CCJS 100 – Corrections - DUE FRIDAY

8.1. A Brief History of The Philosophies of Punishment

DAVID CARTER

A Brief History of Punishment Feeling safe and secure in person and home is arguably one of the most discussed feelings in our nation

today. The “fear of crime” influences how we think and act day to day. This has caused great fluctuation

in the United States in regards to how we punish people who are convicted of violating the law. In part,

punishment comes from the will of the people, which is then carried out through the legislative process, and

converted into sentencing practices. People have differing views on why people should be punished, and

how much punishment they should receive. These correctional ideologies, or philosophical underpinnings

of punishment, have been prevalent throughout history, and are not brand new in the United States. This

section details basic concepts of some of the more frequently held punishment ideologies, which include:

retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.

In the News: One of the more frequently used statistics in the news about crime is homicides in the United States. Often, you will hear something about a homicide rate or the number of homicides in a

state, or a city for a particular year. An interesting clarifier about this number is that it typically does

not include a number of deaths in prison. Deaths in prison occur every year, yet these are not normally

counted in any statistic. In 2014, there were approximately 3,927 deaths that occurred in prisons in the

United States. There are a variety of reasons for these deaths, to include homicide. For more information

on this, look up – Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI). This is also formerly known as Deaths

in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The Bureau of Justice Statistics houses and publishes data on

this phenomenon. Additionally, this is a voluntary reporting structure, which may actually not capture all

deaths that occur in prison. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=243

Philosophies of Punishment Example

311

Two stories come on during the crime section of the 6 o’clock news. In the first story, a man is described as a

convicted sex offender. He is living at an address that you know is in your city. Citizens that live on the streets

nearby his address are shown picketing in front of his house, voicing their displeasure that he is allowed to live

there. The video shows how angry the neighborhood is, and you can visibly see their frustration and angst on the

people’s faces in the news clip.

The second story is of a woman who was detained (shown in the back of a squad car) for stealing food from a

local grocery store, apparently to feed her children. The store manager is then on the screen describing that he is

offering to donate the food to her so that she does not have to spend time in jail or get into any more trouble.

How do these two stories make you feel? Is it the same feeling for each story? Does one of these stories make

you feel more afraid of crime? More angry or upset? Which one? Who deserves to get punished more? How much

punishment should they get? The answers to questions like these instantly flood our thoughts as we are watching

news blurbs like this, and in general, when we hear about a crime. This is all normal. And, this process is what

generates our own personal punishment ideology.

Now, which one of these two individuals has actually committed a crime? A second point to this story is that our

perceptions of punishment can be influenced by the narrative (what is presented to us).

Although the change in our overall perception or use of the rehabilitation ideology is slow, it is necessary.

As we will see in the next sections, our reliance on the “Brick and Mortar” approach to punishment comes

at a great cost, and the results are less than desirable.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

312

8.2. Retribution

DAVID CARTER

Retribution Retribution, arguably the oldest of the ideologies/philosophies of punishment, is the only backward-

looking philosophy of punishment. That is, the primary goal of retribution (in its original form) is to

ensure that punishments are proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed, regardless of the

individual differences between offenders, other than mens rea and an understanding of moral culpability. Thus, retribution focuses on the past offense, rather than the offender. This can be phrased as “a balance

of justice for past harm.” People committing the same crime should receive a punishment of the same type

and duration that balances out the crime that was committed. The term-backward-looking means that the

punishment does not address anything in the future, only for the past harm done.

It is argued as the oldest of the main correctional/punishment ideologies because it comes from a basic

concept of revenge, or “an eye for an eye.” This concept of an eye for an eye, or vengeance, basically means

that if someone perceives harm, they are within their right to retaliate at a proportional level. This idea that

retaliation against a transgression is allowable has ancient roots in the concept of Lex Talionis, which roughly

translates into the law of retaliation. A person who injures someone should be punished with a similar

amount of harm (punishment). This concept was developed in early Babylonian law, and it is here that we

see some of the first written forms of customs and practices. Thus, around 1780 b.c., the Babylonian Code,

or the Code of Hammurabi, is considered the first attempt to codify practices by individuals of a group.

We recognize these today to be our first attempt at written laws. These laws (pictured below) represent a

retributive approach to punishment. That is proportional punishments for past harms done.

313

Hammurabi Code

The retributivist philosophy also calls for any suffering beyond what was originally intended during

sentencing to be removed. This is because the dosage of punishment is the core principle of retribution:

offenders who commit the same crime must receive the same punishment. Punishments beyond the original

balancing of justice for the past harm is outside of the scope of retribution, and thus, does not fit with

retribution. This also helps to explain why retribution is a backward-looking ideology. As we continue

forward in the history of punishment, we see changes to our perceptions of how to react to crime. This

includes our changing views of punishment, to include punishment ideologies that are more forward-

looking.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

314

8.3. Deterrence

DAVID CARTER

Deterrence Forward-looking ideologies are designed to provide punishment, but also to reduce the level of

reoffending (recidivism) through some type of change, while the backward-looking approach is solely for the punishment of the offender’s past actions. This change in how we view punishment is a large

shift that has ripples in culture, the politic of the times, and even religion. Moving many eras forward

from Hammurabi, deterrence is the next major punishment ideology. Rooted in the concepts of classical

criminology, deterrence is designed to punish current behavior(s), but also ward off future behaviors through

sanctions or threats of sanctions. Moreover, it can be focused on a group or on one individual. Thus, the

basic concept of deterrence is “the reduction of offending (and future offending) through the sanction or threat of sanction.”

When looking at punishment through this deterrent design, it can be split into two distinct categories:

general and specific. Specific deterrence is geared towards trying to teach the individual offender a lesson. It is meant to better that individual so they will not recidivate. By punishing the offender (or threatening

a sanction), it is assumed they will not commit a crime again. It is this point that makes deterrence a

forward-looking theory of punishment. General deterrence runs along the same track as specific deterrence.

However, general deterrence differs by when one person offends, the punishment received is going to be the same for all. In this way, the group doing the punishing attempts to relay the message of future events to

the masses. If someone commits this act, they will be punished; this is part of the core design for deterrence.

Some other principles of deterrence to discuss in brief are: marginal, absolute, and displacement. Marginal

deterrence works on the principle that the action itself is only reduced in amount by the offender, not

removed. An example of this would be, a person sees a police officer sitting on the side of the freeway. If

they are driving 70 mph, they might slow to 58 mph. Technically, they may still be breaking the law, yet

their level of criminal behavior has been reduced. Absolute deterrence is a surrealistic concept often thought

to be created by Robert Peel, in his idea of creating a police force to remove all crime. In today’s standards,

we know this to be false. There is little to no evidence to support that all crime can be deterred within a

specific area, or even in general. Displacement argues that crime is not deterred, but rather, it is shifted on

three levels. It may be shifted by time, location, or the type of crime committed. Instead of someone stealing

cars on the weekend, they may sell drugs during the day. Although the weekend crime carjacking rate will

decrease, the daily drug trade will increase.

315

In order for all of these principles of deterrence to work, the people who are involved (meaning society

as a whole) must have a conceptual (perceived) idea of the level of punishment they will receive. For the

efficacy of this theory, three key things must be instilled within each individual in society. They must have

free will, some amount of rationality, and felicity. Free will refers to everyone’s ability to make choices about

their future actions, like choosing when to offend and not offend. They must also have a rationalistic ability

(ability to be rational) to see what the outcomes of their choices will be. The third element, hedonism (or

a hedonistic calculus), is essential. We must desire more pleasurable things than harmful ones. It is more

probable that crime will be deterred if all three of these elements are in place within society. This is both a

strength and weakness of the deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory works on these three key elements: certainty, celerity, and severity, in incremental steps. First, by making certain, or at least making the public think that their offenses are not going to go

unpunished, then there will be a deterrent factor. As Beccaria relates, this is the most important of these

three elements within deterrence theory. The celerity, or swiftness of punishment, is a secondary factor in

rationalizing for the offender. If they know how swift the punishment will be, they will not offend. These

concepts were cornerstones to the works of Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), an Italian philosopher in the latter

half of the 18th century. Beccaria’s works were profound, and many of his concepts helped to shape the U.S.

Bill of Rights. He is also considered the Father of the Classical School of Criminology, and a prominent

figure in penology. According to Beccaria, “For punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has

only to exceed the advantage derivable from the crime… All beyond this is superfluous and for that reason

tyrannical.” 1

1. Beccaria, 1764/1963, 43.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

316

Cesare_Beccaria_1738-1794.jpg

In saying this, Beccaria refers to the severity or amount of punishment. It is not how much punishment that

is the primary motivator of deterrence, rather, the certainty. If deterrence is to work, the ideology of the

punishment is what should drive this goal of corrections.

Today, we have a better understanding of the effectiveness of deterrence. It does appear to work for lower

level offenses, and for individuals that are generally prosocial. However, the overall effect of deterrence is

limited. For more detail on things to know about deterrence, please see: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/

247350.pdf

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

317

8.4. Incapacitation

DAVID CARTER

Incapacitation Rooted in the concepts of banishing individuals from society, incapacitation is the removal of an

individual (from society), for a set amount of time, so as they cannot commit crimes (in society) for an

amount of time in the future. In British history, this often occurred on Hulks. Hulks were large ships that carried convicted individuals off to far away lands. The point was to not allow them to be able to commit

crimes in their community any longer.

318

The_Warrior_prison_ship.JPG

In the 1950s, punishment became much more of a political topic in the United States, and this is one of the

issues that started this section, our perceptions of the fear of crime. Lawmakers, justicians, and others began

to campaign with their toughness on crime, using the fear of crime and the criminal element to benefit

their agendas. One of the examples of being tough on crime was the use of long periods of incarceration

in general. This could be considered as collective incapacitation, or the incarceration of large groups of individuals to remove their ability to commit crimes for a set amount of time in the future.

Since this time, and most greatly exacerbated in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been the increasing use of

punishment by prison sentences. Thus, we saw rapid growth in the prison population in the United States.

The ‘politicization of punishment’ increased the overall prisoner levels in two ways. First, by changing the

views toward the discretion allowed to decision makers, we have gotten tougher on crime. In turn, more

people are being sentenced to prison that may have otherwise gone to a specialized probation or community

sanction alternatives. Second, these same attitudes have led to harsher and lengthier punishments for certain

crimes. Offenders are being sent away for longer sentences, which has caused the intake-to-release ratio to

change, causing enormous buildups of the prison population.

The incapacitative ideology followed this design for several decades. In the early 1990s, policies were

implemented that would target individuals more specifically. These would come to be known as “three-

strikes” policies. These policies would incarcerate an individual for greater lengths of time, based on prior

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

319

offenses. The selective incapacitation philosophy incarcerated individuals for longer periods of time than others. Thus, it removed their individual ability to commit crimes (in society) for greater periods of time in

the future than others.

There are mixed feelings about selective and collective incapacitation. Policymakers would promote their

utility through anecdotal examples of locking certain offenders away, in order to help assuage the fear of

crime. Others have offered that there are minimal savings at best, stating that these goals do not achieve the

intended results as previously suggested. 1

Future styles of selective incapacitation that have evolved include

tighter crime control strategies that incorporate variated sentencing strategies to selectively incapacitate the

higher rate offender. Others opt for tougher parole procedures to retain the hardened criminals longer.

In sum, we do see a definite shift from the insignificance of collective incapacitation, to a more selective

approach.

In all, we are still left with the same questions, does it work? And, at what cost? Do these lengthier

punishments for particular crimes have an effect by selectively incapacitating hardened criminals? Are there

other methods that seem the same or are more effective than the ones already in practice? This takes us to

the last of the four main punishment ideologies, rehabilitation.

1. Blokland, A.A.J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. J (2007). Selectively incapacitating frequent offenders: Costs and benefits of various penal scenarios. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23: 327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9033-3

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

320

8.5. Rehabilitation

DAVID CARTER

Rehabilitation Although not as old as some of the older ideologies, rehabilitation is not brand new. Additionally, it is the

only one of the four main ideologies that most accurately attempts to address all three goals of corrections,

which are:

1. Punish the offender

2. Protect Society

3. Rehabilitate the offender.

Certainly, all four ideologies address the first two goals, punishment, and societal protection. However,

the goal of rehabilitating the offender is either silent, or not addressed in retribution, deterrence, or

incapacitation. This does come as a cost. As we will talk about in more detail when covering prisons and

jails, there is a great paradox that is happening in our society when we heavily rely on jails and prisons. Most

offenders will come out of institutions (roughly 95% of all people who enter prisons are released), and little is

done to change them while they are there. This is mostly due to our attitudes towards offenders, the policies

that are necessarily placed on individuals while they are locked up, and the institutions themselves. And yet,

there is the expectation that these individual leaving prisons will not commit crimes in the future.

The question here is this: what have we done to change them so that they are not reoffending? Without

the incorporation of some form of rehabilitation, the answer is fairly clear… Nothing. Yet, we expect it.

Rehabilitation has taken on different forms through its history in the United States. We have considered

individuals out of touch with God, and so offenders needed to be penitent, in order to get right with God.

One of America’s earliest prisons was designed with this in mind. The Eastern State Penitentiary, opening

in 1829, included outside reflection yards; so that offenders could look up to God for penance.

To see more of this prison, visit https://www.easternstate.org/.

Reformatories were another example of how rehabilitation was viewed in the past. The reform movement

tried to rehabilitate the offender through more humane treatment, to include basic education, religious

services, work experience, and general reform efforts. This was done in an effort to reform individuals, thus

allowing them to come back to society. The Elmira Reformatory was one of the earliest efforts of the reform

ideal, and many prisons built in the United States were based on this prison. Below is a picture of Elmira.

321

Elmira Reformatory

Other attempts at rehabilitation included more medical approaches. In the past, offenders were viewed

as sick, and in need of medical cures. This medical approach, while greatly reduced, is still used in some

areas today. For example, the chemical castration of certain offenders does still occur. For example HB 2543,

in Oklahoma, in September of 2018, focuses on the mandated use of medroxyprogesterone acetate as a

treatment, and is required before appropriate release of convicted sex offenders.

Rehabilitation, as an ideology has had critics. This is in large part due to how it is perceived. Many

have voiced an objection, as it is seen as being “soft” on offenders. This is also how it has been discounted

when coupled with the fear of crime. Several examples are presented as to its ineffectiveness, and weakness

to the problem of crime. Probably the most notable example of the ineffectiveness of rehabilitation came

in the 1970s. In 1974, Robert Martinson provided support for many that were clambering to demonstrate

that the ideas of rehabilitation were ineffective. In a review of over 230 programs, Martinson concluded

that “With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been undertaken so far have had

no appreciative effect on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974, p. 25). 1

This was the spark that many needed to

turn toward the more punitive ideologies that we have so far discussed. However, it did help some to ask

more detailed questions about why rehabilitation was not working. Additionally, it helped researchers to ask

more critical questions about measurement, how to more properly evaluate rehabilitation and to understand

the difference of what does not work versus what does work for offenders. These principles of effective

intervention become the cornerstone of modern rehabilitation.

Understanding Risk and Needs in Rehabilitation

1. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest 35, 22-54.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

322

Today’s rehabilitative efforts do still carry punishment and societal protection as goals, but the focus of

rehabilitation is on the changing of offenders behaviors so that they are not committing crimes in the future.

This is done by understanding what are the items that make offenders at risk for offending. Additionally,

based on the levels of risk items, some offenders are at higher risk for offending than other offenders. This

includes items like prior criminal history, antisocial attitudes, antisocial (pro-criminal) friends, a lack of

education, family or marital problems, a lack of job stability, substance abuse, and personality characteristics

(mental health and antisocial personality). Collectively these are considered as risk factors for offending

(re-offending). While we can change the number of priors someone already has, all of these other items

can be addressed. These are considered as criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are items that when

changed, can lower an individual’s risk of offending. This is a core component of Paul Gendreau’s (1996)

principles of effective intervention, and are at the heart of most modern effective rehabilitation programs. 2

Additionally, thousands of offenders have been assessed on these items, which has helped to develop

evidence-based rehabilitation practices. These are efforts that are based on empirical data about offenders.

When these criminogenic needs are addressed, higher-risk offenders demonstrate positive reductions in their

risk to offend.

Over the last 40 years, efforts to change these characteristics, in order to reduce offending have been

varied. One of the most useful approaches to changing the antisocial attitudes and behaviors of offenders

has come in the form of behavioral and cognitive behavioral change efforts. Cognitive behavioral change

for offenders is based on the concepts that the behaviors that one exhibit can be changed by changing

the thinking patterns behind (before) the behaviors are exhibited. That is (criminal) behavior is based on

cognition, values, and beliefs that are learned vicariously through the interactions and observations of others.

It is especially relevant since we are receiving individuals from prison, where these ideas, peers, values, and

beliefs may dominate the institution. For a more detailed explanation, please see https://www.apa.org/ptsd-

guideline/patients-and-families/cognitive-behavioral.pdf.

Today, evidence-based rehabilitative efforts are now used as benchmarks when establishing programs that

are seen as effective, versus ones that show little to no (or even negative) results. Rehabilitation programs

that follow these principles of effective intervention are showing that they can achieve these three goals of

corrections (punishment, societal protection, and offender change). In fact, the U.S. Federal Government has

a section of the National Institute of Justice devoted to these evidence-based practices, and what programs

are seen as effective, promising, and not effective. This site is called “CrimeSolutions,” and can be visited

at https://www.crimesolutions.gov/. This resource provides invaluable information for individuals making

decisions on what works for offenders and is based on empirical studies of hundreds of different approaches.

2. Gendreau, P. (1996). Principles of effective intervention with offenders. Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply, 117-130, Alan T Harland, ed. -- See NCJ-158983) https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ abstract.aspx?ID=158988

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

323

8.6. Prisons and Jails

DAVID CARTER

Learning Objectives

This section focuses on prisons and jails in the United States. We start with a brief historical account of prisons

and jails in America. We then turn to our current situation of prisons and jails, to include types, function, and

volume. After reading this section, students should be able to:

• Understand the emergence of prisons and jails in the United States

• Recognize the different types of jails

• Recognize the different types of prisons

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Explain the operational process of most jails in the United States today. Where does this come from

historically?

2. How does the difference in the type of jail influence how the jail is managed?

3. Explain the similarities and differences in the two early types of prisons in the United States.

4. Explain the current operational process of most State prisons in the United States today. Where does

this come from historically?

324

8.7. A Brief History of Prisons and Jails

DAVID CARTER

The Growth of Jails in the United States The concept of a jail (GOAL – old English spelling) is yet another concept that we have carried with

us from Western Europe (England, etc…) when the United States was first forming. Spawning from the

County-level establishment and management of jails in England; these have largely been run by County

Sheriffs in the United States, ever since we began to have them. They have had various names, depending on

their function and use, such as Bridewells, and Workhouses. Pictured below is what is commonly accepted as the first “built” structure to house individuals that have been processed through the courts, the Walnut

Street Jail. Opening around 1790, this facility housed both jail inmates, and at some points in time convicted

offenders.

325

Goal_in_Walnut_Street_Philadelphia_Birch’s_views_plate_24_(cropped).jpg

Later, labeled as a prison (as depicted by the historical marker below), the Walnut Street Jail was a blueprint

for later prison construction, which we discuss in the latter half of this chapter.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

326

Walnut Street Prison Historical Marker

As the United States began to populate, county lines began to be drawn up for States earning Statehood.

Sheriffs began to police their Counties, and also be responsible for managing the lower level infractions

(misdemeanors) within their jurisdictions. Thus, County Jails began to flourish in the United States. Initially,

many jails were nothing more than parts of a Sheriff’s office, literally, cells in the back room. Today, large

structures (even multiple structures in a single county) constitute jails in the United States. Overall, we have

seen changes in the growth of jails in the United States. While we were certainly growing in the number of

jails as States gained Statehood, there has been a shift in jails structures. The vast majority of jails are small in

size. There are few larger jails, but they hold more individuals. As can be seen in a report from Cahalan and

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

327

Parsons (1986), and reports by Harrison and Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), the numbers of

jails has changed immensely. 12

Table 2-1 Jails in the United States

This is due to a variety of reasons, to include: inclusion or exclusion of Youth Facilities, Native American

Facilities, Privately Owned Facilities, and reporting structures (who reports a jail in a given year). Based on

these fluctuations, it is difficult to get an exact count of jails each year. However, it appears that there are

roughly 3,300 jails in the United States today.

1. Cahalan, M. W., & Parsons, L. A. (1986). Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850-1984. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcsus5084.pdf

2. Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Prisons and jail inmates at midyear, 2005.BJS Bulletin. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ pjim05.pdf

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

328

8.8. Types of Jails

DAVID CARTER

Jails vary greatly in function and size. For example, the vast majority of jails hold less than 50 jail detainees

each (roughly 2,000 jails). Yet, the 50 biggest jails hold over half of the total number of detainees, more than

350,000 in the 50 biggest jails. 1

For example, Los Angeles County Jail is actually a system of buildings spread

across LA County, which includes the Inmate Reception Center, North Facility, South Facility, LOMA,

Twin Towers, Men’s Central, just to name a few of the facilities. For a more detailed description of the jail

facilities in L.A. County Jail, please see http://shq.lasdnews.net/pages/tgen1.aspx?id=as1.

While most jails are run by County Sheriff, there are some jails that are managed by cities or jurisdictions.

For example, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. all have their own jails, which are

not managed directly by the county in which they reside.

Jails also vary by how they are designed. While there are others, jails can be separated into two broad types,

the older generation, and the new generation. Older generation jails are jails that are typically linear in design, with cell doors separating rooms or sections down long corridors. Many jails operate with this design.

Newer generation jails are more podular in design, where multiple cells face a central area. Additionally, when these podular designs are used, a direct supervision approach is also often used. Direct supervision is

where there are no particular barriers between the deputies and the detainees within a facility. For example,

the image below depicts what a direct supervision jail may look like.

New Generation Jail Design

1. Minton, T. D. (2012). Jail inmates at midyear, statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ jim11st.pdf

329

As you can see in the image, the operational booth (immediate left) is open to access the day area or common

area, and the doors of the cells for this jail section open to this space. Below is an image of the older

generation, linear style of jail. This typically uses the indirect supervision approach.

Older Generation Jail Design

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

330

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

331

8.9. Who Goes to Jail?

DAVID CARTER

One of the more fascinating aspects of jails in the United States is who gets placed in them. The short answer

is everyone. Whenever someone is arrested, this typically starts their process in the criminal justice system.

While it might not be the first time they have been arrested, this action places them en route to a jail. Thus,

jails are a collection point for many differing agencies, to include: County Sheriff’s Office, Municipal, local,

City – Police. State Police may send individuals directly to jail, even Federal agencies may use a local jail

as a point of entry. For example, ICE (immigration and customs enforcement) houses many thousands of

ICE-holds in jails across the country. Jails hold all kinds of individuals. While this list is not comprehensive,

it does present many of the types of people held in jails:

• Felons and Misdemeanants

• First time and repeat offenders

• Those awaiting arraignment or trial

• Accused and Convicted

• Parolees stepping down from prison

• Juveniles pending transfer

• Those with mental illness awaiting transfer

• Chronic alcoholics and Drug abusers

• Those held for the military

• Those held for federal agencies

• Protective custody

• Witnesses

• Those in contempt of court

• Persons awaiting transfer to state, federal or other local authorities

• Temporarily detained persons

332

As one can see from this list, there are many types of people in the 3,300 plus jails at any given time. In fact,

at any given point in time, there are 700,000 plus individuals within jails in the United States. This number

has steadily increased since the 1970s. While there have been some decreases in recent years, it generally

fluctuates around 725,000 to 750,000 jail inmates. However, this is only one portion of the people in jails.

It is estimated that roughly 11 million people process through America’s jails annually. Average lengths of

stay vary by jurisdiction, but a general average is that a person spends around 25 days in jail. As Wagner and

Sawyer (2018) depict in the picture below, the types of people in jail at a point in time is varied. 1

Snapshot of Individuals in Jail

Who goes to jail?

Probably one of the most notable items in the snapshot above is the proportions of individuals that are or

are not convicted. Roughly 63% of individuals in jails at any given time are not convicted. Other notable

groups are individuals held for other agencies. This could be a matter of processing time or allocations of bed

space. In all, it is relatively easy to see the volumes and different types of people that pass through a jail in this

graphic. Still, jails only make up one portion of the brick-and-mortar approach to punishment. Prisons are

the other large part.

1. Wagner, P., & Sawyer, W. (2018). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2018. Available at the Prison Policy Organization https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

333

8.10. Growth of Prisons in the United States

DAVID CARTER

As mentioned at the beginning of this section on jails and prisons, the Walnut Street Jail is recognized as

the first built institution in the United States to house individuals. Soon after, another prison was built, the

Eastern State Penitentiary (ESP), and it ran like a prison for nearly 150 years. Many of the prisons today

were first built on this idea of a separated penitent prison. Many of the cells in the prison (as depicted below)

would open to individual courtyards where individuals could look up and “get right with God,” hence the

concept of penitentiary (penance).

Eastern State Penitentiary Design

The State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Lithograph by P.S: Duval and Co., 1855.

334

Individuals in ESP spent much of their time in their cells, or in their own reflection yards, reading

the bible, praying, and always in silence. The solitude was also a way to serve penance. Shortly after the

implementation of ESP, another prison was built in New York, in 1819, named the Auburn prison. This

prison would become the leader of the second main prison style, the Auburn prison system. Many of the

facets of the ESP were in the Auburn, save one. Auburn utilized a congregate system, which meant that (still

in silence) the inmates would gather to do tasks or work.

Prison Growth in the United States

Proliferation1900-2000

This concept of labor eventually replaced the ideals of constant solitude. The congregate system took hold as

the dominant model for many prisons, and many states began to model their prisons on the Auburn prison.

Notably, Auburn was also the prison where the first death by electric chair was executed in 1890. Today,

there are roughly 1,700 State or municipal prisons in the United States. As the images demonstrate, it is clear

that many of the prisons in the U.S. have been built more recently.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

335

8.11. Types of Prisons

DAVID CARTER

Prisons in the United States can be parcelled out by jurisdiction and by intensity. By jurisdiction, this is

referring to who manages the prisons. A prison warden is generally considered the managerial face of the

institution. However, a prison warden and the prison itself is usually within a much larger organizational

structure. Although not always, these are usually separated by State. There are a few jurisdictions not at the

State level that manage or operate prisons. This includes places like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and

Washington D.C. Puerto Rico (not a State) also has a prison, as does the U.S. territory of the Virgin Islands.

State Prisons The normal label for the organizational structure of prisons in a particular State is often called Departments

of Corrections and are run by a Director, who is usually appointed by a Governor. For example, in

Oregon, it is the Oregon Department of Corrections, and Director Peters is the current head of this

organization (2012-present). The Oregon Department of Corrections currently overseas 14 State prisons.

More information about the ODOC can be found here: https://www.oregon.gov/doc/Pages/default.aspx.

California has the California Department of Corrections, and Secretary Diaz is the head of this organization

(2018 to present). CDCR oversees 34 adult institutions. For more information about CDCR, see

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/.

Federal Prisons The Federal Bureau of Prisons was established in the early 1930s as a result of the need to house an

increasing number of individuals convicted of federal crimes. There were already some federal prisons in

place, but it was not until 1930 that the U.S. Congress passed legislation to create the BOP, housing it under

the justice department. Sanford Bates became the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP or

BOP), based on his long-standing work as an organizer and leader at Elmira Reformatory in New York. As

more federal legislation was passed, the need for more prisons became apparent.

Today, the BOP has 109 prisons, along with numerous additional facilities (camps) adjoining at these

locations. There are also military prisons, and alternative facilities, reentry centers, and training centers, that

are managed by the BOP. The federal prisons are separated into six regions., which include: the Mid-

Atlantic Region, the North Central Region, the Northeast Region, the Southeast Region, the South Central

Region, and the Western Region.

Within these regions are regional directors, which is similar to state-level directors of departments of

corrections. Below is a detailed map of the regions of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As is depicted, there are

336

several different types of facilities within each region. A central office is also designated for each of the six

regions. Click on the link in the annotation of the map to see it in a larger scale.

FBOP Regional Map

BOP Regional map

Private Prisons The privatization of goods and services has long been a staple of state departments of corrections, as it

allows these organizations to subcontract specific tasks within their prisons. This includes services like food

and transportation services, medical, dental, and mental health services, education services, even laundry

services. As mentioned in the previous section on punishment, there was much ado about crime in the

United States in the 1970s and 1980s. This brought on an increased fear of crime and a more punitive state

within the United States. It was during this time that a small company known as Wackenhut, a subsidiary of

The Wackenhut Corporation (TWC) sought to privatize the entirety of a prison, not just services within the

prison. A second company, Corrections Corporation of America ultimately won the contract and became

the first privately owned prison in the United States (1984). Today, Core Civic (formerly Corrections

Corporation of America) runs approximately 128 facilities in the United States. 1

The GEO Group, the other

1. See Core Civic facilities map: http://www.corecivic.com/facilities

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

337

primary private prison company runs 136 correctional, detention, or reentry facilities. 2

Pictured below,

roughly half of the 50 States in America use private prison industry prisons.

States Using Private Prison Industry

Private Prison State Map

Much debate has come from the incorporation of private prisons. The critics of private prisons denote

the lack of transparency in the reporting processes that would come from a normal prison. Still, others

tackle a bigger issue – punishment for profit. That is – while taxpayers ultimately pay for all punishment

of individuals, either at the State or Federal level, shareholders and administrators of the companies are

making money by punishing people, under the guise of capitalism. For a more in-depth review of this,

see a report presented by the Sentencing Project: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-

prisons-united-states/ and on NPR: https://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-

drive-ariz-immigration-law

2. See Geo Group facilities map: https://www.geogroup.com/LOCATIONS

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

338

8.12. Prison Levels

DAVID CARTER

Each of these jurisdictions of prisons also has varying degrees of intensity or seriousness. These are often

considered prison levels or classifications. Depending on the State, the BOP, or even in the private sector,

it is usually associated with the seriousness of the offenders that are housed within these institutions. For

example, many States have three classification levels: minimum, medium, and maximum. Some States have

a fourth level called super-maximum. Others call this close, or administrative level. The BOP has five levels,

minimum, low, medium, high, and unclassified. Although not a true designation, and would be considered

an unclassified, administrative control, ADX Florence is a United States Penitentiary (USP) that would be

counted as a super-max. It houses the most dangerous individuals at the Federal level. Although not in

operation today, Alcatraz was probably the most famous Federal USP (also considered a super-max at one

point). It too housed the most dangerous federal inmates. Below are two images of this iconic prison, known

as the “rock.”

Alcatraz

339

Alcatraz

Alcatraz in the Bay against the Backdrop of San Francisco

Alcatraz in the Bay against the Backdrop of San Francisco

Other States use a simple number designator to assign prison intensity, such as Level I, Level II, Level III,

Level IV, and sometimes Level V. While still, other States incorporate a Camp to their list of designations,

indicating a specific purpose within the low level, such as a Fire Camp. These types of camps are dedicated

to fighting fires. In all there are some basic concepts to point out for each type:

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

340

Minimum – These prisons usually have dorm style housing, typically for only non-violent offenders, with shorter sentences (or sentence lengths left after downgrading). The fencing or perimeters of these

types of facilities are usually low levels. The BOP generally refers to these as camps.

Low – These types of prisons are similar to minimums, to include some kind of dormitory style housing. However, there are normally more serious or disruptive offenders in these types of prisons.

The fencing around the perimeter of these is generally higher, and maybe even a double fence.

Offenders are typically in these institutions for longer periods.

Medium – Here, there is a transition from dorm-style housing to cells. Normally, there are two persons to a cell, but not always. The perimeter is usually a high fence, and may even have barbed

wire, or there are large walls surrounding the institution. Freedom of movement within the institution

is reduced, seen as privilege. Inmates here typically longer sentences, and include violence convictions.

High or Maximum – Similar to medium, but most of these offenders have violence convictions, and longer sentences, including life. Many of these individuals will spend most of their day in a cell, and

more often than not, these are single occupancy.

Super-Max or Administrative Control – Depending on what the mission is for that particular prison, the prisoners in these institutions could be vastly different. For instance, if it is a facility that is

designated for mental health, it would not operate the same as one that is a super-max. The super-max

facilities would have individuals in their cells for almost all of every day. Many services would come to

them at their cell, instead of them going somewhere (i.e., sick call), the cells would almost all be single

occupancy. Visitation of these inmates would be much more regimented and monitored. Most of these

individuals are also classified as extreme threats to the successful operations of the prison and are long-

term inmates (LWOP – life without the possibility of Parole).

Intake Centers – An intake center can be part of an institution, running alongside the normal operations of an institution. The purpose of an intake center is to classify the offenders coming from

the various courts in the jurisdiction, post felony conviction. The offender has an initial classification,

where they are getting assigned to one of the jurisdiction’s prisons, based on a point system for that

agency. This assessment is looking at priors, prior and current violence, escape risk, and potential self-

harm. For example, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Oregon is their intake of prison. It also is the

women’s prison for Oregon. Inmates come to CCCF and are assessed, then shipped off to one of the

other institutions in Oregon (or placed in a level there if female). Inmates will gain later classifications at

their destination prison, in terms of work assignments, mental health status, cell assignments, and other

items.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

341

8.13. Who Goes to Prison?

DAVID CARTER

The types of people that end up in prison are quite different than individuals that go to jail. Almost all people

that go to prisons in the United States are people that have been convicted of felony-level crimes and will

be serving more than a year (or they could have multiple years on their jail sentence). To give you a more

detailed depiction of this, see the image below.

People Incarcerated in the U.S.

342

People Incarcerated in the U.S.

Focusing in on the left side of the graphic, there are roughly 1,316,000 State Prisoners. Here we can see

the types of crimes that they are convicted of. A little over half (54-55%) are incarcerated for violent crimes.

Drug crimes and property crimes make up the next big sections for the state prisoners. When you add in

the federal prisoners (about 180,000) and the private sector prisoners (another 150,000+), territorial prisoners

(11,000), Indian Country prisoners (2,500), we start to see how that number changes to about 1,700,000

prisoners.

One of the more notable items here, and what is different from the jails, roughly 93% of the prisoners are

male. In jail, that number is roughly 85% male. While the total volume of prisoners has dropped slightly in

the last few years (since 2015), this following graphic shows that we have increased our number substantially

over the last 45 years.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

343

US State and Federal Prison population

This growth of the prison population will be discussed in greater detail in the final section on corrections,

Special Issues. However, in the next section, we will discuss where the largest volume of individuals under

correctional control resides, probation and community corrections.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

344

9: Community Corrections

Learning Objectives

Up to this point, we have spent much time on understanding crime, how it is policed, and how it is prosecuted

in the courts. The next section will cover the last third of the justice system, corrections. This section will focus on

punishments that happen in the community. Be the end of this section, students should be able to:

• Understand what is meant by Community Corrections

• Recognize the different types of Community Corrections

• Understand the pros/cons of the different main types of Community Corrections

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Why do some people convicted of a crime get jail/prison, while others do not?

2. What factors are involved with the decision to use alternative sanctions, versus incarceration?

3. What are some of the pros/cons of each of these decision points?

4. Does the level of punishment change, based on the person? How?

5. Are there other consequences involved after the punishment has been given? If so, what are they?

345

9.1. Diversion

DAVID CARTER

The bulk of this chapter deals with official actions from the courts on individuals in the community, while

they are under some sanction. However, there is also a large number of individuals that do not even make it

that far in the system, due to some form of diversion. Diversion is presented in this chapter, as it is an action

that would effectively keep a person in the community. Diversion is a process whereby an individual, at some stage, is diverted from continuing on in the formal justice process. Diversion can come as early as initial

contact with a law enforcement officer. This discretion that the officer uses could be considered a diversion,

as the officer is saying that this individual does not need to continue on the justice path. It could be a verbal

warning, a warning ticket, or just a decision by the officer to not start a formal ticket (citation).

347

Different Diversion Points in the System

Diversion can also be something more formal, for instance, from a judge prior to a judgment, in lieu of a

judgment, or as a condition of a judgment. A formal diversion process can start. An example of this could be

where a judge could sentence someone to a sanction. In lieu of that sanction, the judge offers a person the

chance to complete a diversion program, effectively nullifying the judgment upon successful completion.

It is difficult to know the exact amount of diversions that occur in the United States, across the variety of

places where diversion can occur. However, it is estimated that millions of diversions happen each year. This

could be saving the courts or corrections systems hundreds of millions of dollars.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

348

9.2. Intermediate Sanctions

DAVID CARTER

Community corrections as a whole has changed dramatically over the last half-century. Due to a rapid and

overwhelming increase of the offender population, largely based on policy changes, we have witnessed an

immense increase in the use of sanctions at the community level; this includes probation. It has only been

within the most recent 10 years that we have seen a decrease in community corrections. Individuals on

probation hover around 3.7 million, with another million in some form of community-level control, for a

total of about 4.6 million under community supervision, probation, or parole. 1

Because of the sheer volume

of these intermediate sanctions, it is important to put it in the perspective of jails and prisons. Below is a

graphic to demonstrate how much we are talking about.

U.S. Correctional Control

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ ppus16_sum.pdf

349

National correctional control, 2018

This graphic does not include the volume of people in the community corrections outside of regular

probation, or parole (which is about another million), but it does shed light on just how much probation is

used. Therefore, it important to understand that the vast majority of individuals under correctional control

aren’t even in the prisons and jails in the United States, even though that alone is a hefty number. The

majority of persons under correctional control fall are in sanctions like Probation, Intensive Supervision

Probation, Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration, Drug Courts, and Halfway Houses. Therefore, this section will

discuss the history and effectiveness of some of the forms of intermediate sanctions we use in the United

States.

As we have discussed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a fundamental shift in corrections. This

is largely due to the “Nothing Works” dogma in the area of rehabilitation. Many reforms were made towards

the housing of offenders. Many liked this idea because they did not trust the government’s attempts at

rehabilitation. Others were pleased as well since more emphasis was placed on control. Rooted in deterrence

theory, and to lesser extent incapacitation, intermediate sanctions flourished and were seen as an instant

success. That is, because they promised to increase control of the growing offender population, maintain

security, and do all of this at a reduced cost, they were quickly welcomed across the nation. However, by

reviewing each one, we can see the problems that promising too much may have created.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

350

What Would You Do?

As stated before, there are three primary goals for corrections, to punish the offender, to protect society, and to

rehabilitate the offender. Often the first two goals might be opposing to the last goal. Additionally, doing too much

of the first one might have unfavorable on the second and third. Here is an example of how this might happen.

Let’s say there is a guy, who is married, has a couple of kids, a stable blue-collar job, a house /mortgage, and

is living just a little bit better than a paycheck to paycheck. We can call him the average Joe Citizen. This might

even sound familiar, and you may even know him. Joe likes to hang out with his friends after his men’s softball

game, having a beer and catching up on life. For all intents and purposes, Joe is a decent guy. He does not have a

significant criminal record. Perhaps one misdemeanor when he was a juvenile, and a couple of speeding tickets, like

tens of millions of other adults.

However, one time after softball, Joe is driving home and his wife is texting him to pick something up at the store.

He looks down at his phone at the exact wrong time that someone pulls out in front of him. An accident occurs. No

one is seriously injured, but the damage to both vehicles is enough to warrant a write up of the accident. This leads

to police presence. At the scene, the officer smells alcohol on Joe. The officer is obligated to go through standard

procedures, which results in Joe being arrested. This is not asking you to debate this action, as it is a violation, and

the officer had every right to arrest Joe. The question is this – what should Joe’s punishment be?

The reason to ask this is due to both the rule of law and the consequences of those laws. Joe should be punished,

as he chose to drive after drinking alcohol. But, would Joe’s incarceration lead to other events that may have lasting

effects? Probably.

This brings up the question of at what point does the level of punishment last beyond its intended point? If Joe

receives a lengthy jail sentence, will he lose his job? Will he lose his family? Will this put him a greater risk of

recidivating in the future? What point has the immediate action caused punishment beyond what the law stipulates

is punishment? These are all valid questions. There are other alternatives out there, that still cover the concepts of

punishment, monitoring, sanctioning, and control. However, these alternatives can still allow individuals to stay in

the community, which this chapter will present with community corrections.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

351

9.3. Probation

DAVID CARTER

Probation is arguably the oldest ,and certainly the largest, of the intermediate sanctions. Its roots stem

from concepts of common law from England, like many of our other legal/correctional practices. In early

American courts, a person was able to be released on their own recognizance, if they promised to be

responsible citizens and pay back what they owed. In the early 1840s, John Agustus, a Boston bootmaker

was regularly attending court and began to supervise these individuals as a Surety. A Surety was a person

who would help these individuals in court, making sure they repaid these costs to the courts. We would

consider John Augustus as the Father of Probation, for this work in the courts in Boston in the 1840s and

1850s. Augustus, pictured below, would take in many of these individuals, providing options like work and

housing, to help ensure these individuals would remain crime free and pay back society. He continued this

practice for nearly two decades, effectively becoming the first probation officer. For a more lengthy historical

discussion of probation, see the history of probation at https://probation.smcgov.org/history-probation.

352

John Augustus

Probation is a form of a suspended sentence, in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted offender is resuspended, for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. Conditions of

probation often include: report to a probation officer, submit random drug screens, do not consort with

known felons, pay court costs, restitution, and damages, attend AA or NA courses, as well as other

conditions. Probation lengths vary greatly, as do the conditions of probation place on an individual. Almost

all people on probation will have at least one condition of probation. Some have many conditions, depending

on the seriousness of the conviction, while others are just a blanket condition that is imposed on all in that

jurisdiction, or for that conviction type. Juvenile Probation Departments were within all States in the 1920s,

and by the middle of the 1950s, all States had adult probation.

Probation Officers Probation officers usually work directly for the state or federal government, but that can be directed

through local or municipal agencies. Many Counties will have a community justice level structure where

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

353

probation offices operate. Within these offices, probation officers will be assigned cases (caseload), in term of

the probationers, they will manage. The volume of cases in a probation officer’s caseload can vary from just a

few clients if they are high need/risk clients, to several hundred probationers. It depends on the jurisdiction,

the structure of the local PO office, and the abilities of the probation officers themselves.

The role of the probation officer is complex, and sometimes diametrically opposing. A PO’s primary

function is to enforce compliance of individuals on probation. This is done through check-ins, random drug

screenings, and enforcement of other conditions that are placed on the probationers. Additionally, the PO

may go out into the field to serve warrants, do home checks for compliance, even make arrests if need be.

However, at the same time, a probation officer is trying to help individuals on probation succeed. This

is done by trying to help individuals to get jobs, get schooling, enter into substance or alcohol programs,

and generally support people on probation to be successful. This is why the job of the PO is complex, as

they are trying to be supportive, but also having to enforce compliance. Many equate this to kind of like

being a parent. Recently, there has been a movement within probation to have probation officers act more

like coaches than just disciplinarians. Here is a talk about how POs can view themselves as coaches to enact

positive change within individuals on probation:

http://criminaljusticeofficehours.libsyn.com/dr-brian-lovins-probation-

coaches?fbclid=IwAR2pHROGAPpm09-PFqVzFG10ItFhCi1huFItChe65Ew7-gXDB0OSacCliQs

The other primary function of a probation officer is to complete PSI reports on individuals going through

the court process. A PSI or Pre-Sentence Investigation report is a psycho-social workup on a person headed

to trial. It includes basic background information on an individual, such as age, education, relationships,

physical and mental health, employment, military service, social history, and substance abuse history. It also

has a detailed account of the current offense, witness or victim impact statements of the event, and prior

offenses (criminal records), which are tracked across numerous agencies. Finally, the PSI also has a section

that is devoted to a plan of supervision or recommendations, which are created by the PO. These usually list

out the conditions of probation recommendations, if probation is to be granted. Judges use this information

during sentencing discussions and hearings, and will usually follow these recommendations often (around

85% of the time). Thus, many of the conditions of probation are prescribed by the PO.

Individuals on Probation As stated, there are several million people on probation, serving various lengths of probation, and under

numerous conditions or condition types. Additionally, the convictions which place individuals on probation

vary, to include misdemeanors and felonies. Probationers serve their probation at the state level, and there is

even federal probation. As depicted below, it is easy to see how much probation is used in the United States.

Use of Probation in the U.S.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

354

Correctional Control by Type 1975-2016

Probation is not a right, and it is not a suspended sentence. It is a privilege, but it most certainly comes

with conditions for the suspension of the incarceration. Due to how cheap probation is, relative to jail or

prison, and the ability for lower-risk individuals to maintain connections within their community, millions

of people will be on probation in the United States at any given time.

Other important factors that help to decide if a person warrants probation is within the PSI and other

assessments are done on the individual. If the person is basically, a prosocial person, has an education and a

job, has a family, these would all be considered as ties to the community. These ties to the community could

weaken or break if a person was incarcerated. Thus, providing a sanction while allowing the person to stay

in the community is often the approach that is utilized within probation and other intermediate sanctions.

Probation Success There are mixed reviews about probation. Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018 report, for 2016.

1 listed the successful completion rate at about 56%. In years past, this number has been reported higher,

upwards of 65%, depending on the years 2008-2013. 2

There are a host of reasons listed for unsuccessful

completion, which include: incarcerated on a new sentence/charge, or placement for the current sentence/

1. Kaeble, D. (2018). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2018, NCJ 251148 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf

2. Huberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2014, NCJ 248029 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

355

charge, absconding (fleeing jurisdiction), discharged to warrant or detainer, other unsatisfactory reason,

death, or some other unknown or not reported reason. Unsuccessful completion can produce some different

responses but can include a concept called tourniquet sentencing. Tourniquet sentencing is where the

restrictions of a level of sanction are increased, due to non-compliance, in order to force compliance. If an

individual on probation is not adhering to the conditions of probation, a PO can recommend a probation

revocation hearing. This bench hearing can lead to an informal admonishment by a judge, an increase in

the sanctions or sanction lengths, an increased level of control (moving from regular probation to intensive

supervised probation), even up to placement in a secure facility (jail or prison), all depending on the

infraction of the condition of probation that has been violated. Many go from regular probation to ISP, in

an effort to force compliance through increased monitoring.

Intensive Supervised Probation Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) began in the late 1950s, early 1960s, in California. Their basic

premise was to allow caseworkers (POs) to have smaller caseloads and increase the level of treatment across

offenders. As stated, many promised multiple success measures. However, if an individual who was revoked

because of a technical violation due to an increase in control, they were not seen as a failure. Rather, they

were seen as a success because of the way the public was served by the recidivism. However, this went

directly against the notion that ISPs could save money. Because of these problems, the earlier forms of

ISPs may have become less popular. In the 1980s, a newer model of the ISP was created in Georgia. More

emphasis was placed on the control aspect rather than on treatment. Further, less emphasis was placed on the

reduction of money saved.

ISP and regular probation are similar, except for the frequency of contacts with POs, the increases in

surveillance and monitoring, and usually the volume of conditions. Rather than meeting a PO once a

month in regular probation, a person on ISP would likely be meeting with their PO weekly, or even more

frequently. Additionally, individuals on ISP normally are submitting drug screens weekly. The increased

conditions of supervision more frequently include more substance abuse treatment, either in the form of AA,

NA, or some other residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Thus, the core difference is

about the increased level of surveillance and control over the offender.

ISP Success While initial praise of the newer model for its increase on control was evidenced by its rapid spread

through the States, some researchers questioned their effectiveness. In one of the largest studies of ISPs, in

conjunction with the RAND Corporation. 3

They examined the effectiveness of ISPs in reducing recidivism

and saving costs. In a random sample of 14 cities across 9 States, they evaluated the reductions of recidivism

against a sample of regular probationers. Their findings suggested that there were higher amounts of

technical violations, which were probably substance violations, but there were no significant differences

between control-centered ISPs and regular probation, as far as new arrests. Moreover, when looking at

outcomes over 3 years, they found that recidivism rates were slightly higher for these ISPs (39%), vs. regular

probation (33%). Also, there were no substantive cost savings. Other studies have produced similar findings

as to the effects of non-treatment oriented ISPs. While these findings might be better than prison recidivism

rates, there were no reductions in prison overcrowding, which was also one of the intents of ISP.

3. Petersilia, J. R., & Deschenes, E. (2004). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP168.html

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

356

9.4. Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration

DAVID CARTER

Another form of intermediate sanction may be seen in the creation of boot camps, also known as shock

incarceration facilities. Again developed in the 1980s in Georgia, boot camps were targeted to youths and

adults and seen as a way to alter individuals through a “shock” effect. Essentially, boot camps are programs

designed to change the recidivism rate through a physical change. That is, designed on a militaristic ideal,

boot camps valued that a regimen of strict physical exercise would teach structure and discipline in youths.

Once again, because of a high level of face validity (this looks like it will work, so it must work), boot camps

flourished in the 1980s and 1990s. Below is an example of one of the few remaining boot camps, Moriah,

NY.

Boot Camp Success While there some positive results, generally, boot camps fail to produce the desired reductions in

recidivism. 1

For prosocial individuals, structure and discipline can be advantageous. However, when

individuals of differing levels of antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, antisocial temperament (personality),

and antisocial (criminal history) are all mixed together, the reductions in recidivism generally do not appear.

As we have discussed in the section on rehabilitation, criminogenic needs are often not addressed within

boot camps. Thus, boot camps fail to reduce recidivism for several reasons. First, since boot camps fail

to address criminogenic needs, they tend not to be effective. Second, because of the lower admission

requirements of boot camps, individuals are generally “lumped” together into a start date within a boot

camp. Therefore, high-risk offenders and low-risk offenders are placed together, building a cohesive group.

Thus, lower-risk offenders gain antisocial associates that are high-risk. Finally, when boot camps emphasize

the increase of physicality, rather than behavioral change, it generally does not reduce aggressive behavior

(antisocial personality & recidivism). A recent meta-analysis (a study of studies of a topic) found this to be

the case. 2

For more information on the status of boot camps, please see https://www.crimesolutions.gov/

PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=5 .

Platoon Formation in a Boot Camp

1. Parent, D. G. (2018). Research for practice: Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a decade of research. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (June 3rd), NCJ 197018 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf

2. Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1-42.

357

Moriah

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

358

9.5. Drug Courts

DAVID CARTER

Drug Courts were also developed in the mid-1980s in Dade County Florida. They are unique in the sense

that – the courtroom works in a non-adversarial way for a more supportive program. Judges, prosecutors,

caseworkers, and program coordinators all work together in a drug court. As with other intermediate

sanctions, the use of drug courts flourished in the United States rapidly, to the point that they are now in

every state. Currently, there are almost 3500 drug, treatment, or specialty courts operating in the United

States. This includes Veterans Courts, Mental Health Courts, DUI Courts, Hybrid Courts, and Juvenile Drug

Courts. For a detailed account of these, see the map at the National Drug Court Database: https://ndcrc.org/

database/. For the purposes of assessing Drug Courts, only materials referencing Drug Courts only are

addressed.

Drug Court Success While the results on Drug Courts are mixed, as a whole, they are more favorable than boot camps. They

are mixed, largely to how they are assessed. If only talking about the cost savings, versus jail or prison, they

are seen as an effective community alternative. If looking at recidivism, it depends if the metric is looking

solely at drug charges, any arrests, or persistence models (length of time before arrest). As a whole, the

risk of being rearrested for a drug-crime for individuals from drug courts was lower than a comparison

group. For a more detailed report, see Fluellen and Trone (2000). Other have demonstrated that graduates

of drug court program were half as likely to recidivate (10% vs. 20%). 1

While more research is still required,

drug courts are not seen as ineffective control oriented ISPs or boot camps. For an in-depth review of the

overall rating of Drug Courts, which includes over 30 studies of Drug Courts across the United States, see

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/topicdetails.aspx?id=238.

1. Fluellen, R., & Trone, J. (2000). Do drug courts save jail and prison beds? The Vera Institute. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/vera/ drugcourts.pdf

359

9.6. Halfway Houses

DAVID CARTER

Halfway Houses have long been used to control/house offenders. Dating back to the early 1800s from

England and Ireland, halfway houses began around 1820 in Massachusetts. Initially, they were designed to

help an offender “get back on their feet,” and were generally funded in benevolent ways by non-profit

organizations like the Salvation Army.

Currently, halfway houses are typically used as a stopping point for offenders coming out of prisons but

have also recently been used as more secure measures of monitoring probationers in lieu of going to prison.

They are even used as a test measure of parole. With the creation of the IHHA in 1964, halfway houses have

become an integral part of every state, with mixed but more promising results than ISPs or boot camps. The

core design of a halfway house is meant to be a place where individuals can get back on their feet, half-way

out of prison. However, as stated, their uses have evolved, becoming residential, or even partial residential

places where individuals under correctional control can check-in, find reprieve or assistance, in order to

rejoin society as a normal functioning member.

There are some issues regarding the examination of halfway houses. The IHHA break down halfway

houses into four groups along two dimensions. As discussed, halfway houses were initially funded by

private non-profit organizations. However, many halfway houses today (in part, due to the IHHA) are both

privately and federally (and State) funded. Additionally, halfway Houses are also divided into supportive

and interventive groups. That is, halfway houses that serve only a minimal function (a place to stay while

reintegrating back into society) are generally labeled supportive. Interventive halfway houses typically have

multiple treatment modalities and may have up to 500 beds. However, most halfway houses fall somewhere

in the middle of these two continuums.

Halfway House Success Because of the variations of halfway houses, researchers find them difficult to assess. For instance, it may

be difficult to generalize because of the variability. Second, gathering a representative comparison may also

prove difficult. That is, halfway houses may have increased recidivism, reduced recidivism, or had no effect.

Although clouded, one could argue that halfway houses are at least useful in the sense that these offenders,

who received more treatment faired no worse than individuals who needed less treatment.

As a whole, HWH studies show mixed results. That is, some studies yield reductions in recidivism, while

some show no difference, and others show almost equal increases. When disaggregated by type, programs

using the principles of effective interventions, these halfway houses generally have better reductions in

360

recidivism. One difficulty with understanding the effectiveness of halfway houses may be within their

funding. As stated, there are numerous revenue streams for the creation and management of a halfway

house, to include for-profit agencies. This design may override the design of providing the level of care

comprehensive enough to match the level of need by the individuals in the halfway houses. As with the other

intermediate sanctions, it is important to note that using the principles of effective intervention are among

the driving causes of their success.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

361

9.8. House Arrest

DAVID CARTER

House arrest is where an individual is remanded to stay home for confinement, in order to serve a

punishment, in lieu of jail or prison. There are built-in provisions where individuals are permitted to attend

places of worship, places of employment, and places for food. Otherwise, individuals are expected to be

home. It is difficult to assess how many are on house arrest at any given time, as these are often short stents

given during early stages of probation.

House Arrest Success As mentioned above, house arrest is often joined with electronic monitoring(EM). Many of the studies

incorporate both sanctions at the same time. Given the difficulty in separating EM from house arrest

in studies, less is known about the independent effects of house arrest. However, it is certainly a cost

saving mechanism, over other forms of sanctions. There is a relatively no-cost to low-cost for house arrest,

not coupled with electronic monitoring, especially when comparing house arrest to intensive supervised

probation. In all, house arrest would probably best serve individuals with low criminogenic risks and needs.

However, it is also argued that those individuals need little sanctions already, in order to be successful. Thus,

the utility of house arrest is debatable.

362

9.9. Community Residential Facilities

DAVID CARTER

Moving up in the continuum of correctional sanctions, CCCs would be considered the last stop before

a lengthy jail or prison sentence, as they can have the highest level of containment. These are often

called CCCs (Community Correctional Centers), TCs (Transition Centers), or CBCFs (Community-Based

Correctional Facilities), and other names. From this point, these variations will all be considered as CBCFs,

as there is a blending of the names to the variety of missions that are within these facilities. However, even

two community residential facilities with the same name can be different, as the functions of CBCFs can

be multifaceted. CBCFs can function similarly to a halfway house, it can provide a stop for individuals

just checking in for the day before they go off to their jobs, they can be used for outpatient services, even

residential services where there is a need for public control/safety.

The overall benefit of CBCFs is their ability to have an increased focus in rehabilitation, at a lower

cost than a State institution. This is where their greatest effect can materialize if there is adherence to the

principles of effective intervention. As we touched on in the first section on punishment, the principles

of effective intervention have been demonstrated to have the best impacts on reductions in recidivism.

Collectively, we call these the PEI. These include concepts like proper identification of criminogenic risks

and needs of offenders, using evidence-based programs that address these items, matching and sorting clients

appropriately, and responsivity in terms of programs and services. For a detailed account of how the PEI

integrates into community corrections, see a very detailed report by the National Institute of Corrections,

under the U.S. Department of Justice: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/019342.pdf .

CBCF Success What should come as no surprise, as is the theme with correctional practices in the community, CBCFs

have mixed results. This is largely dependent on the composition of the facility, the individuals within the

facility, and the programs offered. When individuals are lumped together, in non-directive programs that do

not adhere to the PEI, the outcomes of CBCFs are not favorable over the jail, prison, or probation. However,

when CBCFs separate offenders based on risk, putting more programming with the higher risk clients, and

little programming on the low-level clients, the outcomes are substantially better. For example, in a study

on CBCFs, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2004) found that when the offenders were separated by their risk,

targeting higher-risk individuals, much larger reductions in recidivism can be achieved. 1

1. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Residential community corrections and the risk principle: Lessons learned in Ohio. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Research Compendium, 2: 245-254.

363

Unfortunately, many CBCFs do not adhere to these principles, and thus, their effectiveness is not as

positive. As stated, this is the case for many of these agencies within community corrections. When

programs do not follow the principles of effective intervention, they do not fare as well. For a recent

report on the status of Community-Based Correctional Facilities, see a question and answer session with

the PEW Foundation and Dr. Joan Petersillia: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/

wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/sentencing_and_corrections/qacommunitycorrectionspdf.pdf

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

364

9.10. Restorative Justice

DAVID CARTER

The process of restorative justice programs is often linked with community justice organizations and is

normally carried out within the community. Therefore, RJ is discussed here in the community corrections

section. Restorative justice is a community based and trauma-informed practice used to build relationships,

strengthen communities, encourage accountability, repair harm, and restore relationships when

wrongdoings occur. As an intervention following wrongdoing, restorative justice works for the people

who have caused harm, and the victim(s), and community members impacted. Working with a restorative

justice facilitator, participants identify harms, needs, and obligations, then make a plan to repair the harm

and put things as right as possible. This process, restorative justice conferencing, can also be called victim-

offender dialogues. It is within this process that multiple items can occur. First, the victim can be heard

within the scope of both the community and within the scope of the offense discussed. This provides the

victim(s) an opportunity to express the impact on them, but also to understand what was happening from the

perspective of the transgressor. At the same time, it allows the person committing the action to potentially

take responsibility for the acts committed, directly to the victim(s) and to the community as a whole. This

restorative process provides a level of healing that is often unique to the RJC. Pictured, the different processes

that can occur during the different types of dialogues within RJC.

Restorative Justice Processes

365

Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice Success For over a quarter century, restorative justice has been demonstrated to show positive outcomes in

accountability of harm, and satisfaction in the restorative justice process for both offenders and victims. This

is true for adult offenders, as well as juveniles, who go through the restorative justice process. Recently, there

have been questions whether there is a cognitive change that occurs in the thought process of the individuals

completing a restorative justice program. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that change

in cognitive distortions that may occur through successful completion of restorative justice conferencing

(RJC). This will be an area of increasing interest for practitioners, as restorative justice continues to be

included in the toolkit of actions within community justice and community corrections.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

366

9.11. Parole

DAVID CARTER

While the process to get onto parole is unique to all of the other community sanctions we have discussed

so far in this section, individuals on parole are in the community. Thus, parole is often placed within the

concepts of community corrections. Parole is the release (under conditions) of an individual after they have

served a portion of their sentence. It is also accompanied by the threat of re-incarceration if warranted. As

with most concepts in our legal system, their roots of parole can be traced back to concepts from England and

Europe. However, parole today has greatly evolved based on American values and concepts. Parole in the

United States began as a concept at the first American Prison Association meeting in 1870. There was much

support for the ideals of reform in corrections in America at the time. Advocates for reform helped to create

the concept of parole and how it would look in the U.S., and plans to develop parole went from there. Parole

authorities began establishing within the States, and by the mid-1940s, all States had a parole authority.

Parole Boards and State parole authorities have fluctuated over the years, but the concept is still practiced, in

varying degrees today. It is different than probation, which often operates under the judicial branch. Parole

typically operates under the executive branch and is aligned with the departments of corrections, as parole

is a direct extension of prison terms and release. Many states operate a post-prison supervision addendum to

their sentencing matrix for the punishment of individuals.

Oregon Sentencing Guidelines

367

Oregon Sentencing Guidelines Grid

As you can see from the graph, the PPS section in gray represents the recommended times for parole

(post-prison supervision). Today, there are three basic types of parole in the United States, discretionary,

mandatory, and expiatory.

Discretionary parole is when an individual is eligible for parole or goes before a parole board prior to their

mandatory parole eligibility date. It is at the discretion of the parole board to grant parole (with conditions)

for these individuals. These prisoners are generally well-behaving prisoners that have demonstrated they can

function within society (have completed all required programming). Discretionary parole had seen a rapid

increase in the 1980s but took a marked decrease starting in the early 1990s. In more recent years, it is

continuing to return as a viable release mechanism for over 100,000 inmates a year. 1

Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. ODJ. Mandatory parole occurs when a prisoner hits a particular point in time in their sentence. When an inmate

is sent to prison, two clocks begin. The first clock is forward counting and continues until their last day. The

second clock starts at the end of their sentence and starts to work backward proportional to the “good days”

an inmate has. Good days are days that an offender is free from incidents, write-ups, tickets, or other ways to

describe rule infractions. For instance, for every week that an offender is a good prisoner, they might get two

days taken off of the end of their sentence. When these two times converge, that would be a point in which

mandatory parole could kick in for them. This must also be conditioned by truth in sentencing legislation,

or what is considered an 85% rule. Many states have laws in place that stipulates that an inmate is not eligible

for mandatory parole until they hit 85% of their original sentence. Thus, even though the date for the good

1. Hughes, W., & Beck (2001).

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

368

days would be before the 85% of a sentence is served, they would only be eligible for mandatory parole once

they had achieved 85% of their sentence. Recently, States have begun to soften these 85% rules, as another

valve to reduce crowding issues. The Hughes et al. (2001) article also provides their proportions, indicating

a direct inverse relationship to discretionary parole during the 1990s 2 . As discretionary parole went down,

mandatory parole went up. This is logical though, as once they had passed a date for discretionary parole,

the next date would be an inmate’s mandatory parole date. As you can see from the image below, these

proportions of releases switched in the 1990s.

Parole Releases

Parole Releases

Perhaps most troubling is the Expiatory Release. We see a slow increase of expiatory release in the chart,

and this has continued to climb in the 2000s. Expiatory release means that a person has served their entire

sentence length (and sometimes more). Based on the need to release individuals to accommodate incoming

prisoners, this usually means that an inmate has misbehaved enough to nullify their “good days.” This is

unfortunate, because of the three types of release, it could be argued that these are the inmates that need the

most post-prison supervision. And yet, these are the inmates that are typically receiving the smallest amounts

of parole.

2. Hughes, T., Wilson, D., & Beck, A. (2001). Trends in State parole, 1990-2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, NCJ 184735 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf .

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

369

Parole Success It should again come as no surprise as to the effectiveness of parole, considering how many of the other

community-based sanctions are operating. Successful parole completion rates hover around 50%, given a

particular year. In the Hughes et al. (2001) article just mentioned, successful completion was roughly 42%

in 1999. The same issues for failure that are found in probation completion are found in parole completion,

to include: revocation failures, new charges, absconding, and other infractions. This lower than expected

success rate has prompted many critics to argue parole. It is suggested that we are being too lenient on

some while keeping lower-level inmates in prison too long. It is also argued that we are releasing dangerous

individuals out into the community. Whatever the criticisms are, it is certain that we are bound to use parole

as a function of release, even if it is only on paper. For example, California has a concept called non-revocable

parole. The basic premise of this is: as long as you do not violate your terms of parole, your parole will be

solely on paper, with no parole office check-ins. Additionally, no one will come out to your dwelling to

monitor you. Effectively, this version of parole is not enforceable, hence why it is considered as parole on

paper only. But, the questions around parole still remain. What are we to do with the hundreds of thousands

of offenders we let out of prison each year? Do they need more assistance than a bus ticket back to their

county of residence? How should we be doing parole in the United States? A more modern term for parole is

called re-entry. The next section covers current issues within corrections, to include what we do for inmates

who are re-entering society.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

370

9.12. Current Issues in Corrections

DAVID CARTER

Learning Objectives

In this final section on punishment, we review some of the contemporary special issues that are occurring in our

American jails and prisons. Our decisions to incarcerate on a large scale as a solution to many issues does have

significant impacts. These impacts not only affect the individuals in the justice system, but also community members

as a whole. Some of these issues include overcrowding, gangs, aging prisoners, and substance abuse. This section

will provide a report on some of the more pervasive issues facing corrections today. By the end of this section,

students should be able to:

• Understand what are some current issues within the world of corrections

• Recognize the different concepts of how we view these issues

• Understand how punishment has increased and what are the outcomes of large scale incarceration

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What are some of the reasons we have so many people in jails and prisons?

2. What impacts these levels of people under corrections?

3. Can we solve these issues?

4. What has been our approach to this point? Has it worked?

371

9.13. Current Issues in Corrections: Mass Incarceration

DAVID CARTER

The section on punishment started with a discussion about feeling safe and secure in our homes. Feeling

safe and secure in person and home is arguably one of the most discussed feelings in our nation today. Our

fear of crime influences how we think and act day to day. This has caused great fluctuation in the United

States, in regards to how we punish people who are convicted of violating the law. In part, punishment

comes from the will of the people, which is then carried out by the legislative process, and converted into

sentencing practices. However, has our desire to feel safe and secure been taken too far by policy? And, have

these policies created even bigger problems for us as citizens? This final section on corrections attempts to

answer how we as America are doing, in order to solve our crisis in corrections.

To give an idea about America’s use of prisons, here is a comparison of the United States to other countries

around the world. As one can see, America uses punishment fairly well. In fact, one could argue that we are

the best at it.

International Imprisonment Rates

372

The United States wasn’t always this punitive. As we have discussed, the context of eras that we have moved

through, our underlying philosophy of punishment constantly evolves, even if it is rather slow at times.

Unfortunately, in the 1970s, there was a confluence of events that kicked us off on a path of incarcerating

many types of individuals, more so than we had done in the past. This path of imprisonment or mass

incarceration has had lasting effects. Below, you can see when the expansion of the correctional system

began.

Mass Increase in Incarceration

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

373

Mass Increase in Incarceration

The United States had just gone through a large scale amount of civil unrest, which leads to a civil rights

movement of many Americans. As a country, we were not happy with how subpopulations were being

treated, and it was during this that many positive changes in the country were being adapted into law. This

also corresponded with a massive influx of men that were returning from the Vietnam war. The disapproval

of the war, increased our growing distrust of the government to provide programs that could help individuals

within the justice system. Many State-funded operations were seen as intrusive on the public, to include

mental health facilities. There was also a large scale importation of drugs occurring in America. All of these

items and more shifted our ideology rather abruptly in the United States, and we turned toward a more

punitive approach to people in society that were getting into trouble. Collectively, we would consider this

the “get tough era” on crime. This included the war on drugs (gang involvement), tougher sentencing

legislation across the country, transinstitutionalization or transcarceration (the removal of many individuals

from state mental health hospitals), and others. Collectively, these all had a large-scale increase in the prison

population.

Full Jails?

It is 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning and Terry is getting force-released from jail because the jail is full. Force

Releases occur when a facility is at its maximum capacity and a more serious offender is coming in. The decision has

to be made in order to protect the community the facility is supposed to protect, but still, maintain the constitutional

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

374

rights of the individuals it is required to secure. Like many others in the community, Terry made some poor

decisions, was arrested for a lower level of crime and has started the process of going through the justice system.

However, for Terry, and unfortunately many others, now Terry is being pushed back out onto the street, prior to

receiving some basic services that may help him change his behaviors. This is not his fault, it is only due to the fact

that a more dangerous offender is coming into the jail, and a decision had to be made.

To make matters more complicated, Terry is a dually diagnosed individual. This means that he has both a

substance abuse problem and a low-level mental health issue. Terry has been managing his mental health issue with

medications that he is able to afford because of his job at the local Wal-Mart. Now Terry will probably lose his job

because he hasn’t shown up for two shifts, due to him being in jail. While not excusing any of Terry’s actions that

got him in jail, Terry is now out on the street, without his medication. He is nervous that he is not sure what he is

going to do.

This story is more common than you think. It happens to tens of thousands of individuals a year. What

should the community do?

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

375

9.14. Current Issues in Corrections: War on Drugs and Gangs

DAVID CARTER

The war on drugs, initiated by President Nixon in 1971, was framed as an all-out war to eradicate drugs in

the United States. The massive expenditures on the curtailment of the drug epidemic also shifted our views

on drug use. We became much more punitive towards drugs, treating it as more of a criminal justice issue,

rather than as a substance dependence issue. Good or bad, drug use was demonized in the public and media,

which aided in the development of much tougher sanctions on drug use in America. The Drug Enforcement

Agency was created in 1973, to provide another arm of the government to tackle a specific issue, drugs.

By the 1980s, lengthy sentences for drug possession were also in place. One to five-year sentences for

possession were increased to upwards of 25 years. There was also an increased focus on gangs, which were

held responsible for the majority of the drug trade in the United States.

Gang activity in the United States was prevalent long before the enactment of the war on drugs. However,

once the linkages between our fear of crime, and the drug trade by gangs became more pronounced due to

the war on drugs, the conflict escalated. While there are hundreds of different gangs in many neighborhoods

and communities in the United States today, gangs in prison have converged into four main gangs, or

what corrections call security threat groups. These four basic gangs include the Whites, the Blacks, the

Southerners (Surenos, or EME), and the Northerners (Nortenos). Not only are these STGs considered violent

inside and outside of prison, but they are also actively involved in the continuing drug trade in the United

States today, even behind bars. In fact, many of the leaders of all of the gangs on the streets are held in one

prison in California, Pelican Bay State Prison.

Within the prisons in the United States, gangs actively recruit members, communicate with gangs on the

streets, run the drug trade, and are also at war with each other over the power within the institutions, from

their perspective. There have been numerous documentaries on gangs in the U.S., and even mainstream

films about gangs and gang life, both inside and out. A few notable examples of films to watch on this subject

include Felon (2008), Shot Caller (2017), and American Me (1992).

Transcarceration At the same time, the proliferation of gangs was occurring in prisons in the United States, there were

another sizeable increase of prisoner type, mentally ill inmates. This is due to the transinstitutionalization

that occurred for thousands during the late 1970s, 1980s. Transinstitutionalization, or transcarceration is a

process that occurred for many with mental health issues when State-run mental health facilities began to

close their doors. Having few choices of where to go, many became homeless or destitute. Ultimately, these

376

individuals wound up in America’s jails and prisons. This is also compounded by how we have shifted our

views on the mentally ill within the courts and justice system. While insanity is a defense that is used in

court, it is rare (roughly 1% of cases), and even more rarely does it conclude in success. This shift occurred

within our understanding of guilt surrounding mental illness. In the past, an individual would be held not

guilty by reason of insanity. However, this shifted to guilty, but legally insane. The guilt would be grounds

to still incarcerated individuals. Changes in policy like this also contributed to the increase in offenders in

the 1980s.

Get Tough Policies Another reason for the large scale increases can be found in our changes to policies surrounding sentences

and sentence lengths. Get tough policies flourished in the latter half of the 1980s and into the 1990s.

This included truth in sentencing legislation three-strikes policies, and drug crime minimums. Truth in

sentencing, also known as the 85% rule, is where mandatory minimums of sentences would be forced to

be served by incarcerated individuals. Thus if an individual was sentenced to prison, a mandatory minimum

of 85% of the sentence would have to be served before the individual was eligible for release (parole). This

added to the average length of sentences served in American prisons, which meant that individuals were not

being released as early as in prior years. Thus, as more individuals were coming in due to increases in other

legislation, there were already more people in the prisons.

Three strikes policies were enacted in many States. In 1993, Washington overwhelmingly passed (75%

voted yes) to approve initiative 593 1

This policy increased sentence lengths for 40 felonies, which included

life imprisonment. Perhaps the largest 3 strikes policy was in 1994, in California, with Proposition 184,

commonly called the Three Strikes and You’re Out policy. It mandated a minimum of 25 years of prison

for individuals committing 3 felonies. What made this policy more pervasive than others was the way in

which it could be applied. If a person had two previous strikes for violent, or serious felonies (not necessarily

violent), any new felony was life imprisonment, with a minimum of 25 years. For a more detailed view of

this policy, see https://lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

Drug laws were also changing at this time. The Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (1970),

started the increases for drugs in the U.S. under federally mandated minimums found within the federal code

21 U.S.C. § 841. For a detailed reporting of these minimums, see https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/

pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171025_Drug-Mand-Min.pdf

One of the most debated issues within the drug sentencing laws was the differential between cocaine (in

powder form) and crack ( also form of cocaine, diluted and in a hardened paste form). During the increases

in sentencing, there was a disparity in the lengths of sentences for comparable weights of these two drugs.

There has been much debate whether this targeted poorer individuals more harshly, as crack was seen as a

poor man’s cocaine. However, with additional mandatory minimum increases in the 1980s, differences in

sentence lengths began to widen. In a detailed report, Barbara Meierhoefer (1992) detailed how the average

sentence lengths for African Americans (for similar weights of crack v. cocaine for Whites) was roughly 50%

higher, supporting this assertion that drug sentences were not equal. 2

With over a million arrests per year for drugs, it does add to the prison system as a whole. While the

proportion of drug offenders in State prisons hovers around 20-25%, it is much larger at the federal level. As

seen below, it makes up over half of the federal prisons. In all, the drug seriousness went up (how drugs are

1. Wright, P. (1995). Three strikes racks ‘em up. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 6(2), 3-6. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ abstract.aspx?ID=162918

2. Meierhoefer, B. (1992). The general effect of mandatory minimum prison terms: A longitudinal study of federal sentences imposed. Federal Judicial Center. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/GenEffMM.pdf

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

377

scheduled within federal guidelines), and sentence lengths for drugs went up; certain drugs more than others

also went up.

Federal Drug Inmates

Federal Drug Inmates

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

378

9.15. Current Issues in Corrections: Aging and Overcrowding

DAVID CARTER

One of the side effects of lengthier sentences is that: the individuals in prison get older, in prison. Thus, the

amounts of individuals in prisons over 55 years old has dramatically increased. As McKillop and Boucher

(2018) relate in the graphic below, based on BJS data, there has been a 280% increase in prisoners, age 55

and older. 1

Aging Prisoners

1. McKillop, M., & Boucher, A. (2018). Aging prison populations drive up costs. Older individuals have more chronic illnesses and other ailments that necessitate greater spending. Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/20/aging- prison-populations-drive-up-costs

379

Aging Prisoners

And as the title of their article depicts, there is a growing cost within this subpopulation of inmates. McKillop

and Boucher (2018) relay that the cost of this group of inmates can be upwards of three times the cost of the

normal inmate (30k to 100k per inmate). 2

Beyond just the cost of these inmates, a more philosophical question has risen, in regards to how to treat

prisoners as they enter their last phase in life. Some have articulated for compassionate releases for individuals

that are entering hospice care or in need of assisted living conditions. Other articulate that this is unfair to put

the burden on the inmate, as they have been incarcerated for long periods of time and have few self-support

options available. In a powerful documentary on this matter, Edgar Barens details these issues. Information

about this film, The Prison Terminal (2013), can be seen here: https://www.prisonterminal.com/.

Overcrowding These issues and others have all contributed to the rising correctional population in the United States. It

is estimated that we have over 8 million people in correctional control, and that number does not seem to

be subsiding. Yes, there are reductions in certain areas, such as a decline in the prison population in the last

2. McKillop, M., & Boucher, A. (2018). Aging prison populations drive up costs. Older individuals have more chronic illnesses and other ailments that necessitate greater spending. Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/20/aging- prison-populations-drive-up-costs

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

380

few years, but this does not mean that they are not still under control. In one of the more detailed examples

of just where individuals are at in corrections, Alexi Jones (2018) of the Prison Policy Initiative provides a

graphic, based on State and Federal data to demonstrate this impact.

Rates of Correctional Control

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

381

Aging Prisoner Graphic

Not only does this graphic demonstrate the overall volume of correctional control, but it also highlights

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

382

how states are handling their populations differentially. The second half of Jones’ (2018) 3

report details

the volume of individuals with each state. Please take a moment to review the last portion of this report

to see how many are under correctional control, found here: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/

correctionalcontrol2018.html#statedata

Prison overcrowding is problematic for multiple reasons. First, when there are too many individuals

(especially antisocial ones) within a facility, there are more assaults and injuries that occur within the

institution. Moreover, there is a safety concern for not only the inmate on inmate violence but also inmate

on staff crimes. Second, the more people you have in a facility, the faster that facility wears down. Operating

a jail or prison at maximum (or over maximum) capacity causes more items to break or wear out within

the facility at a fast rate. Finally, when individuals are unable to access adequate health care because of the

excessively long waits, due to overcrowding, it is a violation of their constitutional rights.

As prisoners, we (the public and the State) have a responsibility to house and properly care for the prisoners

overseen. This is not to say that offenders are getting premier care, but that they are at least receiving a

modicum of care. When this low level of care is deliberately denied due to excessive volumes of individuals,

it is a violation of a person’s 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. As was found in

the case of Estelle v. Gamble, (1976). 4

This similar issue was presented in California over ten years ago. A

three-judge panel ruled with the prisoners, citing the need for California to reduce its prison population to

a level where the individuals could effectively be managed, and cared for [emphasis on the latter]. Dealing

with overcrowding is a constant issue for most prisons and jails. Some have resolved to release more out into

the community at a higher volume, on parole or just release. However, this too has its own set of problems,

as reentry is now becoming the current issue within corrections.

3. Jones, A. (2018). Correctional control 2018: Incarceration and supervision by state Prison Policy Initiative. Available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/correctionalcontrol2018.html#statedata .

4. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

383

9.16. Current Issues in Corrections: Reentry and the Future of

Corrections

DAVID CARTER

Reentry and the Revolving Door Parole, as discussed in the previous chapter, has had mixed reviews. Overall, the effectiveness of parole

hovers around 50% success. It is estimated somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 parolees are on parole

in any given year over the last 3 decades. Additionally, several hundred thousand are exiting parole in each

of these years. This brings up questions about what happens to these individuals. The reality is that most

of them will be rearrested. In one of the more comprehensive studies on recidivism, Alper, Durose, and

Markman (2018) discussed the recidivism rate of individuals tracked over a 9-year follow up period. What

they found was that rearrest occurred for about 70% in the first three years, and by year 9, 83% of the

individuals released has been rearrested. Many of these individuals return to prison, hence the concept of

the “revolving door” of justice. In order for reentry programs to be more successful, individuals returning to

society need assistance to get back on their feet and stay on their feet. This includes items such as education

and training, employment assistance to get a job, legal services, education on public benefits, and housing

assistance. Interestingly, it appears as though many of the items here are the same items that many of them

had deficits in that landed them in trouble in their lives before 1

That is – many of these items are those same

predictors of offending that were discussed in the first section (known as the know predictors of recidivism).

Unfortunately, it appears as though they are not getting these while they are incarcerated. Again, creating a

cycle of release and catch again.

Situations and circumstances that compound these problems for many ex-offenders is the difficulty faced

with trying to get a job once released. Over the last 20 years, there was an overwhelming push to include

items on employment applications that asked questions about prior incarceration history. Not only were

there questions about prior incarcerations and prior convictions, but many employers also have questions

about ever being arrested. If an individual told the truth (which is what they should do), the reality is

that their applications would be discarded, or overlooked for others without an arrest/conviction. If an

ex-offender lied about it, and it was discovered during a background investigation, the application was

1. Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

384

certainly discarded. In either scenario, it became increasingly difficult for an individual to obtain legitimate

employment.

This is also true on apartment rental applications. Again, when individuals would put down prior arrests,

their applications would often be placed at the bottom of the pile. If someone were to lie about it, and it

was discovered, it could be used as grounds for not selecting an individual for tenancy. Once again, society

was making it difficult for ex-offenders to even function as a normal citizen, based on a sentence that they

had served, which is when the punishment should have ended. Collectively, these items are included in the

concept of collateral consequences. That is – items that are barriers to successful integration that are remnants

of prior punishment.

Future Outlook of Corrections Based on the major issues presented, overcrowding and reentry, the problems faced in corrections are not

likely to go away anytime soon. We have seen an increase in the overall correctional population for years

now. While there are some reductions in prisons, this is not likely to stay this way, unless changes are made.

Additionally, while there is space for growth in the area of community corrections, the functions of CC need

to be supported and done based on evidence-based practices if it is to be more successful. It too has limits, and

without the support, it is more likely to be another failure. If it is not supported, then the prison population is

likely to increase even more, due to the eventual placement of too many failures of individuals in community

corrections. Most offenders are in need of some basic assistance to get themselves back to a functioning level

in society, including addressing their education, their substance abuse, their employment, and general and

mental health. Our correctional system needs to change its habit of treating substance abuse and mental

health issues as legal and punish-oriented issues if we are going to curb the tide of the growing problems

we face in corrections. If not, our 8 million individuals in all forms of correctional control can quickly turn

10 million. According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Education (p. 13), “from 1979–80 to

2012–13, state and local government expenditures on corrections rose by 324 percent (from $17billion to

$71 billion).” 2

Keep in mind that is taxpayer money. We are funding this issue. It is time to address these

problems from a more holistic approach if we are going to see a change in our current correctional practices.

2. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

385