted scholar Robert Johnson (2002) has stated, it is impossible to think about American correc- tions history without acknowledging the element of punishment as a main driver among cor- rectional aims. In fact, many are quick to point out that since the 1980s the American

(continued on next page)

Section 2.1Correctional Aims

Deterrence Deterrence is another correctional aim associated with punishment. This aim is designed to send a message both to an offender and to society that an offense is unacceptable. Many utilitarians view criminal sanction and punishment as a means to coerce offenders into living law-abiding lifestyles (known as specific deterrence) and to encourage or coerce nonoffend- ers to do the same by making the punishments for certain crimes exceedingly clear (known as general deterrence). The logic of deterrence is based on the idea that individuals have free will, make rational choices about their behaviors, and will choose positive consequences over negative ones. This logic presumes that individuals will avoid negative consequences when they are reasonably sure these will result from an action.

In reality, however, this logic may be problematic. Take, for example, the lack of awareness that ordinary people have regarding the criminal sanctions for specific crimes and particular persons. If a citizen is unaware of what punishment an offender received for committing a crime, then he or she cannot calculate the possible result of committing that crime him- or herself; thus, the potential deterrent effect is lost. Similarly, the experience of an individual who receives a criminal sanction may not be sufficient to result in a change to his or her behavior.

Incapacitation As a correctional aim, incapacitation involves restraining an offender such that future crimi- nal wrongdoing is impossible. This is commonly attempted by placing offenders in jails or

Applying Criminal Justice: How Much Punishment Is Enough? (continued)

response to crime has fostered a mass incarceration movement with an emphasis on retribu- tion, with imprisonment as its most direct expression. For many citizens, prisons will con- tinue to be the primary way to view corrections, even though as of 2016 nearly 70% of those under correctional supervision reside in the community (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Punish- ment has always been associated with prisons, but recently the idea that community super- vision can fulfill the requisite need for punishment has gained ground. So when we think of punishment, we must think of all correctional options available to us, both institutional and community-based.

Yet how much punishment is enough? What is known about the effects of punishment? What is the difference between, for example, a punishment of 1 year in prison and 2 years in prison? Spending an additional 365 days incarcerated means something different to the offender than it does to, say, a politician or a victim or an ordinary citizen. How does society determine how much and what type of punishment is enough or too much? Interestingly, European countries use prisons more sparsely, and punishments for criminal wrongdoing are less severe, at least as measured by the use of imprisonment. Why are European penal- ties less severe when it comes to imprisonment? Why do Americans seem more interested in punishment or retribution, expressed through imprisonment, as opposed to other correc- tional aims?

Section 2.1Correctional Aims

prisons—removing an offender from the community, restricting his or her liberty, and hope- fully placing him or her in a situation where it is impossible to commit another crime. Realis- tically, however, simply removing the offender from the community does not guarantee that he or she cannot commit another offense—offenders can commit further crimes while they are incarcerated. Another example of incapacitation is the use of medication to prevent sex offenders from committing further offenses. This form of incapacitation is highly controver- sial; nevertheless, it is part of the repertoire associated with the incapacitation aim. Incarcer- ating an offender tends to typify incapacitation, but correctional aims may be studied in con- junction with one another, as indicated in the work of Berenji, Chou, and D’Orsogna (2014), which considers the effects of incarceration when combined with rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation attempts to change the offender’s behavior from negative and criminal to positive and law abiding. The change process is directed at some type of deficiency the offender may have, such as behavioral issues and/or a criminogenic environment. Possible deficiencies among offenders are numerous, and it is the role of corrections to identify and address these in ways that enable positive change to occur and be sustained over time. Reha- bilitative programming is wide and varied in correctional environments; it attempts to address those deficiencies that are the most highly correlated with criminal offending. Indeed, there are many types of programs that address offender defi- ciencies. Some take place in institutional settings, while others may operate in com- munities. Much of the research has sug- gested that for rehabilitation to be effec- tive in correctional environments (that is, in institutional or community-based facilities), there must be adequate atten- tion paid to offenders’ risk and needs and to the proper classification of offenders along these dimensions (Latessa & Lovins, 2010). The role of correctional agencies is to promote offenders’ proper assessment and classification along the dimensions of risk and need and to create an appropriate management plan that will facilitate effective change.

As a correctional aim, rehabilitation has been a part of the corrections domain for over 150 years, though it has been very controversial. Early critics sought to show that rehabilitative

Joel Sartore/National Geographic Stock Rehabilitation methods can take many forms, such as inmates caring for injured animals at a wildlife center. Can you think of other rehabilitation methods corrections facilities might employ?

Section 2.1Correctional Aims

programming had “no appreciable effect on recidivism rates” (Martinson, 1974), while others with more retributivist leanings criticized rehabilitation on moral and logical grounds, argu- ing that the utilitarian nature of rehabilitation was counter to the legitimate aim of the state to punish offenders for wrongdoing. Current proponents of rehabilitation argue that much empirical evidence supports the efficacy of properly conceived and implemented rehabilita- tive programming (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982; Gendreau & Ross, 1987; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005; Petersilia, 2006). For example, Hall (2015) points to the importance of educational programming as a rehabilitative mechanism that may translate into lower recidivism, sug- gesting the need to construct rehabilitative programs that are informed by research. Peters, Hochstetler, DeLisi, and Kuo (2015) find that both participating in and completing rehabilita- tive programs lowers a parolee’s risk of recidivism.

Reintegration Reintegration has its roots in the social sciences. It is based on the premise that crime and delinquency are as much symptoms of community disorganization as they are evidence of individual offenders’ psychological and behavioral problems. According to McCarthy and McCarthy (1984), “[Various social factors] . . . are all evidence of the community’s failure to promote the development of law-abiding behavior” (p. 6).

As a correctional aim, reintegration is most often regarded as using the community as a resource to help and encourage offenders to adjust to a law-abiding lifestyle. The “commu- nity” collaborates in this endeavor, in that conscious efforts are made to provide opportuni- ties, such as employment, and other assistance to the individual as he or she learns to make use of legitimate life options. The offender is expected to adopt new attitudes and beliefs as the process continues and to translate these into law-abiding behavior.

Theoretically, encouraging and implementing the interactions and outcomes of a community corrections program is important and appealing. Nonetheless, in thinking about community corrections, there are several questions worth considering. First, what do we mean by com- munity? The term is meant to be encompassing, but it is difficult to determine standards for what community means in terms of community corrections. Second, what does it mean to reintegrate an offender in a practical sense? How do we define successful reintegration? Finally, what does it mean to implement a reintegration program? How do we monitor and assess reintegrative program results? Despite these questions, reintegration is a major part of many correctional agencies’ core activities.

Restoration The fundamental idea behind restoration is that offenders take responsibility for their actions and atone to victims as well as the larger community. Similar to reintegration, the community’s role in restoration is to provide conditions under which offenders can success- fully adjust and maintain law-abiding and acceptable lifestyles. As with other correctional aims, restoration is not without its concerns. In an attempt to implement restorative justice programs, the offender, the victim, the community, and elements of the criminal justice sys- tem must be willing to come to terms with crime and its consequences. In the end, restoration seeks to balance the needs of all parties so as to promote law-abiding behavior and restore

Section 2.1Correctional Aims

the community. Clearly, there are enormous challenges associated with realizing this correc- tional aim.

Competing Correctional Aims From the discussion thus far, it should be clear that there is no singular correctional aim. Fun- damentally, correctional aims are the objectives and actions that society decides to pursue to address criminal offending. However, there is little consensus regarding which objectives and actions should be prioritized and pursued. In sentencing, for example, prosecutors and judges have no clear mandate concerning which correctional aims should take precedence in general or regarding particular offenders. There is sufficient discretion in sentencing so that pros- ecutors and judges may pursue one aim with certain individuals and another aim with oth- ers. They may also pursue multiple correctional aims and may not agree as individual actors within the criminal justice system that one aim is preferable to another. It is more likely that, in the day-to-day operations of the criminal justice system, the available options determine a particular offender’s results, rather than a philosophical argument in support of a specific aim. This is not to suggest that prosecutors and judges do not consider multiple aims in their decision making; rather, the practical necessities of finding an option for an offender weigh heavily in the final decision. Prosecutors and judges, after all, live in the real world.

Most criminal offenders will receive sanctions that place them under correctional authority. Without a clear mandate for which correctional aims should take precedence, correctional personnel are forced to retreat to what they know and can actually accomplish—what they can control and do. But even this “real-world” decisional approach is not foolproof, since the degree to which these aims may be achievable is questionable. Corrections personnel are often pulled in different directions as they are asked to achieve multiple correctional aims, some of which may be unachievable.

For example, consider how prisons are operated. The reality is that prison is not a setting that is conducive to rehabilitation, even if effective rehabilitation programs exist in some pris- ons. Incarceration pits two major aims against one another: incapacitation and rehabilitation. Yet in some states—California, for example—the Department of Corrections and Rehabilita- tion’s publicly expressed mission is to protect the community via incapacitation, as well as to rehabilitate offenders while they are imprisoned. The result in this state has been litigation that has questioned the corrections department’s ability to operate prisons in a manner that promotes rehabilitation. In fact, due to the state’s inability to accomplish rehabilitative goals, and given the premature deaths of inmates under the state’s supervision, the U.S. Supreme court deemed California’s operations to be unconstitutional and set a 2-year timeline for it to comply with an order to reduce the inmate population by 40,000 prisoners (Brown v. Plata, 2011). The scale of this ruling implicates a variety of issues, including the effects of correction population reductions on policy, reintegration, and associated factors and considerations for local jurisdictions in California (Petersilia, 2014).

If you were to examine other correctional aims in relation to one another, you would find many other contradictions that make the work of corrections more difficult. At the end of the day, correction officials define their tasks in ways that allow them to function without requir- ing them to resolve the issues of competing demands.

Section 2.2Correctional Strategies

2.2 Correctional Strategies As a society, decisions about how best to address criminal behavior are often politically motivated. These decisions are influenced by previous political choices and by available cor- rectional methods. While correctional aims can point us in the right direction, the menu of options to accomplish those aims—the correctional menu—is limited. Historically, retribu- tion has been a dominant aim (see Chapter 1), although other aims have been emphasized at various times. For example, imprisonment as a form of incarceration has been a central strategy in the United States since the early 19th century. However, whether incarceration achieves any of the correctional aims has been largely irrelevant. As Foucault (1975/1995) states in Discipline and Punish, a correctional strategy—in this case incarceration—continues or fades away based on whether its effects are politically palatable to those in power. This does not mean a strategy’s longevity depends on whether it definitively satisfies one or more correctional aims; rather, it means it depends on whether the strategy satisfies the interests of those in power.

It is also important to know that strategies in place for long periods of time tend to develop staying power as we invest in their operations and become more conceptually bound by them. Can you imagine an American correctional program that did not feature incarceration? Though we have tried alternative strategies, the use of incarceration as we know it remains, regardless of which correctional aims it does or does not satisfy. Speaking plainly, politicians can claim that prisons are protecting society and yet remain silent when asked what incar- ceration actually accomplishes. It is not our intention to dismiss incarceration as a strategy; however, it is important to understand that a strategy may remain in place because it satisfies other interests, regardless of whether it can be shown to satisfy specific correctional aims.

The United States has pursued three primary strategies regarding corrections. These are incarceration, community-based corrections, and death.

Incarceration Simply put, incarceration involves the use of a correctional facility, typically a jail or prison, to house criminal offenders. Jails generally house individuals serving misdemeanor sentences (under 1 year) and individuals awaiting trial (pretrial detainees; see Chapter 3). Prisons gen- erally house individuals serving felony sentences (over 1 year). In some states, however, the location (e.g., a local facility or state facility) in which an individual is placed legally determines the misde- meanor/felony distinction. For example, an individual placed in a local institution of confinement would be serving a mis- demeanor sentence, whereas an individ- ual placed in a state correctional facility would be a serving a felony sentence. Incarceration attempts to satisfy the aim of retribution.

Sue Ogrocki/Associated Press Incarceration is the one of the most familiar corrections strategies. Do you think it is the most appropriate and acceptable method of punishment?

Section 2.2Correctional Strategies

Since the 1830s we have envisioned the deprivation of liberty as punishment (Welch, 2011). When we incarcerate offenders in jails or prisons, we aim to achieve retribution. Remember, retribution’s purpose is punishment in and of itself.

In addition, we view incarceration as a way to further the aim of deterrence, both specific and general. Recall that specific deterrence refers to an offender becoming a law-abiding citi- zen, while general deterrence refers to providing incentives for law-abiding citizens to comply with society’s laws. There are some problems with the logic of deterrence that go beyond the scope of this text, but in general, it is difficult to prove whether incarceration achieves this aim. Nevertheless, deterrence will continue to be a major aim of the U.S. corrections system.

Incarceration also serves the aim of incapacitation. In most cases confining an offender within a jail or prison temporarily removes this person from the community and hence achieves some form of protection. The idea is that the offender cannot then commit crimes in the com- munity during that time period. By incapacitating some criminals, we are aiming to directly prevent crime in society. This is the expressed expectation; however, there is limited evidence to suggest that incarceration is directly related to crime prevention. To begin with, incarcera- tion is not a strategy for addressing all crime. Take, for example, the issue of incapacitation affecting the “crime rate.” The crime rate is an aggregate measure of crimes, including many for which incarceration is not a strategy—for example, crimes such as disorderly conduct. Using incarceration for this crime would be overkill—not the most effective way to address the crime. Instead, incarceration is a primary strategy for specific, serious crimes, such as murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping. Even for these crimes, however, there is little evi- dence that incarceration has a direct preventive effect. Sophisticated research suggests that incarceration is not an effective crime prevention strategy (Zimring & Hawkins, 1997). Wer- minkn, Apel, Nieuwbeerta, and Blokland (2013) find “that in as far as imprisonment is used with the primary goal of reducing crime, a general increase of imprisonment as the sanction of choice is not likely to yield high crime control benefits” (p. 596).

As previously noted, it is also important to consider how incarceration may work in conjunc- tion with other correctional factors. In their review of the effects of incarceration, Berenji et al. (2014) focus on the type and duration of rehabilitative efforts implemented upon release, as well as the effects of incarceration in conjunction with rehabilitative efforts after release. Their work suggests that incarceration effects may be understood as an influence that may be combined with other factors. However, of all the correctional aims, rehabilitation is the least likely result of incarceration. Research suggests that even if rehabilitation programming is correctly conceptualized and implemented among incarcerated populations, the impact on reoffending rates is a modest 8% to 10% (Petersilia, 2007). Berenji et al. (2014) conclude that, instead, “a mixture of sufficient punishment and long-lasting assistance efforts upon release may be the most effective way to reduce crime” (pp. 10–11). The prospect of achiev- ing rehabilitation through incarceration is unlikely, partially because the physical and opera- tional environments of jails and prisons are not conducive to rehabilitation (Johnson, 2002; Stojkovic, 2010). Notwithstanding these concerns, the aim of rehabilitating through incar- ceration is still very popular among correctional professionals, although objectives related to this aim may be unrealistic and possibly create other problems for correctional agencies. For example, consider the position of correctional officials who are asked to rehabilitate offenders and have limited means to accomplish this task. This and other problems will be addressed in later chapters.

Section 2.2Correctional Strategies

Incarceration conflicts with the aim of reintegration. Incarcerated offenders are removed from the community and then, after their sentence is served, need to be reintroduced back into the community. The longer offenders are kept out of their communities, the more likely that there will be problems reintroducing them. Consider an offender who is imprisoned for 3 years. She is very likely to lose ties with her family, friends, and others. She will have lost her job and likely has little structure to return to in the community. While situations vary— for example, some inmates have family waiting for them upon their release—most will lack resources and support. Most inmates will need to find a new place to live, need financial sup- port, and require assistance to get a job; some will need mental and other health services or other general support. Recall that in the United States, as of 2016 there were approximately 1.5 million persons in prison and 740,700 in local jails (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Later chap- ters will show there are many solid reintegration efforts across the country; however, given the number of offenders and the range of issues they face upon their release, the resources available to accomplish reintegration are meager in the face of the scale and scope of the problem. As a result, achieving reintegration through incarceration is quite difficult.

The degree to which incarceration promotes the aim of restoration depends on the role it plays in the restorative process. If being incarcerated in a correctional facility promotes law- abiding behavior, then it can be seen as supporting restoration. Also, if a specific form of incar- ceration allows for limited community release and interaction and promotes restitution, then it too can be regarded as supporting restoration. However, the United States has more than 150 years’ experience incarcerating offenders, and there is little definitive evidence to sug- gest that incarceration, as we have done it, advances restoration. There are many restorative justice efforts underway in the United States (discussed in Chapter 7), and some of these use the threat of incarceration to secure compliance with restorative efforts. In these instances, incarceration itself is not the restorative element. In addition, these efforts generally focus on less serious offenses and misdemeanors, such as minor theft, first-offense drunk driving, vandalism, and disorderly conduct with community members. Given the United States’ expe- rience, it is fair to say that the relationship between incarceration and restoration is tenuous.

Community-Based Corrections Recall from Chapter 1 that community- based corrections refers to the array of programs found in the community to address crime and the criminal offender. There are many community-based correc- tional efforts of varied philosophies and forms. In general, the idea is to keep the offender in the community rather than separate him or her via incarceration. The offender operates in the community with some measure of supervision and struc- ture. In some cases, he or she participates in correctional programs that promote reintegration. The intent of community- based corrections is to promote law-abid- ing behavior. These efforts may fall under

Hartford Courant/©2012 McClatchy-Tribune/Getty Images Parole is one form of community-based correction, since its aim is to slowly reintroduce criminals to society. What is your opinion about whether parole is successful?

Section 2.2Correctional Strategies

the umbrellas of probation, parole, and extended supervision or under specialized programs implemented by public or private social service agencies. The essential elements are the com- munity setting and community resources, beyond correctional agencies. As is true of incar- ceration, community-based efforts attempt to achieve multiple aims.

Typically, community-based correctional efforts are not developed or implemented in such a way as to achieve further retribution. Some retributivists argue against community-based efforts because retribution as a sentencing goal tends to prioritize justice through punish- ment, while community-based correctional efforts tend to emphasize rehabilitation rather than punishment.

For the individual offender, community-based efforts may promote law-abiding behavior and thus may be regarded as supporting specific deterrence. However, community-based efforts are often invisible to most members of the community, so it is difficult to measure how well these efforts promote general deterrence. In fact, some argue that community-based efforts, in some of their forms, may not be regarded as punishment and thus would not have a deterrent effect. Although scant research has been done on the general deterrent effect of community- based efforts, some work points to other aims of community-based corrections. For example, in exploring objectives for community programs that emphasize deterrence, Klingele (2015) asserts that such programs should aim to equip persons on probation with supervision that focuses on “engaging the probationer” to identify “root causes of offending” and that provides links “to prosocial influences in the community” (p. 1662). While community-based efforts have indeed been developed and implemented to further individual behavioral change, and thus specific deterrence—for example, in drug treatment courts—they have not been devel- oped and implemented to further general deterrence.

Community-based correctional efforts sometimes feature limited incapacitation. This might take the form of a “split sentence,” whereby the offender spends some time in a correctional facility and then is placed under community supervision, which uses the community as a resource with which to manage offenders. Most community-based programs do not utilize incapacitation, as the traditional aim of incapacitation has little to do with most community- based efforts. In fact, some would consider it a contradiction to use community-based correc- tions to further the aim of incapacitation.

Some people might expect that community-based corrections would promote rehabilita- tion. Efforts are directed toward the offender and changing his or her behavior, so in the most general sense, rehabilitation may be seen as a legitimate community correctional aim. There is an intuitive appeal to this connection; however, similar to what was stated regard- ing prison rehabilitation programs, it may be difficult to see how the rehabilitative aim is actually accomplished. In addition, many community-based efforts are developed and imple- mented under the rubric of reintegration rather than rehabilitation. Herein lies a difficulty. How can we separate the effects of two possibly competing correctional aims? Not much research has been done into the rehabilitative effects of community-based corrections. Still, a link between community corrections and rehabilitation is possible and reasonable. Klingele (2015) finds that programs may promote both deterrence and rehabilitative objectives when they equip an individual under supervision with the knowledge “(1) that prohibited behavior will be detected and (2) that an immediate, negative consequence is certain to accompany any detected violation” (p. 1663).

Section 2.2Correctional Strategies

Reintegration is perhaps the traditional correctional aim most consistent with community corrections. In a practical sense, communities do not have a single set of values or a defined set of standards, other than the criminal law, to guide an offender’s reintegration. Therefore, reintegration may involve promoting law-abiding behavior as a realistic objective. In some cases, community-based programming is designed to reintegrate an offender into the com- munity after a period of incarceration. In this way the link between community-based correc- tions and the aim of reintegration may be regarded as well established. The research of Gun- nison, Helfgott, and Wilhelm (2015) provides an opportunity to consider reintegration issues from the viewpoint of corrections practitioners. Gunnison et al. (2015) assert that “one of the most problematic issues in the reentry process is the disconnection between institutional and community contexts.” Their findings indicate that correctional practitioners identify pro- grams, housing, and employment as important factors for reintegration and “highlight the great need for resources . . . both in-house and in the community, in order to foster successful reentry” (p. 49).

While some community-based efforts have restoration as an objective, many do not. Restora- tion involves balancing the needs of the offender, the community, and the victim. For restora- tion to have any meaning in the context of community corrections, however, there must be a discernible structure and an explicit intent to achieve that balance. Probation as it is usually practiced, for example, does not have restoration as an operating principle. On the other hand, efforts such as “sentencing circles”—in which community members and offenders jointly par- ticipate in determining the offender’s responsibility and the ways in which the offender, the community, and the victim will be restored—are examples of restoration in action. However, this type of community correctional effort is seldom seen. The link between community cor- rections and restoration is difficult to discern, and more research needs to be done on this topic to determine the impact of community corrections on restoration.

The Death Penalty There is a direct link between the correc- tional aim of retribution and the imple- mentation of the death penalty, the taking of an offender’s life. Thirty-eight states and the federal government allow the death penalty for the crime of specific forms of homicide. At the close of 2016, 2,814 people in 32 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had received a death sentence, though the number of people who have received a death sen- tence has declined each year since 2000 (Davis & Snell, 2018). For the retributivist, the death penalty may be viewed as “just deserts” and as a means to further other aims. For others, the death penalty is an excessive and unnecessary sanction. The debate regarding the death penalty makes it a very controversial correctional method (see Chapter 10 for further examination of the death penalty).

Eric Risberg/Associated Press The death penalty is perhaps one of the most controversial corrections methods. Do you think the death penalty is necessary? Why or why not?

Section 2.3Corrections at the Federal Level

Many argue that the death penalty has a direct link to deterrence. No one can argue that the death penalty, when executed, fails to have a specific deterrent effect—after all, the offender is dead. However, many would argue there is little convincing evidence of the death penalty’s general deterrent effect. While it is easy see a link between death and specific deterrence, it is problematic to make such a connection between the death penalty and general deterrence.

There is also a direct link between the death penalty and incapacitation. In death, an offender is clearly rendered unable to commit future crimes. Additionally, a death penalty sentence places many offenders on “death row,” where the average length of stay prior to execution is about 15 years (Snell, 2011). In fact, this average is increasing in part due to legal challenges to the death penalty. For the average offender on death row, then, waiting years to be executed achieves incapacitation through incarceration.

There is no clear link between the death penalty and rehabilitation because there is no reason- able way to affirm that the death penalty has a rehabilitative effect. Similarly, a link between the death penalty and reintegration is difficult if not impossible to establish. In the case of restoration, some may argue that the execution of the death penalty restores the balance of a community and a victim by permanently removing the offender. However, this is a matter of perspective, since others may argue that the death penalty disturbs the balance of the govern- ment’s legitimate interest to punish and each individual’s right to life.

2.3 Corrections at the Federal Level At the federal level, corrections functions are divided primarily among the BOP (a compo- nent of the U.S. Department of Justice), the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services (organized within the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, with agents attached to U.S. district courts, also providing parole supervision services), and the U.S. Parole Commission (a semiautonomous body). Certain func- tions are assigned to others. For example, the BOP can only accommodate about one third of federal pretrial detainees. The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for pre- trial detainees and for contracting space in local jail facilities for these accused per- sons. In these arrangements, corrections functions at this level of government are not strictly centralized, with one agency responsible for policy development, allo- cation of resources, and centralized man- agement. Nonetheless, the degree of coor- dination is significant.

The BOP was created in 1930 to provide for the administration and operation of federal cor- rectional facilities. The BOP operates more than 115 facilities. Table 2.1 includes demograph- ics on the inmate populations for the BOP.

Michael Conroy/Associated Press There are fewer federal prisons than state ones. This shortage sometimes necessitates that federal detainees be sent to local jails. Do you think this is fair? Why or why not?

Section 2.3Corrections at the Federal Level

Table 2.1: BOP inmate demographics 1990 2000 2009 2011 2013 2018

Total number 58,659 145,125 206,784 217,208 218,123 182,335

Type of facility

BOP NA 125,560 170,818 179,539 176,039 153,899

Contract/privately managed

NA 19,565 22,080 22,971 29,075 18,359

Other NA NA 13,886 14,698 13,009 10,077

Security level

Minimum 23.3% 23.8% 16.6% 17.2% 17.2% 16.8%

Low 22.5 38.1 38.3 38.4 39.2 37.4

Medium 28.7 27.1 29.8 29.4 28.3 29.9

High 13.0 11.0 11.1 10.8 11.3 11.9

Other/unclassified 12.5 NA 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0

Sex

Male 92.9% 92.7% 93.3% 93.5% 93.5% 93.0%

Female 7.1 7.3 6.7 6.5 6.5 7.0

Race/ethnicity

White 64.9% 57.8% 57.2% 58.6% 59.5% 58.2%

Black 32.7 38.9 39.3 37.9 37.1 37.9

Hispanic+ 26.1 32.3 32.2 34.2 34.9 32.4

Other 2.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.9

Citizenship

United States 75.4% 70.0% 73.6% 73.1% 73.7% 80.2%

Mexico 5.9 16.2 17.6 18.5 18.1 12.4

Colombia 5.1 2.9 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9

Cuba 5.2 2.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Dominican Republic NA 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8

Other/unknown 8.4 6.7 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.1

Age (mean) 37 37 38 39 39 36–40*

Note. Data for 1990 are as of December 31; for 2000 as of September 30; for 2009 as of July 25; for 2011 as of July 30; for 2013 as of March 30; and for 2018 as of August. *The BOP includes data on age ranges. This age range represents the largest percentage of inmates compared to other age ranges. +Includes Hispanics of any racial category.

Source: From “Table 6.0022.2013,” by Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/ 20181019125514/https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600222013.pdf ); “Inmate Statistics,” by Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2018 (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_age.jsp).

Section 2.3Corrections at the Federal Level

As of July 2018 there were 183,981 inmates under the federal correctional authority (Federal Bureau of Prisons [BOP], 2018). In the late 1980s changes in federal sentencing policy and the abolition of parole, together with intensified federal law enforcement efforts, especially in the area of drug smuggling and related offenses, produced a dramatic rise in the federal prisoner population over the next 20 years. Today, however, the federal correctional population is cur- rently in decline, consistent with overall correctional population trends (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Federal prison population, 1980–2017

Despite a steep increase since 1989, data show that federal correctional populations are in decline, consistent with overall correctional population trends.

From “Figure: Past Inmate Population Totals,” by Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2018 (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/ population_statistics.jsp).

Agents of the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services provide community supervision (i.e., pro- bation and parole) of federal offenders. As noted above, these agents carry out their respon- sibilities under the auspices of the U.S. district courts. Organizationally, this makes federal probation a bit complicated. With federal probation officers attached to the district courts and the chief probation officer working closely with the presiding judge of the district, federal probation is not actually as centralized as the federal prison system. By 1988, approximately 60,000 people (45,000 males and 15,000 females) were on federal probation, and approxi- mately 18,500 persons (17,400 males and 1,100 females) were on federal parole. At that time, approximately 38% of federal offenders under correctional authority were incarcerated, and approximately 62% were under community supervision. As of 2016, there were 131,700 people under federal probation and parole supervision, which is approximately 41% of the 320,000 people then under federal correctional authority, showing an increase since 1988 (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). As the changes at the federal level produce effects, monitoring this ratio is one way to examine the place of incarceration in the federal government’s strategy.

Parole release decisions at the federal level are a function of the U.S. Parole Commission. With the implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines in 1988, however, federal

Population

Year 1980 20172015201020052000199519901985 0

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

Section 2.4Corrections at the State Level

parole has been abolished. Those sentenced under the new guidelines fall under a manda- tory release mechanism (discussed further in Chapter 8). Those who entered federal facilities prior to implementation of the guidelines still fall under the authority of the U.S. Parole Com- mission, which will continue to function until that category of offender has been cycled out of the corrections system. As of 2018 the U.S. Parole Commission still functions pursuant to its legislative mandate (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.).

2.4 Corrections at the State Level Corrections at the state level typically combine local, state, and federal government efforts that work simultaneously. We could say that such an arrangement is a decentralized pattern. Such arrangements allow for local control of and influence over certain corrections efforts (i.e., jails, local probation, juvenile services), while other efforts pertaining to those sentenced to state or federal authority are separately administered.

Decentralized arrangements are sometimes criticized for duplication of services, their com- petition for resources in a given locale, their lack of central accountability, and the potential for correctional practices to vary across and within jurisdictions. The strongest arguments for such arrangements focus on the potential to align correctional practices (ostensibly those that are locally controlled) with the perceived needs and expectations of the local population, resulting in community-oriented practice.

In some states (Delaware, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wiscon- sin), corrections functions are more highly unified at the state level. In other words, with the exception of jails and related programs, corrections functions (such as adult probation and parole services, as well as juvenile probation and aftercare services) are provided through the central authority of the state Department of Corrections. The typical pattern is to divide the state into regions or service areas and assign offenders to field service offices that are admin- istratively organized under the central authority.

Arguments in favor of such an arrangement emphasize central accountability—that is, instead of several agencies performing similar tasks, with control spread among several governing bodies, control and administration are unified under one agency. It is also argued that this model offers greater efficiency in terms of allocating resources, because it allows for one large budget rather than many smaller ones. It also affords an opportunity to allocate resources across jurisdictions, making it more likely that resources will be distributed according to identified needs. This arrangement also offers the ability to more closely monitor practices to provide greater consistency of criteria and the authority to evaluate across jurisdictions, as well as the benefits that stem from economy of scale—that is, flexibility in how personnel and resources are used, and the ability to consolidate functions and positions. Criticisms of such arrangements typically focus on problems associated with big bureaucracy that drive the locus of control away from the operational setting; the loss of local control over programs and practices; notions that such arrangements do not necessarily guarantee efficiency when allocating resources—that is, some areas could finance local programs more generously than if one bigger budget was spread across many regions—and so on.

These variations in arrangements reflect differences in interface primarily between state and local governments. There are other permutations of arrangements, particularly at the state

Section 2.4Corrections at the State Level

level of government, dividing authority among agencies at that level. These are discussed in our examination of the state Department of Corrections.

Departments and Divisions of Corrections Each state has a large and complex corrections organization known either as a Department of Corrections or a Division of Corrections and is part of the executive branch of govern- ment. These agencies vary in size, level of funding, structure, staffing, and more. Beyond these differences, these agencies vary in terms of their authority over and responsibility for correc- tional functions. These agencies have authority and responsibility for adult corrections (that is, convicted adult offenders whose sentences place them under the agency’s authority), and some have authority and responsibility for certain juvenile efforts—in particular, the opera- tion of juvenile institutions.

Forty-eight states have an autonomous executive agency, a Department of Corrections; two states maintain a Division of Corrections that is organized as a component of a larger execu- tive agency, a Department of Human Services (American Correctional Association, 2010). The various states have arrived at different arrangements for how to distribute corrections func- tions at the state level. In a rational sense, any arrangement that effectively and efficiently achieves correctional aims could be deemed appropriate. However, just as there is contro- versy over correctional aims, so too is there controversy over how to appropriately arrange and organize correctional efforts within the states.

State arrangements have been determined over time, with some degree of rationality, through political interaction and accommodation. Most state arrangements have been in place for so long that they have become entrenched and would be difficult to change, even if there were questions about their effectiveness. Those who do question present arrangements tend to focus on issues such as duplication of structure, duplication of efforts, ambiguity in opera- tionalizing goals and objectives, fragmentation of efforts, and so on. Some employ the rational logic of centralization, asking whether effectiveness and efficiency would not be better served by having a superagency that coordinates state- and local-level corrections efforts, centrally allocates resources, sets policies to dovetail efforts in unified directions, and monitors and evaluates with authority to develop and implement rational changes.

Centralization Efforts Centralizing corrections arrangements may make logical sense, but such changes require realignments that would encounter political resistance, either from other governmental agen- cies, interest groups concerned with the potential effects of such changes, other interested parties, or from within the agencies and organizations that would be most directly affected. Such an undertaking could mean eliminating positions, changing networks of influence and control, changing the ways of doing business, introducing scrutiny that may threaten some or many, and so on. Bringing local agencies and organizations within a centralized structure would mean changing the nature of the relationship between local and state governments, reducing local autonomy, changing the locus of control and authority, changing funding pat- terns, and perhaps changing staffing patterns, among other issues.

State operations are frequently charged with fragmentation, lack of coordination, lack of centralized leadership, and related issues. While centralization advocates may overcome

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

resistance, and some form of centralization could occur—for example, some states have cre- ated monitoring agencies that formulate standards and have some authority to determine and induce compliance—such changes are difficult to achieve. Among the difficulties to be surmounted is the problem of showing not how the world of corrections would be different but rather how it would be improved in terms of ultimate outcomes.

2.5 Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures Let us turn to a more direct examination of correctional functions. The remaining sections of this chapter cover some basic aspects of the corrections enterprise, such as prison popula- tions, budgets, numbers of probationers and parolees, and other details.

Inmate Populations and Incarceration Rates As noted previously, incarceration is a major function for all Departments of Corrections. Table 2.2 provides demographic information for state and federal correctional populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that data estimates prior to 2016 for race and His- panic origin may differ due to a change in measurement methods (Carson, 2018).

Table 2.2: Demographics for state and federal correctional populations, 2006–2016

Year Total Federala State Male Female Whiteb,c,d Blackb,c,d Hispanicc,d

2006 1,504,598 173,533 1,331,065 1,401,261 103,337 507,100 590,300 313,600

2007 1,532,851 179,204 1,353,647 1,427,088 105,763 499,800 592,900 330,400

2008 1,547,742 182,333 1,365,409 1,441,384 106,358 499,900 592,800 329,800

2009 1,553,574 187,886 1,365,688 1,448,239 105,335 490,000 584,800 341,200

2010 1,552,669 190,641 1,362,028 1,447,766 104,903 484,400 572,700 345,800

2011 1,538,847 197,050 1,341,797 1,435,141 103,706 474,300 557,100 347,800

2012 1,512,430 196,574 1,315,856 1,411,076 101,354 466,600 537,800 340,300

2013 1,520,403 195,098 1,325,305 1,416,102 104,301 463,900 529,900 341,200

2014 1,507,781 191,374 1,316,407 1,401,685 106,096 461,500 518,700 338,900

2015 1,476,847 178,688 1,298,159 1,371,879 104,968 450,200 499,400 333,200

2016e 1,459,533 171,482 1,288,051 1,353,850 105,683 440,200 487,300 339,600

Percent change

Average annual, 2006– 2015

–0.2% 0.3% –0.3% –0.2% 0.2% –1.2% –1.7% 0.6%

2015– 2016

–1.2 –4.0 –0.8 –1.3 0.7 –2.2 –2.4 1.9

aIncludes prisoners held in nonsecure, privately operated community corrections facilities and juveniles held in contract facilities.

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin and persons of two or more races. c Race and Hispanic origin counts for all years have been reestimated using a different method and will not match previously published estimates.

dRounded to the nearest 100. e Total and state estimates include imputed counts for North Dakota and Oregon, which did not submit 2016 National Prisoner Statistics data.

Source: From “Prisoners in 2016,” by E. A. Carson, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf ).

Table 2.3 provides an overview of changes in the total correctional population under the juris- diction of state or federal authorities for 2000 and 2006–2016. The table reveals an annual decline in the total corrections population, moving from 7,339,600 in 2007 to 6,613,500 in 2016. The overall growth of the prison population has slowed and even declined since 2000.

Table 2.3: Persons under state or federal correctional authorities, 2000 and 2006–2016

Year

Total correctional populationa

Community supervision Incarceratedb

Totala,c Probation Parole Totala Local jaild Prison

2000 6,467,800 4,564,900 3,839,400 725,500 1,945,400 621,100** 1,394,200

2006 7,199,600 5,035,000 4,236,800 798,200 2,256,600 765,800** 1,568,700

2007 7,339,600 5,119,000 4,293,000 826,100 2,296,400 780,200** 1,596,800

2008 7,312,600 5,093,400 4,271,200 826,100 2,310,300 785,500** 1,608,300

2009 7,239,100 5,019,900 4,199,800 824,600 2,297,700 767,400** 1,615,500

2010 7,089,000 4,888,500 4,055,900 840,800 2,279,100 748,700 1,613,800

2011 6,994,500 4,818,300 3,973,800 855,500 2,252,500 735,600 1,599,000

2012 6,949,800 4,790,700 3,944,900 858,400 2,231,300 744,500 1,570,400

2013 6,899,700 4,749,800 3,912,900 849,500 2,222,500 731,200 1,577,000

2014 6,856,900 4,713,200 3,868,400 857,700 2,225,100 744,600 1,562,300

2015 6,740,300 4,650,900 3,789,800 870,500 2,172,800 727,400 1,526,600

2016*

January 1e 6,676,200 4,586,900 3,725,600 870,700 NA NA NA

December 31 6,613,500 4,537,100 3,673,100 874,800 2,162,400 740,700 1,505,400

Average annual percent change, 2007–2016

–1.2% –1.3% –1.7% 0.6% –0.7% –0.6% –0.7

Percent change, January 1, 2016– December 31, 2016f

–0.9% –1.1% –1.4% 0.5% -0.5% 1.8% –1.4

*Comparison year. **Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

aAdjusted to account for offenders with dual correctional statuses. bIncludes offenders held in local jails or under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons. cIncludes some offenders held in a prison or jail but who remained under the jurisdiction of a probation or parole agency. dThe Annual Survey of Jails is a nationally representative sample of jails rather than a full census. e The total correctional population for January 1, 2016, is the sum of the total community supervision population for January 1, 2016, and the total incarcerated population for December 31, 2015, adjusted for the number of persons in 2015 on dual correctional statuses.

f Within-year change for the prison population is calculated as the difference between December 31, 2015, and 2016, while change for the jail population is calculated as the difference between the last weekday of June 2015 and June 2016.

Source: From “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble and M. Cowhig, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/ content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf ).

Table 2.4 shows the number and rate of persons under state and federal correctional authori- ties by jurisdiction in 2016. Note that the total correctional population shown does not include the estimated number of prisoners held in jail, probationers and parolees who are in prison or jail, and parolees who are on probation (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). The incarceration rate provides additional insight into how correctional populations are allocated across jurisdic- tions. As you consider the data in Table 2.4, think about the distinction between incarceration totals (in terms of the number of people in jails or prisons) and rates (in terms of the number of incarcerated per 100,000 U.S. adult residents). Think also about how or why legislation or policies may seek to address incarceration rates. For example, the total number of people in prisons or jails in Oklahoma in 2016 was 39,000, with an incarceration rate of 1,310 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents (ages 18 and older); in Tennessee this ratio was 48,400 total, with 930 per 100,000; and in Kansas it was 17,200 total with 780 per 100,000. What might account for the seeming discrepancies between the total inmate populations and the rates of incarceration both within and between these states? Information on rates may provide additional context for correctional populations relative to societal populations, beyond that offered by incarceration totals alone.

Table 2.4: Number and rate of persons under state and federal correctional authorities by jurisdiction, 2016

Jurisdiction

Total correctional population,

12/31/2016a

Correctional supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number on probation or parole,

12/31/2016c

Community supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number in prison or local jail,

12/31/2016d

Incarceration rate per

100,000 U.S. residents, ages 18+b

U.S. totale 6,582,100 2,630 4,537,100 1,810 2,131,000 850

Federalf 320,000 130 131,700 50 188,400 80

State 6,262,000 2,500 4,405,400 1,760 1,942,600 780

Alabama 99,800 2,640 60,700 1,610 40,900 1,080

Alaska 12,900 2,320 8,400 1,520 4,400 800

Arizona 137,500 2,570 84,800 1,590 55,000 1,030

Arkansas 72,100 3,150 51,500 2,250 24,000 1,050

California 536,100 1,770 333,300 1,100 202,700 670

(continued on next page)

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

Table 2.4: Number and rate of persons under state and federal correctional authorities by jurisdiction, 2016 (continued)

Jurisdiction

Total correctional population,

12/31/2016a

Correctional supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number on probation or parole,

12/31/2016c

Community supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number in prison or local jail,

12/31/2016d

Incarceration rate per

100,000 U.S. residents, ages 18+b

Colorado 121,900 2,820 90,900 2,110 32,100 740

Connecticut 59,600 2,110 44,700 1,580 15,000 530

Delaware 22,400 2,980 15,800 2,100 6,600 880

District of Columbia 10,400 1,840 9,600 1,710 1,800 320

Florida 366,000 2,200 218,600 1,320 149,800 900

Georgiag .. .. .. .. 91,400 1,160

Hawaii 27,500 2,450 21,900 1,950 5,600 500

Idaho 48,800 3,880 37,500 2,980 11,300 900

Illinois 204,200 2,070 143,400 1,450 60,800 620

Indiana 159,900 3,150 116,700 2,300 43,200 850

Iowa 46,700 1,940 35,100 1,460 13,400 560

Kansas 38,500 1,750 21,500 980 17,200 780

Kentucky 97,900 2,850 63,800 1,860 34,700 1,010

Louisiana 111,000 3,110 71,000 1,980 45,400 1,270

Maine 10,300 960 6,800 630 4,100 380

Maryland 99,000 2,120 82,800 1,770 28,400 610

Massachusetts 82,900 1,520 63,600 1,170 19,400 360

Michigan .. .. .. .. 56,500 730

Minnesota 119,500 2,810 103,900 2,450 16,300 380

Mississippi 65,300 2,880 37,700 1,660 28,700 1,260

Missouri 105,900 2,240 61,600 1,300 44,300 940

Montana 15,200 1,860 10,200 1,250 5,700 700

Nebraska 23,300 1,620 14,600 1,010 8,800 610

Nevada 39,200 1,720 19,000 830 20,200 890

New Hampshire 10,800 1,010 6,400 590 4,500 410

New Jersey 186,300 2,670 155,700 2,230 32,000 460

New Mexico 30,200 1,900 15,500 970 14,700 930

New York 212,100 1,360 142,400 910 74,400 480

(continued on next page)

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

Table 2.4: Number and rate of persons under state and federal correctional authorities by jurisdiction, 2016 (continued)

Jurisdiction

Total correctional population,

12/31/2016a

Correctional supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number on probation or parole,

12/31/2016c

Community supervision

rate per 100,000 U.S.

residents, ages 18+b

Number in prison or local jail,

12/31/2016d

Incarceration rate per

100,000 U.S. residents, ages 18+b

North Carolina 149,300 1,890 95,200 1,210 54,100 680

North Dakota 10,300 1,770 7,100 1,230 3,100 540

Ohio 326,200 3,620 256,400 2,840 71,000 790

Oklahomag 74,500 2,510 35,500 1,190 39,000 1,310

Oregon 82,000 2,520 61,400 1,890 20,700 640

Pennsylvania 368,100 3,640 291,600 2,880 82,400 810

Rhode Island 24,300 2,850 23,200 2,730 3,100 370

South Carolina 68,800 1,770 36,700 940 32,100 820

South Dakota 15,000 2,290 9,300 1,420 5,800 880

Tennessee 119,400 2,310 74,700 1,440 48,400 930

Texas 681,900 3,290 482,900 2,330 218,500 1,050

Utah 25,400 1,180 15,900 740 11,700 540

Vermont 7,400 1,450 5,800 1,150 1,700 340

Virginia 120,000 1,830 62,500 950 57,500 880

Washington 127,000 2,230 100,600 1,760 30,400 530

West Virginia 20,100 1,380 10,100 690 10,100 690

Wisconsin 100,500 2,230 64,900 1,440 35,600 790

Wyoming 9,400 2,100 5,500 1,230 3,900 870

Note. Counts are rounded to the nearest 100, and rates are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and because offenders with dual correctional statuses are excluded from totals. Counts include estimates for nonresponding jurisdictions. ..Not known. a Excludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 83,700 prisoners held in jail, 24,000 probationers in prison, 24,400 probationers in jail, 24,500 parolees in jail, 13,000 parolees in prison, and 10,800 parolees on probation.

b Rates are computed using estimates of the U.S adult resident population of persons age 18 or older and persons of all ages on January 1, 2017, within jurisdiction.

cExcludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 10,800 parolees on probation. dExcludes, by jurisdiction, an estimated 83,700 prisoners held in jail. e Total correctional population and total number in prison and jail include local jail counts that are based on December 31, 2016, to produce jurisdiction-level estimates.

f Excludes about 11,000 inmates who were not held in locally operated jails but rather facilities that were operated by the BOP and functioned as jails.

g Total correctional population and community supervision population estimates include misdemeanant probation cases, not individuals, supervised by private companies and may overstate the number of offenders under supervision.

Source: From “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble and M. Cowhig, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/ content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf ).

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

Comparatively speaking, the United States leads the world in adult incarceration rates. The spiraling costs associated with incarceration led one state, Minnesota, to attempt a different strategy. Beginning in the early 1970s, Minnesota embarked on a strategy to emphasize the development of more community corrections alternatives and to keep the prison population as small as possible. The state has subsidized local initiatives by directly funding local gov- ernments when a convicted offender who otherwise would be assigned to the state Depart- ment of Corrections is placed in a community alternative program. In other words, a local government receives a portion of the amount this offender would have cost the state if he or she had been incarcerated under the Department of Corrections. This serves as a financial incentive for communities to design and implement alternative programs. Over the long term, this strategy has effectively reduced the reliance on incarceration as a dominant strategy. It has kept down the prison population and costs associated with incarceration (Wisconsin Tax- payer Alliance, 2010).

Applying Criminal Justice: California’s Prison Overcrowding Dilemma

In a landmark decision (5–4), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata (2011) that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was operating its 33 prisons in an unconstitutional manner, largely due to massive overcrowding, a problem the department had been experiencing since the early 1990s. The court ruled that the conditions that led to the over- crowding, and the overcrowding itself, had to be remedied, setting capacity levels for prisons and a timetable to comply with the court order. The court determined that by May 2013, California’s prisons had to be at no more than 137.5% of their design capacity. During the 20 years of litigation surrounding the overcrowding, the department had placed over 170,000 prisoners in cell space made for roughly 88,000 prisoners, operating at almost 200% capacity. During the case, federal district court judge Thelton Henderson stated that an inmate a week was dying due to the negligence and indifference of correctional officials. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2015), by 2015 the state had lowered its population to 135% of its design capacity.

How would you address the prison overcrowding problem? As you consider the issue as raised in the Brown v. Plata decision, consider our discussion regarding correctional aims and what society is trying to achieve with prisons. Is it possible that none of the correctional aims we have discussed can be satisfactorily addressed when prisons are significantly over- crowded? In particular, how can offenders be rehabilitated under such difficult conditions? Does Brown v. Plata place other correctional systems on notice that the court will not toler- ate unconstitutional conditions in prisons?

California Department of Corrections/ Associated Press

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

Incarceration is a major dimension of each state’s overall corrections strategy. How- ever, some states incarcerate a greater percentage of offenders than do others. As state governments become more resource strapped, it may become more necessary to press for greater understanding and more intense discussion of alternative strategies and options. States have moved to provide third-level alternatives, such as house arrest and use of electronic mon- itoring. However, it is worth noting that in most instances, the effect has been to expand the number of people under cor- rectional authority rather than to reduce prison populations (Walker, 2011).

Community Supervision The number of adult offenders under community supervision at the close of 2016 was 4,537,100 (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Table 2.5 shows the rates of persons under community supervision in 2000, 2005, and 2010–2016.

Table 2.5: Rates of persons under community supervision, 2000, 2005, and 2010–2016

Year

Number per 100,000 U.S. adult residents U.S. adult residents on—

Community supervisiona,b Probation Parole

Community supervisiona Probation Parole

2000 2,162 1,818 344 1 in 46 1 in 53 1 in 285

2005 2,215 1,864 351 1 in 45 1 in 54 1 in 285

2010 2,067 1,715 356 1 in 48 1 in 58 1 in 281

2011 2,017 1,663 358 1 in 50 1 in 60 1 in 279

2012 1,984 1,634 356 1 in 50 1 in 61 1 in 281

2013 1,946 1,603 348 1 in 51 1 in 62 1 in 287

2014 1,911 1,568 348 1 in 52 1 in 64 1 in 288

2015 1,872 1,526 350 1 in 53 1 in 66 1 in 285

2016 1,811 1,467 349 1 in 55 1 in 68 1 in 287

aIncludes adults on probation and parole. b For 2008 to 2016, detail may not sum to total because the community supervision rate was adjusted to exclude parolees who were also on probation.

Source: From “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ ppus16.pdf ).

Mark Bughnaski/The Kalamazoo Gazette/Associated Press Probation is a common form of community supervision. Do you think it is an effective correctional method? Why or why not?

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

The use of probation grew dramatically over 2 decades but has begun to steadily decline in recent years. Probation as a form of community supervision continues to be a major dimension of U.S. corrections. Table 2.6 shows the number of adults under parole and probation super- vision under state and federal authority in 2016. The total number of parolees in 2016 was 874,777. The numbers in Table 2.6 reflect the total number of persons on discretionary release parole and on mandatory release extended supervision. Parole is an example of a discretionary release. Mandatory release means that an offender must be released from an institution because he or she has served the time required by his or her sentence. Regarding paroling authorities, keep in mind that a number of states have moved to mandatory release from discretionary release. These states and the federal government still maintain a discretionary release author- ity, because there are still inmates who were sentenced prior to changes in the law.

Table 2.6: Adults under probation and parole, 2016

Region and jurisdiction

Parole population, 12/31/2016

Number on parole per 100,000 U.S. adult residents,

12/31/2016

Probation population,

12/31/2016

Number on proba- tion per 100,000

U.S. adult residents, 12/31/2016

U.S. total 874,777 349 3,673,120 1,466

Federal 114,385 46 17,284 7

State 760,392 303 3,655,836 1,459

Alabama 8,562 227 52,177 1,382

Alaska 1,812 326 6,621 1,193

Arizona 7,500 140 77,373 1,447

Arkansas 23,792 1,038 30,881 1,347

California 93,598 309 239,735 791

Colorado 10,186 236 80,740 1,870

Connecticut 3,379 119 41,311 1,461

Delaware 387 52 15,395 2,049

District of Columbia 4,025 713 5,838 1,034

Florida 4,566 27 214,066 1,288

Georgiag 22,386 285 .. ..

Hawaii 1,367 122 20,516 1,828

Idaho 5,054 402 32,409 2,578

Illinois 29,428 298 113,989 1,154

Indiana 8,385 165 108,302 2,135

Iowa 6,051 251 29,254 1,213

Kansas 4,830 220 16,654 758

Kentucky 15,383 448 48,457 1,411

Louisiana 30,907 864 40,174 1,124

(continued on next page)

Section 2.5Corrections: Basic Facts and Figures

Table 2.6: Adults under probation and parole, 2016 (continued)

Region and jurisdiction

Parole population, 12/31/2016

Number on parole per 100,000 U.S. adult residents,

12/31/2016

Probation population,

12/31/2016

Number on proba- tion per 100,000

U.S. adult residents, 12/31/2016

Maine 21 2 6,817 632

Maryland 10,305 220 72,529 1,550

Massachusetts 1,851 34 61,789 1,133

Michigan .. 216 .. ..

Minnesota 7,075 167 96,852 2,280

Mississippi 8,645 381 29,067 1,280

Missouri 17,792 377 43,799 928

Montana 1,074 131 9,132 1,115

Nebraska 1,088 76 13,489 937

Nevada 5,261 230 13,724 601

New Hampshire 2,436 226 3,939 366

New Jersey 15,128 217 140,589 2,015

New Mexico 2,780 175 12,714 798

New York 44,426 285 97,928 628

North Carolina 12,726 161 82,466 1,044

North Dakota 804 138 6,341 1,090

Ohio 19,634 218 236,754 2,624

Oklahomag 1,895 64 33,562 1,129

Oregon 24,711 760 36,658 1,127

Pennsylvania 111,087 1,097 180,492 1,783

Rhode Island 460 54 22,781 2,680

South Carolina 4,347 112 32,634 839

South Dakota 2,687 410 6,610 1,009

Tennessee 12,092 234 62,609 1,209

Texas 111,287 537 374,285 1,805

Utah 3,707 172 12,229 568

Vermont 935 185 4,904 969

Virginia 1,650 25 60,821 927

Washington 11,322 198 89,317 1,565

West Virginia 3,550 244 6,523 448

Wisconsin 20,401 453 44,489 988

Wyoming 842 189 4,666 1,046

Conclusion

..Not known.

Source: From “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016,” by D. Kaeble, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ ppus16.pdf ).

Conclusion This brief look at the federal and state systems leads us to consider the enormity of cor- rectional undertakings in the United States. Corrections is driven by a number of aims, and sometimes those aims are in competition with one another. It is impossible to speak about corrections in the United States in terms of simple aims and structures. The issues are com- plex and often feature topics that have unspecified numbers of seemingly or actually incalcu- lable variables.

The remainder of this book will explore corrections from different perspectives and topics. The goal is to provide you with a well-grounded understanding of the U.S. correctional sys- tem. Corrections is a complex entity, encompassing many programs, perspectives, and struc- tures. Learning about corrections is not restricted to the content of this book, however. We hope you will think about the application of what you learn in these pages and ask further questions. You are encouraged to move beyond the concepts and ideas presented here and explore corrections at a deeper level. This may involve other readings, learning from correc- tional professionals, visiting a correctional facility or a community-based correctional center, or working in corrections either as an employee or volunteer.

Our experience—as authors who write about corrections and as people who have worked in corrections and with correctional professionals over 3 decades—is that correctional work is never boring but always challenging. As you read this book, think about how you would contribute to the correctional enterprise. Remember that correctional work ultimately deals with people, some of whom can be unpleasant or difficult. Yet at the end of the day, regard- less of the correctional aim being pursued, working in corrections means having some type of impact. That impact is directly felt by others, whether it is a life changed by a correctional intervention or a society that is better protected due to offenders being placed in institutions. Corrections personnel believe that they can have an impact on crime and criminals. This effect may be minimal in some cases, but taken as a whole, corrections has a huge impact on society, the offenders placed under correctional authority, and the people who do correctional work.

Key Ideas • Corrections in America is a huge effort, with approximately 6.5 million people under

its authority. • The United States has a higher proportion of its citizens under correctional supervi-

sion than any other country in the world. • There are many correctional aims, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation,

rehabilitation, reintegration, and restoration. • Correctional aims oftentimes compete with one another, and there is no standard

priority of one correctional aim over another correctional aim. • The menu in corrections is limited to three alternatives: incarceration, community-

based corrections, and the death penalty. • Corrections is found both at the federal level of government and the state level of

government.

Conclusion

• Almost two thirds of all people under correctional supervision at the federal level are within institutional settings.

• Corrections at the state level is organized along departments and divisions. • The centralization of correctional efforts is difficult to achieve, given the political and

practical issues that exist within the states. • Though prison populations steadily increased over a 30-year period in the United

States, recent years (beginning around 2009) have seen a general decline. • Community supervision is a correctional strategy that stresses the importance of

organizing community resources to address criminal offending. • Corrections is a far more complex undertaking than most people imagine.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. How would you explain the differences found among correctional systems in the

United States? 2. Why are there “competing aims” when discussing correctional aims? 3. Which correctional aim would you argue is the most important and why? 4. Why does the United States have such a large prison population? 5. Can you imagine correctional systems being organized any differently from how they

are arranged today?

Key Terms community supervision The use of the community as a resource to manage offend- ers. Probation and parole are the most vis- ible elements of community supervision.

correctional aims The varied purposes that corrections is attempting to achieve.

correctional menu The correctional strat- egies used in the United States.

death penalty The ultimate sentence, which requires the taking of an offender’s life.

Department of Corrections (or Division of Corrections) A state or federal agency designated by law to manage correctional populations, which can include both incar- cerated offenders and those managed in the community.

deterrence Actions designed to send a message to the offender and society that criminal offending is not acceptable.

incapacitation The imposition of a restraint on an offender such that crimi- nal wrongdoing is not possible (e.g., imprisonment).

incarceration The use of a correctional facility (e.g., jail or prison) to house criminal offenders.

rehabilitation Changing the offender’s behavior from criminal to positive and law abiding.

reintegration The use of the community as a resource to instill law-abiding behavior in offenders.

restoration Creating a balance of the needs of the offender, the victim, and the com- munity as a way to promote law-abiding behavior.

retribution An aim of punishment as the primary response to criminal wrongdoing.

Conclusion

third-level alternatives Alternatives out- side the normal range of sentencing options, such as prisons and probation, including electronic monitoring and house arrest.

Web Resources The website of the U.S. Department of Justice at the federal level of government. It provides useful data regarding the workings of criminal justice agencies at both the federal level of government and the state level of government. https://www.justice.gov

The website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which generates reports and statistical information concerning crime and criminal justice agencies’ responses to crime. https://www.bjs.gov

This is the official website of the American Correctional Association, the largest organiza- tion of correctional professionals in the world. It provides training seminars and work- shops, as well as publications and products, to its members. http://www.aca.org

A website dedicated to providing basic and more detailed information concerning cor- rectional issues. It has many great references to current and evolving case law that affects corrections. http://www.corrections.com

A progressive organization dedicated to providing information to citizens, politicians, and correctional professionals regarding alternatives to current sentencing schemes and cor- rectional practices. http://www.sentencingproject.org

Additional Resources This book highlights the growing concern of the mass incarceration of African Americans in the United States.

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press.

This article offers an opportunity to further consider how rehabilitation may associate with correctional objective of lowering recidivism.

Berenji, B., Chou, T., & D’Orsogna, M. R. (2014). Recidivism and rehabilitation of crimi- nal offenders: A carrot and stick evolutionary game. Plos ONE, 9(1), 1–13.

This book examines the effects of the mass incarceration movement in America.

Clear, T. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

This article explores questions on proportionality with regard to punishment and offers additional context for questions on sentencing objectives.

Deigh, J. (2014). Punishment and proportionality. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(3), 185.

Conclusion

This article considers how correctional practitioners view issues that relate to reintegration.

Gunnison, E., Helfgott, J. B., & Wilhelm, C. (2015). Correctional practitioners on reentry: A missed perspective. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 2(1), 32–54.

This article discusses how rehabilitative efforts through educational frameworks may be used to further goals for lowering recidivism.

Hall, L. L. (2015). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(2), 4–29.

This article includes an exploration of questions on how community correctional frame- works may associate with the correctional objective of deterrence.

Klingele, C. (2015). What are we hoping for? Defining purpose in deterrence-based cor- rectional programs. Minnesota Law Review, 99(5), 1631–1663.

This article reviews rational frameworks for punishment in contexts that relate to ques- tions on purposes in sentencing

Lecture, W. & Hylton, K. N. (2018). Whom should we punish, and how? Rational incen- tives and criminal just reform. William & Mary Law Review, 59(6), 2513–2573.

This article considers the effects of rehabilitative efforts in parole settings.

Peters, D., Hochstetler, A., DeLisi, M., & Kuo, H. (2015). Parolee recidivism and suc- cessful treatment completion: Comparing hazard models across propensity methods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 149–181.

This article provides an opportunity to further explore the case of correctional population reductions in California in connection with the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Plata, which is discussed in this chapter. Petersilia (2014) considers how the ruling in this case impacted local-level jurisdictions in California.

Petersilia, J. (2014). California prison downsizing and its impact on local criminal jus- tice systems. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 8(2), 327–357.

This classic book explores the role of class conf lict and who becomes the object of concern for the criminal justice system.

Reiman, J. (2012). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (10th ed.). Marion, IN: Pearson Academic Computing.

This book presents a review of various criminal justice practices and policies.

Walker. S. (2011). Sense and nonsense about crime, drugs, and communities: A policy guide (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

This article explores the inf luence of incapacitation as a correctional framework.

Wermink, H., Apel, R., Nieuwbeerta, P., & Blokland, A. (2013). The incapacitation effect of first-time imprisonment: A matched samples comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(4), 579–600.