DUE: 11/2/2016 @ 3 pm est. ((two pages for $12)) **please charge the whole $12. THXS!

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

12 Corrections

Chapter Outline

Introduction

• Politics and Corrections • Restorative Justice

History

Prison Populations

Congress and Corrections

Correctional Bureaucracies

Court Decisions and Corrections

Corrections and the Policy Process

• Problem Identification • Agenda Setting • Policy Formulation • Program Implementation

Page 1 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

• Program Evaluation and Reassessment

Issues Facing Correctional Administrators

• Overcrowding • Private Prisons • Inmate Labor

State Corrections

Local Corrections

Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

The corrections system includes any correctional policy, program, or agency that has the aim or goal of “correcting” any behavior that society finds unacceptable or that has been made illegal by a legislature, typically through punishment or rehabilitation. There are federal, state, and local correctional systems and facilities, each of which is set up to hold or rehabilitate criminal offenders who violate laws of their jurisdiction. Each of the corrections agencies and the personnel who work there, along with any groups that support agencies, personnel, or inmates, have a significant impact on the policymaking process.

The federal corrections agencies deal with offenders convicted of federal offenses, such as terrorism or drug smuggling. The federal government funds these programs and oversees the treatment of the inmates held there. They are overseen by the Department of Corrections, which has control over the federal prisons located throughout the nation. There are also a small number of federal detention facilities that function as jails. Usually, the federal government relies on contracts with local jail facilities for the vast majority of its short-term needs. State and local facilities hold inmates convicted of state and local statutes, but they are still overseen by the federal government.

Across the United States, each individual state has also developed its own unique system of corrections, so variations exist from state to state. In most states, an agency has been created to oversee the administration of correctional programs. One way to know the goals of a state correctional agency is to look at the mission statement of its department of corrections. For example, the mission statement for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice states that the purpose of the organization is to “provide public safety, promote positive change in behavior, and reintegrate offenders into society.”1 Similarly, the Department of Corrections for Illinois states that its mission is to “protect the public from criminal offenders through a system of incarceration and supervision which securely segregates offenders from society, assures offenders of their constitutional rights and maintains programs to enhance the success of the offender’s reentry into society.”2

Corrections agencies are distinguished from other, typical agencies in that people do not come willingly to prisons. They are forcibly brought through the gates and prevented from leaving by guards, walls, and fences. While inside the prison, the inmates are required to live according to the dictates of the administration that also restrict their movements. Because almost every minute of the inmates’ lives are controlled by the rules of the institution, as enforced by the staff, the prison is considered a closed institution.3

Prisons carry out a number of functions. First, they must keep the inmates within their custody. Second, many institutions use inmates to produce a product, typically through a prison industries program. Finally, institutions are sometimes responsible for the treatment of inmates. This can be through education, drug or alcohol treatment, or vocational training programs.4

The primary goals of the corrections agencies throughout the United States revolve around punishment (deterrence) and rehabilitation. These goals focus on either protecting the public or rehabilitating the prisoner, but most correctional programs are a mixture of goals.5 The majority of correctional programs include some element of retribution or

Page 2 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

punishment whereby wrongdoers are punished because they committed an illegal act and should be given their just deserts. This often includes incapacitating the offender, who is then prevented from reoffending by the punishment imposed, either temporarily or permanently. Of course, executed offenders never reoffend. There are also fines and other sentences that serve, at least partially, to punish an offender. These punishments are also set up to function as a deterrent to potential criminals, preventing future criminal behavior. There are two types of deterrence. One is general deterrence, in which offenders are punished to deter others from committing criminal acts. The other is specific deterrence, where an individual commits a crime, is punished for it, and finds the punishment so unpleasant that the offense is never repeated. If society can deter crime from occurring, it can also at the same time protect its citizens from violence and harm.

Most programs also include elements of rehabilitation, which incorporates an underlying premise that punishment can reform or change an offender’s character and make him or her less likely to reoffend in the future. Sometimes referred to as the “medical model,” it assumes that something is wrong with the offender that causes him or her to commit crime. Whatever is wrong can be fixed so that the person will not offend again. Education and job training are two examples of rehabilitative programs offered to inmates that offer them a chance to improve themselves so that they can function as productive citizens. While in prison, offenders can receive an education and marketable skill so that when they return to the outside world, they can find profitable employment and no longer be forced to steal or commit additional crimes. In other words, when inmates are released from a rehabilitative program, they will be able to gain employment that provides an income instead of relying on crime to obtain what they want or need.

The corrections system can be categorized by the government body that oversees it (i.e., federal, state, and local systems) and also by the level of punishment provided (maximum, medium, and minimum security). There are also separate facilities for men, women, and juveniles who have been charged with or convicted of criminal offenses. Within these categories, there are many varieties of programs and punishments designed to deal with different offenders. Each plays a role in the policy process and must deal with many controversial policies.

Politics and Corrections

Generally, there are two approaches to corrections policies that are supported by politicians on all levels of government. The first is the liberal approach to punishment, which involves less strict punishments, focusing instead on rehabilitation programs, such as furlough programs. The emphasis here is on providing due process, equal protection of the law, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment as well as the reform of the inmate.6 This approach acknowledges the role of social inequality in causing crime; for example, the lack of educational opportunities, a lack of employment, and racism cause a person to commit crime. It is based on the medical model, where deficiencies within an inmate can be identified and the appropriate treatment provided so that the inmate can change his or her behavior and become a productive member of society. Under this assumption, crime is the product of moral default of society.7 There is an underlying assumption that the individualized treatment of offenders would be most effective in preventing future involvement in crime.8 This approach was the basis for indeterminate sentencing, whereby an inmate’s release date depends on a desired behavioral change. In other words, inmates are released when they are deemed to be “rehabilitated.”

Rehabilitation saw its heyday during the 1960s. At this time, community corrections became very popular because it had the intention of reintegrating offenders into society so that they could become productive members of the community rather than returning to a life of crime. It was thought that community corrections could restore family links, help offenders obtain employment and education, and secure a sense of place and pride in their daily lives. As a result, administrators started using probation and parole more often. Additionally, smaller institutions located near urban areas rather than large institutions located in rural settings were designed to hold offenders. Sometimes community corrections programs included special programs within the structure of the community that were designed to create links between the offender and the community.9

The second approach to corrections policy is the conservative approach, which involves stricter punishment, few inmate rights, and strict and certain punishments for criminal behavior. Under this philosophy, criminal behavior is made through free choice and is the result of inadequate control by the offender. Thus, there is a need for speedy

Page 3 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

punishment when criminal activity occurs. The corrections system would be more effective if there were swift and certain punishment with a greater use of imprisonment, including more and longer prison terms. In this way, crime would be reduced.10

The sentencing policy that resulted from the conservative approach revolved around determinate sentences. These required judges to impose punishments that were commensurate with the crime committed rather than the character or background of the criminal. An inmate’s release date is firm, not dependent on an inmate’s behavioral changes. When politicians who supported this philosophy were elected into office, they changed the focus of the justice system to reflect this approach, but they also put more emphasis on the rights of crime victims than on the offender.

In recent years, the federal government has been more conservative and thus supports policies that reflect the conservative point of view concerning corrections. It is currently politically popular to support a “get-tough-on-crime” stance toward offenders and punishment. As a result, the system has become more punitive, with the rehabilitation of offenders taking second place to punishment of offenders. New laws mandate longer prison sentences, abolish parole, and make prison life harsher.

There may be some serious consequences as a result of these conservative policies that have been implemented, such as an increased number of people in prisons (overcrowding and poor conditions within the prison) or at least more people under correctional supervision. There may also be increased costs for providing more incarceration services. Additional consequences involve increased stress on correctional officers and other personnel.

Restorative Justice

The concepts surrounding restorative justice constitute a new paradigm or approach to criminal justice. This entails a more proactive system that puts an emphasis on preventing crime at early stages so that society is protected from harm. The underlying belief is that offenders can change if they accept responsibility for their actions. The concept rejects the traditional punishment mechanisms, using incarceration only as a last resort, and shifts the focus of punishment to actively involve both the victim and the offender. It is based on a belief that the extensive use of punishment as a deterrent has failed because it does not involve the victims and offenders in making decisions about criminal sentences. Restorative justice works to repair the injury caused by the crime by shifting the role of the offender from being a passive recipient of punishment to an active participant in repairing the harm done. The use of mediation, restitution, community service, and police–community partnerships to resolve conflict is common.11

HISTORY

Over time, the corrections system has evolved in the United States to become what it is today. The opposing political ideologies (i.e., conservative and liberal) are reflected in the dominant criminal justice policies of the time that are made to help deal with offenders. As the prominent ideology changes, the approach to correctional programs shifts as well.

The initial experiment in confining offenders convicted of criminal offenses took place in 1790 and involved converting sixteen cells at the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, into housing for convicted felons. This became America’s first penitentiary and was referred to as the Philadelphia, or Pennsylvania, system. The prison revolved around a system of solitary confinement, manual labor, and Bible study in their cells. The prisoners were kept separate from each other as well as from the outside world. The aim of this system was one of penance.12

The Walnut Street Penitentiary evolved into the Eastern State Penitentiary in 1829, which remained in use until 1970. At Eastern, they used the basic format of confining offenders to solitary cells but used a congregate work environment. Another approach at that time was the “Auburn model” in New York State, which required inmates to work during the day, but they were prohibited from talking or even exchanging glances.13 The purpose of these early institutions was to punish the offender and at the same time prevent further harm to the inmates, which results from contact with other

Page 4 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

inmates. This was done by disallowing communication between inmates. This form of punishment was popular from about 1870.14

The “Big House,” referring to maximum-security prisons, was popular across the United States throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Here, prisoners worked in jobs that kept them occupied, such as working in rock piles. The tasks were not meant to be productive or make a profit. The inmates simply “did their time.”

As this discussion illustrates, until the 1930s, the dominant view of corrections was primarily punishment and deterrence. Most felt that criminals could not be rehabilitated or changed into law-abiding citizens, so they ought to be punished.15 However, there was a shift in the dominant approach to correctional policy across the United States at about that time. Most states supported removing harsh discipline from prisons and replacing it with educational, vocational, and treatment programs for inmates. This approach to treating an inmate rather than on strict punishment was called “rehabilitation” and was popular from the 1930s until the 1970s among correctional personnel. At this time, the term “penitentiary” was replaced with “correctional institution” and “prison guard” with “correctional officer” to demonstrate the focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The use of rehabilitation as the primary theory of criminal justice policy was initiated largely by President Johnson’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which was established in 1965 to investigate the causes and nature of crime. The 1967 final report from the commission reflected the liberal perspective that crime could be prevented if social inequalities were corrected. It was a strong endorsement of treating inmates instead of punishing them.16 Crime was conceptualized as a social problem that resulted from basic inequalities in society, such as employment and educational differences. The offender was viewed as a victim of society’s ills. It was hoped that prisoners could be rehabilitated to rejoin society in a productive capacity by using psychology or counseling or teaching marketable skills.17 On the whole, the primary purpose of prisons was to produce changes in the characters, attitudes, and behavior of convicted offenders.18

The rehabilitative approach dominated in the United States for most of the twentieth century.19 During this time, there was a tremendous expansion of community-based programs.20 There were also shifts to indefinite prison sentences. But as time went on, the concept of rehabilitation began to weaken among correctional administrators, politicians, and scholars.21 Administrators found that many of the assumptions on which the ideas were based were vague and ambiguous.22 It became clear that correctional institutions were not as effective in rehabilitating offenders as previously thought, as many released inmates ended up back in prison.23 The nation also witnessed increased violent crime rates, an increase in the use of illegal drugs, and worsening race relations.

Scholars soon discovered empirical data that seemed to show that correctional treatment programs were not effective in preventing repeat criminal activity. In a relatively short time, new research seemed to show that real rehabilitation was not possible and that rehabilitative programs were misdirected.24 One of those landmark research projects was conducted by Robert Martinson in 1974, titled “What Works.” In this study, Martinson surveyed 231 experimental studies of juvenile and adult offenders of both sexes.25 He concluded that “nothing works.”26

Combined, all these factors fostered a conservative “lock-’em-up” attitude. These events signaled the end of rehabilitation as a primary focus for correctional policy. The rehabilitation era was replaced by the “conservative era” of punishment, which was popular from 1975 to 1995.27 From then on, criminal justice policy was dominated by a very different approach to dealing with criminal offenders.28 Conservatives argued that the liberal rehabilitation programs failed to reduce crime.29 The “conservative revolution” redefined crime as a criminal justice problem and rejected both social explanations of and social solutions to crime.30 They blamed increasing crime rates and recidivism rates on the ineffectiveness of rehabilitation programs.

This period was dominated by harsh punishment rather than treatment of offenders. One popular idea of that era was determinate or mandatory sentences, whereby offenders must serve a sentence for a fixed number of years regardless of their participation in any type of rehabilitation or educational program. This included a well-defined prescription of punishments: The punishment for the more serious offenses would be greater than that for the less serious ones. Many

Page 5 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

states turned to determinate sentencing and sentencing guidelines in which the state legislature rather than the judiciary decides what the sentence should be for each offense.

Conservative reforms throughout the 1990s also attempted to limit the discretion of parole boards by requiring a higher percentage of inmates’ sentences be served before they are eligible for parole. In some states and in the federal government, “truth-in-sentencing” laws have eliminated parole. Inmates do not get time off for good behavior within the institution. A more recent idea to the conservative approach is the “three-strikes-and-you’re out” approach to sentencing.

Some would argue that we are now in a period of “overt politicization.” They argue that policymakers ignore research findings, instead supporting any policy that shows short-term promise. For example, the policy of using mandatory minimum sentences has become popular even though many studies have shown that the people receiving the mandatory sentences are among the most benign in terms of their prior record. Most politicians do not want to take the political risk of failing to address crime and being labeled soft on crime, so they support programs that provide immediate results.31

For the most part, the overall mission and goals of correctional agencies will depend to a large extent on which political ideology is dominant at the time. The emphasis on rehabilitation by liberal party members creates certain procedures that are significantly different than those created by conservative party members.32 Over time, there is an ebb and flow of correctional ideologies, with one approach dominating the other, then vice versa. Nonetheless, while the philosophical ideology and stated goals of the prison and the criminal justice system have fluctuated over time, the basic concept of imprisoning people in cages remains the central feature of our correctional system.33

PRISON POPULATIONS

As of February 2010, there were 208,799 inmates in federal prisons. Of those, 16.7 percent were held in minimum- security, 38.4 percent in low-security, 29.6 percent in medium-security, and 11.1 percent in high-security prisons (4 % have not been assigned to a security level). The majority of the federal inmates were male (93.4 % versus 6.6 % female), white (57.6 %), and U.S. citizens (73.3 %). The average inmate age was 38. Most of the inmates were charged with drug offenses (51.6 %), followed by weapons offenses (15.1 %), immigration (11.3 %), robbery (4.5 %), burglary (3.5 %), extortion (5.0 %), and homicide (2.8 %).34

Box 12.1 shows the number of inmates in state or federal prisons from 1995 to 2002. It shows that the number of inmates has continued to increase over time, peaking at 2 million in 2002. The states with the highest prison populations are California, Texas, Florida and New York and those with the lowest are North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. However, when the population of the state is taken into consideration and the states are compared by the rate of incarceration (as opposed to number of inmates), the states with the highest rates of incarceration become Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama. The states with the lowest rates of incarceration are Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Maine had the highest percent change in its number of inmates (an 11.5% change), and Alaska had the lowest (they had a 3.8% change).35

Table 12.1 shows the incarceration rate for those inmates who are serving a sentence of over one year in either a state or a federal prison. There is a higher incarceration rate for state prisons, as might be expected.

Box 12.1 Number of Inmates in State or Federal Prisons and Jails, 1995 –2002

1995 1,585,586

1996 1,646,020

Page 6 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

1997 1,743,643

1998 1,816,931

1999 1,869,115

2000 1,937,482

2001 1,961,247

2002 2,003,331

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 2002” (December 2002).

Table 12.1 Incarceration Rate in State or Federal Prison of Inmates Sentenced to One Year or More, 2007

Type of Prison Rate per 100,000 U.S. Residents

Federal 59

State 447

Total 506

Source: Public Agenda, available online at www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides.crime/getfacts.

Additionally, at the end of 2002, over 4.7 million adult men and women were under federal, state, or local probation or parole jurisdiction.36 Some of this increase in the prison population has been attributed to the truth-in-sentencing policies that were adopted in many states and to other mandatory sentencing policies.

Table 12.2 shows the percentage of inmates in state and federal prison by their offense. This shows that most inmates in state facilities committed violent offenses, followed by property and drug offenses, with public order offenses being the least often committed offense. Most of the inmates in federal prison were convicted of drug offenses, followed by public order offenses and violent offenses, with property offenses being the offense for which offenders are least often arrested. This also shows that on the federal level, from 2007 to 2008, the number of inmates convicted for drug offenses and violent offenses decreased slightly, whereas convictions for public order and property offenses increased.

Page 7 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Table 12.2 Percentage of Inmates in State and Federal Prisons by Type of Offense

State (2006) Federal (2008)

Violent 50.2% Violent 8.5%

Property 20.9% Property 6.1%

Public order 8.4% Public order 32.5%

Drug 20.0% Drug 52.15%

Other 0.5% Other 2%

Source: William J. Sabol, Heather C. West, and Matthew Cooper, “Prisoners in 2008” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics), December 2009; available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf.

Table 12.3 shows the average time served by violent offenders in 2003–04. On average, the longest sentences were given to offenders who were convicted of sexual offenders, followed by murder and robbery. Long terms of probation were given for sexual abuse, murder, drug offenses and embezzlement.

Table 12.3 Average Sentence Length for Inmates Sentenced October 1, 2003–Sept 30, 2004

Incarceration (Months) Probation (Months)

All violent offenses 59.7 32.2

All Property Offenses 27.4 39.2

All Drug Offenses 83.6 41.0

Murder 111.20 42.0

Assault 44.8 32.7

Robbery 105.3 42.8

Page 8 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Incarceration (Months) Probation (Months)

Sexual abuse 112.2 44.3

Embezzlement 16.0 40.1

Counterfeiting 24.1 38.4

Source: Mark Motivans, Steven K. Smith, “Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2004” (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs).

There is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the people who are under the control of a correctional authority (federal, state, or local) are not an accurate representation of the nation’s population. Most inmates in state correctional institutions tend to be young African-American and Hispanic males who are uneducated and unemployed or marginally employed in low-paying jobs.37 African-American males make up 6 percent of the U.S. population, yet they represent nearly 50 percent of prison inmates.38 Additionally, African-Americans tend to serve far longer sentences than whites for similar offenses. In the federal correctional system, sentences for African-Americans are 20 percent longer than those given to white defendants for similar crimes.39 In the mid-1990s, about half of the prison inmates across the country were African-American, but they made up only 13 percent of the nation’s population. One in fourteen adult black males was locked up in a prison or jail on any given day.40

There are other discrepancies between races. African-American males have an 18 percent chance of serving time in a juvenile or adult prison at some time in their lives, while white males have only a 3 percent chance.41

It has been argued that these racial disparities in arrests, jailing, and imprisonment have become only worse after 1980 and that they had little to do with changes in crime patterns.42 It was argued that the increase in the number of African- American men and women who are under correctional control is due to arrests and convictions for possession and sale of drugs. It has been reported that African-Americans made up almost 40 percent of those arrested for drug-related violations. Based on these and other figures, it was estimated that, if the current rate of incarceration of African- Americans continues, 63 percent of all African-American men between the ages of 18 and 34 will be incarcerated, mainly for minor offenses, by 2020.43

CONGRESS AND CORRECTIONS

For many years, crime control was considered a state issue and dealt with primarily by the states. However, this has changed, and in recent years crime control and corrections has become an important part of the federal government’s agenda. A quick review of some recent examples of congressional legislation dealing with corrections provides an insight into the types of bills the U.S. Congress passes.

In the 108th Congress (2003-04), a new law related to prison conditions (S 1435; PL 108-79) was proposed signed into law by President Bush. The new law, called the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, required the Bureau of Justice to carry out an analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in federal, state, and local institutions. The bill would also provide for information, resources, recommendations and funding to protect inmates in the future from becoming victims of rape within a correctional facility. To do this, a new panel, called the Review Panel on Prison Rape, was created and given the mandate to collect information on the victims and perpetrators of prison rape. The panel members would then determine effective methods to deter prison rapes.

The members of the 110th Congressional session (2007-08) continued to debate bills related to inmates. One new law passed in this session (HR 7082: PL 110-428), the Inmate Tax Fraud Prevention Act, amended the Internal Revenue

Page 9 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Code so that the Secretary of the Treasury would be permitted to disclose the tax return information of certain prisoners who have been identified as having filed false tax returns. Another new law this session (HR 3992; PL 100-416) was termed the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008. This law approved funding for adult and juvenile mental health programs that revolved around the identification and treat mentally ill offenders. Provisions of the law provide for training officers and campus security so they are better able to respond to incidents involving mentally ill individuals, and provide for computerized systems to improve responses to people with special needs. The bill also establishes money for the use and expansion of mental health courts.

The 111th Congress (2009-10) acted on a proposal (HR 4218/PL 111-115) that would prevent inmates, fugitive felons, and probation or parole violators to receive social security. The bill, called the No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act of 2009, was passed extremely quickly by the House and Senate. The bill was originally introduced into the House of Representatives on December 8, 2009, and signed by the president on December 15, 2009.

Other proposals have been introduced into the Congress during the 111th Congress but have yet to be passed. In January 2009, the Judiciary Committee in the Senate received a bill (S 41) that, if passed, would require inmates in federal institutions to work a fifty hours a week. The “Prisoner Opportunity, Work, and Education Requirement Act” (also called the POWER Act) would require federal inmates to not only work, but to engage in job training in addition to educational and like skills study. In the House of Representatives, the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee is considering a bill (HR 2450) that would require nonfederal prisons who are holding federal prisoners (under a contract with the federal government) to make the same information available to the public that federal prisons are required to make available. The members of the same subcommittee are considering another bill (HR 4328) that would give credit to an inmate who participated in educational, vocational, treatment, assigned work, or other developmental programs. The credit could be used toward lessening their sentence.44

CORRECTIONAL BUREAUCRACIES

Over the years, many federal bureaucracies or agencies have been established to oversee the corrections system across the nation. The primary federal agency that oversees the corrections system is the Bureau of Prisons, established in 1929. When this was done, the federal government, for the first time, ended its reliance on state prison facilities to maintain those who violated federal criminal laws.45 Currently, the Bureau of Prisons is divided into six regions: mid- Atlantic, north-central, northeast, south-central, southeast, and western. The central office is located in Washington, D.C.

The Bureau of Prisons oversees many institutions that house a wide variety of offenders. These facilities are of different security levels so that inmates can be housed in the most appropriate manner. Security levels are based on such features as the presence of external patrols, gun towers, security barriers, or detection devices. They are also based on the type of housing found within the institution, internal security features, and the staff-to-inmate ratio. Each facility is placed in one of five groups: minimum, low, medium, high, and administrative.46

Part of the Bureau of Prisons is the National Institute of Corrections. Located within the U.S. Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), it is headed by a director who is appointed by the U.S. attorney general. There is also a 16- member advisory board whose members are also appointed by the attorney general. The National Institute of Corrections was established to provide training, technical assistance, information services, and policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies. It also provides leadership to influence correctional policies practices and operations nationwide in areas of emerging interest and concern to correctional executives and practitioners as well as public policymakers.47

A relatively new federal agency that deals with correctional issues is the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This office, headed by Jim Towey, was established by President George W. Bush to strengthen and expand the role of faith-based and community organizations in providing solutions to various social problems. Some of its priority areas include at-risk youth and ex-offenders. It provides grant money, resources, and legal guidance.48

Page 10 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

One more example is the U.S. Parole Commission, headed by Chairman Edward F. Reilly, Jr. The mission of the Parole Commission is to promote public safety and “strive for justice and fairness in the exercise of its authority to release and supervise offenders under its jurisdiction.” The commission is responsible for granting or denying parole to federal offenders and making determinations regarding the conditions of parole supervision for these offenders.49

COURT DECISIONS AND CORRECTIONS

From 1787, when the courts were created, until the 1960s, the federal courts followed a “hands-off” doctrine regarding offenders and prison conditions related to inmate litigation.50 They did not regulate how states treated their inmates. But eventually, using the doctrine of incorporation, the federal courts began to apply the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the behavior of state officials and began to provide for due process and equal protection to inmates. After World War II, federal courts also began to express a concern for the rights of minorities.51 At this time, African-Americans made up the majority of the inmate population in many state prisons. As the civil rights movement grew, Black Muslim inmates, often assisted by lawyers with civil rights experience, began to successfully challenge correctional policies and procedures.52 The “prisoners’ rights movement,” as it was called, thus grew out of the civil rights movement.

The traditional hands-off policy stopped in the Warren court, when the U.S. Supreme Court became more involved in prison reform. Since then, federal judges have in some cases ordered state officials to dramatically change the way they operate their prisons and jails and how they treat their inmates.53 There have been many legal cases in recent years that have challenged both the treatment of inmates and the conditions within the prison facility, such as overcrowded conditions, double bunking of inmates in cells meant for one person, inadequate health care, and unsanitary conditions. There have been numerous court orders to change procedures within correctional facilities.

There were many key cases that helped provide humane treatment for inmates. For example, in Jones v. Cunningham (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that state prison inmates could employ a writ of habeas corpus not only to challenge the legality of their imprisonment but also to contest the conditions of their incarceration. Another early decision was Cooper v. Pate (1964), in which the Court established the general principle that prison inmates had constitutional rights. In this case, the justices held that prisoners possessed standing to sue in federal court under the Civil Rights Acts of 1871.54

The entire prison system in Arkansas was found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment found in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. This was decided in Holt v. Sarver (1969). In this case, a U.S. district court found deficiencies in the facilities, safety, medical services, staff practices, and security of the institutions. Additionally, the court ruled that conditions within the prison, including violence at night in the prison dormitories, the robbery of new inmates of all their possessions, and forcing prisoners to pay bribes to get medicine, also constituted cruel and unusual punishment.55

In 1978, conditions within the Arkansas prison system once again came under federal court orders. This time the case was Hutto v. Finney (437 U.S. 678, decided in 1978), which involved the practice of punitive isolation whereby four to eleven inmates, some with hepatitis and venereal disease, were housed in a windowless cell measuring eight feet by ten feet. There was no furniture, and the inmates were forced to sleep on mattresses placed on the floor. There was only one toilet in the room, and this could be flushed only from outside the cell. There was only one source of water. Order was maintained by guards using nightsticks and mace. Inmates were given only one four-inch square of “grue,” a pastry that provided around 1,000 calories per day. The Supreme Court justices once again found the conditions to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.56

The Texas prison system also came under court order. In 1980, the case of Ruiz v. Estelle went to the U.S. district court. This was a class-action lawsuit that alleged that the policies of the Texas Department of Corrections were unconstitutional and even a threat to the safety of the inmates. The district court judge presiding over the case ordered the Texas Department of Corrections to make dramatic changes in its prison system. The district court declared that state prison officials had to halt overcrowding of inmates (sometimes two or three in a cell meant for one), reduce the use of force by prison employees, double the number of correctional officers, retrain veteran officers, eliminate internal

Page 11 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

inmate control of prison activities, upgrade inmate health care, improve inmate disciplinary practices, liberalize good- time policies, revise the handling of inmate grievances, establish more elaborate hearing processes, revise the classification system, close or upgrade the prison hospital, and correct problems concerning fire and safety standards.

Texas responded by spending millions of dollars to improve the state’s correctional facilities. But in 1987, U.S. District Court Judge William Wayne Justice ruled that these requirements had not been met by the Texas Department of Corrections and therefore that the state was in contempt of court. The judge ruled that if the problems were not remedied by April 1987, he would fine the state approximately $800,000 per day.57

The justices slowly began to define some concepts, such as due process. In Wolff v. McDonald (418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, decided in 1974), the Supreme Court justices declared that inmates were entitled to a notice of the charges against them, a written statement of the evidence, the right to call witnesses and present evidence, and a hearing before an impartial disciplinary board. Litigants retained some noninmate rights. However, in Meacham v. Fano (427 U.S. 215, 96 S. Ct. 2532, decided in 1976), neither assignment to a particular prison nor transfer between prisons is subject to any sort of constitutional requirement of due process. Then, in 1983, the Court decided Hewitt v. Helms (459 U.S. 460, 103 S. Ct. 864), in which the justices decided that prison administrators were not required to give an inmate a full- blown adversarial review of the facts before placing him or her in administrative segregation. Mississippi and Oklahoma were also found to be similarly deficient and under court orders.58

During the 1970s, activists concerned about the treatment of inmates banded together and formed the National Prison Project. Through this organization, they began to fight inhumane prison conditions across the nation. By the end of 1983, eight states had their prison systems declared unconstitutional; twenty-two had facilities operating either under a court order or consent decree, and nine others were engaged in litigation.59 By 1995, thirty-nine states were under court order to improve prison conditions. Since then, prisoners have used the courts to win rights to practice religion, to correspond with people outside the prison, and to receive books and magazines.60

There are many other cases that demonstrate the expansion of inmate rights. The federal government, even today, continues to oversee conditions within state correctional facilities. In fact, filings by state prisoners increased in the federal courts over 120 percent between 1970 and 1983. In fact, as of July 21, 1995, all state prisons in Louisiana were under federal court supervision. Attorneys for inmates successfully argued that “the Department of Public Safety and Corrections did not properly manage four critical areas: prison overcrowding, violence, inmate programming, and medical services.”61 Because of the involvement of the courts, the nature of correctional policy has changed. The courts now provide an oversight function to guarantee that inmates are provided basic human rights.

The intrusion of federal courts into state correctional policy is controversial, particularly when they have taken over full operating responsibility or ordered increased state and local expenditures for prisons. Important questions concerning the proper division of power between the national government and the state governments have been raised, as have questions about the competence of federal court officials to run state prison systems. But some states have operated prisons under less-than-humane conditions.62

Over the past few years, hundreds if not thousands of cases involving prison conditions and the treatment of inmates have been litigated.63 However, recent court decisions are reversing that trend, as are congressional actions. Proposals to restrict prisoner lawsuits were part of the “Contract with America” that many Republicans supported in 1994. At that time, the Republicans, who had gained the majority in Congress, wanted to reform prisoner lawsuits on the argument that many of them were frivolous and cost millions of dollars for the states to litigate. Two senators in particular, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), were also concerned about excessive prisoner lawsuits.64

In response, the Prison Litigation Reform Act was proposed in Congress as a means to curtail prisoner lawsuits and in turn return power for prisoner management to the states. It was an attempt by the Republican Congress to reduce the number of lawsuits filed by both federal and state inmates. President Clinton signed the bill on April 26, 1996.

The new legislation requires that inmates use all administrative remedies before filing suit under federal civil rights laws. Additionally, no prisoner may file suit if on three or more prior occasions the action or appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted unless the

Page 12 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

prisoner is in immediate physical danger. The new law also imposes restrictions on the ability of inmates to proceed in the manner of a pauper (which means that they do not have to pay a filing fee). The law also makes it easier for state and local governments to terminate or modify consent decrees and court orders that govern conditions in federal and state prisons and local jails.65

CORRECTIONS AND THE POLICY PROCESS

The corrections agencies have an influential role in all aspects of the policy process, from start to finish. They operate within the federal, state, and local political environment and are concerned about improving the policy toward correctional programs and the treatment of inmates involved in those programs. The legislation may also affect their work environment and their safety.

Problem Identification

Since inmates rarely have the opportunity to meet with politicians and discuss their concerns, they must rely on others who are sympathetic to their causes. This can be corrections agencies or interest groups that are aware of problems and play a role in helping to identify problems within corrections systems that need attention. All these groups become involved in the problem identification stage of the policy process and help convey problems to legislators. Such problems include those regarding inmates as well as work environments to support the employees of correctional programs. Thus, they are concerned with prisoner rights issues as well as the safety of the employees who are part of the corrections systems.

Problems are sometimes identified by the many corrections bureaucracies and agencies that have been established to deal with these issues at all levels of government. Officials within the Bureau of Prisons often help identify problems such as conditions within the prisons or the treatment of the inmates. They may provide guidelines to states concerning conditions within an institution.

Problems can also be identified by interest groups that have formed around the concerns of inmates. An example of this is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which often gets involved in correctional issues. The ACLU has a division called the National Prison Project (NPP), which originated in 1972 after the Attica prison riot. The NPP’s purpose is to protect the adult and juvenile offenders’ Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The NPP has frequently become involved in prison reform litigation, and it often takes a public position on different correctional issues in order to influence policymaking. The attorneys for the NPP often draft model legislation to help advise state legislatures about alternatives to incarceration. Finally, the NPP also serves as a resource center for the law governing the policies of corrections. In recent years, the NPP has become involved in such issues as reducing incarceration, improving the conditions of confinement, placing an emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment programs, halting the transfer of child offenders to adult facilities, giving some attention to the concerns of female prisoners, decriminalizing mental illness, and eliminating private prisons.66

Another interest group that is sometimes at odds with the ACLU is the American Jail Association. It is an organization designed to support the employees who operate and are employed in local jails across the country.67

Often a problem will be identified as the result of a triggering event, such as a riot or other prison disturbance. For example, the Attica uprising in New York resulted in major changes in the administration of prisons there and elsewhere and the rights given to the inmates. This trigger event helps bring issues to light, such as overcrowding, religious rights, and other inmate rights issues. These types of events sometimes force legislators to recognize a problem.

Agenda Setting

Correctional agencies, interest groups, and the general public all help set the political agenda by convincing legislators and staff of relevant issues or problems that need attention. Again, since the majority of people involved in the

Page 13 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

corrections systems as inmates are not able to convey their issues to elected officials in Washington, other groups must do that on their behalf. Each of these actors can provide information to legislators indicating the extent of the problem and convince them that some action is needed. The key is to convince a legislator or staff member that the problem is significant enough to warrant the attention of the legislative body.

One group that consistently helps set the political agenda in criminal justice is the ACLU. In recent years, the ACLU gave its support to the Prison Rape Reduction Act (S 2619) but noted that more needed to be done to solve the problem. The bill would establish a commission to study the extent of prison rape and its long-term effects.68 The organization also urged opposition to the Federal Prison Industries Competition Contracting Act of 2001 (HR 1577), a bill that would end prison employment programs. The ACLU claimed that prison industries are key in reducing recidivism, easing inmates’ reentry into society after release, and providing some measure of future prospects to unskilled and undereducated inmates.69

Sometimes, the agenda reflects the public’s opinions about crime and punishment rather than reality. Polls continue to show that the public is concerned about crime and tends to favor conservative policies, such as the death penalty and periods of long incarceration. Politicians pick up on this and, as representatives of their constituents, place more conservative, “get-tough” policies on the agenda.

Policy Formulation

Interest groups and bureaucracies concerned about criminal justice issues get involved in the policy formulation aspect of the policy process. Obviously, each group has a certain perspective on the issues and their own ideas about the best way to solve the problem. Thus, they get involved to convince legislators to act in a certain way.

Interest groups and bureaucracies use the same techniques in attempting to have an effect on the final policy. They do this by meeting with legislators and staff often to discuss the problem and lobby them for a potential solution. They try to convince them to vote a particular way. The groups also try to influence policy by helping legislators and their staff write proposals for legislation that reflects their perspective about the problem and the best solution. Furthermore, the interest groups may provide information to the legislators through hearings in committees and subcommittees.

One interest group that is involved in attempting to influence legislators on corrections issues is the AFSCME Corrections United, an organization of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). This is because many prison guards and corrections officers are unionized and represented by AFSCME. The organization fights for better pay and benefits as well as safer working conditions for corrections officers and other employees in the field of corrections.70

Program Implementation

Correctional agencies at the federal, state, and local levels are the ones responsible for implementing policies passed by Congress. On the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons oversees the implementation of correctional services, whereas each state has created an agency to do this. Such agencies implement programs within prisons as well as those outside prisons (e.g., community corrections) for men, women, and juveniles. To this extent, they have a lot of power to define terms, services, and clients that may be left undefined by Congress. The bureaucracies must respond to congressional mandates but do so to varying degrees. Some bureaucrats will follow the mandates more closely than others. They must also meet standards set by the courts.

Program Evaluation and Reassessment

Correctional agencies must evaluate their programs to determine if they work and if they are cost efficient (how much the program costs). This can be done by the agency itself or by an outside agency that is hired to evaluate a program.

Page 14 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

It is often difficult to determine if a program worked, especially in a social science such as criminal justice. There are a host of other factors that can influence a person’s behavior, so determining if a program caused a behavioral change is difficult. To say with certainty that “program X caused behavioral change Y” (referred to as causality) is tenuous. Sometimes the methodological designs used by researchers to determine if a program worked can be complicated and at other times much simpler. Sometimes two studies on the same program or policy can show opposite results. A classic example concerns studies done on capital punishment. Some studies show that the death penalty deters crime, while others show that it does not.71

Determining the cost effectiveness of a program is just as difficult. What exactly is “cost effective”? This definition will differ from person to person. Although researchers can complete a cost-benefit analysis on each program implemented in criminal justice and determine exactly what the costs and benefits of a program were, it sometimes requires that a monetary cost be applied to elements that cannot be sold in the market. For example, how does one put a monetary value on a human life? Or on the value of justice? There are essential elements to criminal justice programs that cannot be addressed simply through monetary means. Additionally, even if a program is determined to be cheaper, it does not necessarily mean it is better at achieving the goals of the system.

One area where issues surrounding the implementation costs of a program helped guide policy choices is private prisons. Some legislatures decided that one way to deal with a dwindling budget for corrections (at the same time the public demands for more incarceration) was to use private prisons. It was anticipated that they would have lower construction costs as well as lower administrative costs. However, there is little evidence of a reduction in costs and even some evidence of increased administrative problems.72

These evaluations are sometimes initiated by Congress or a state legislature. They are looking for effectiveness as well as waste and inefficiency. If a program is found to be effective, the legislators may continue to fund it with high appropriations. Additionally, the program might be put into effect in other jurisdictions or expanded to other prisons or inmate populations.

However, if the analysis shows waste and inefficiency, then legislators are faced with choosing the fate of that program. They may not choose to re-fund the program, or they may put the funding into other programs. They may simply choose to reorganize or restructure the program in an attempt to improve it.

ISSUES FACING CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS

There are many issues that correctional administrators must face on a day-to-day basis. These are areas in which a policy has been made by a legislative body and then implemented by a bureaucracy. Some of these are described in the following sections.

Overcrowding

Box 12.2 Overcapacity Percentages of State Prisons, 2008 (Highest/Lowest)

Alabama 98/188%

Alaska 111/116%

Arizona 79/88%

Page 15 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Arkansas 95/100%

California 106/204%

Colorado 120/137%

Connecticut N/A

Delaware 123/167%

Florida 88/88%

Georgia 103/103%

Hawaii 96/137%

Idaho 108/113%

Illinois 133/150%

Indiana 88/88%

Iowa 64/64%

Kansas 92/92%

Kentucky 93/95%

Louisiana 114/115%

Maine 109/109%

Maryland 97/97%

Massachusetts 140/140%

Michigan 97/97%

Page 16 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Minnesota 101/101%

Mississippi 75/75%

Missouri 96/96%

Montana 93/93%

Nebraska 113/141%

Nevada 86/118%

New Hampshire 98/133%

New Jersey 96/132%

New Mexico 48/52%

New York 99/105%

North Carolina 100/116%

North Dakota 132/139%

Ohio 127/127%

Oklahoma 94/94%

Oregon 94/94%

Pennsylvania 101/101%

Rhode Island 88/93%

South Carolina 98/98%

Page 17 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

South Dakota 97/97%

Tennessee 70/71%

Texas 85/87%

Utah 75/77%

Vermont 80/101%

Virginia 93/93%

Washington 111/125%

West Virginia 98/118%

Wisconsin 125/125%

Wyoming 75/80%

Source: William J. Sabol, Heather C. West, Matthew Cooper, “Prisoners in 2008” (December 20009) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.

Many state correctional facilities are dealing with overcrowded institutions, meaning that a correctional facility is holding more inmates than it has capacity. The effects of overcrowding can lead to violence within the institution (both inmate to inmate and inmate to staff), health problems (for both inmates and staff), stress-related injuries (for both inmates and staff), prison disciplinary problems, and even recidivism. Box 12.2 shows the extent of prison overcrowding across the nation. The figures indicate the percentage overcapacity of state prisons in 2002. The federal prisons are at 133 percent of capacity, and states range from 201 percent overcapacity in Alabama to 71 percent overcapacity in Idaho. As a response to the problem, states have implemented different methods to divert convicted offenders from prison. Some states have built new prisons or have increased the size of the current prisons by changing existing facilities, such as converting a gymnasium into a dormitory. Still other states have turned to diversion programs (that divert offenders from prison), probation, intensive probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, boot camps, house arrest, and shock probation or split sentences to reduce prison populations. Community corrections, or the use of early release of inmates (sometimes called “emergency release”), have also been used to reduce populations. Despite these changes, mandatory sentencing laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, and three-strikes policies have resulted in the continued increase of prison populations.

A special three-judge panel ruled that reducing California’s prison population by about 40,000 inmates over two years was necessary to improve medical and health care of the inmates. Schwarzenegger proposed sending inmates to private prisons, building additional prisons and sending criminals convicted of drug possession, receiving stolen property, theft, and check fraud to county jails.73 In 2009, the Supreme Court rejected California’s challenge to a preliminary court order forcing the state to reduce its prison population. The justices turned down California’s request to delay a

Page 18 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

federal court order requiring the state to present a plan to reduce the population of its prisons by 40,000. The Court refused to extend a deadline for telling a special three-judge panel how the state will reduce its prison population by about 25 percent over two years.

Private Prisons

Because of issues of overcrowding and financial issues, many state policymakers are turning to private prisons to help house inmates and provide correctional needs for inmates. This involves turning to the private sector to provide care and treatment for inmates.74 Private prisons can be defined as “a contract process that shifts public functions, responsibilities, and capital assets, in whole or in part, from the public to the private sector.”75 Or, it can be the “government’s use of the private sector (both for-profit and not-for-profit) to deliver public policies and improve the content and implementation of public programs.”76 In 2001, it was estimated that 5.3 percent of sentenced, adult population were incarcerated in private prisons.77 By the end of 2008, this number had increased to 8 percent.78

Based in Nashville, Tennessee, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the nation’s largest provider of private prisons.79 Other companies that provide private prison services are Wackenhut Corrections Corporation; Management and Training Corporation; Cornell Corrections, Inc.; Correctional Services Corporation; McLoud Correctional Services, LLC; Marantha Production Company, LLC; Alternative Programs, Inc.; Dominion Management; and CiviGenics, Inc.80

The privatization of prisons can take many forms. One of the most common of those is when specific services are contracted out.81 For example, a state may enter into a contract with a private company (or hire a private firm) to provide government services, such as mental health and substance abuse counseling to inmates or educational services and job training/placement services.82 Or, a state may contract out for community residential services, such as halfway houses, drug treatment facilities, and alcohol treatment programs. In these cases, private contractors may provide for the management of inmates on a per diem basis. In other cases, a private contractor might provide direct food or laundry services or medical and dental care.83 A more radical approach is when the government transfers ownership of assets and management responsibilities to the private sector, leaving the government with a limited or nonexistent role in the financial support, management, and oversight of the sold asset.84 In this case, the states have chosen to allow private companies to oversee the complete operation of a facility. These companies assume total control over the inmate population.85

In some states, prison privatization may be a response to recent court orders demanding an improvement of living conditions and a reduction of overcrowding.86 Private prisons may be able to respond more quickly to court orders because private prisons can be constructed more quickly than state prisons since they do not have all the state requirements for bidding and contractors and do not need a bond issue or voter approval.

There are other benefits to private prisons. Private corporations can provide correctional services in a more cost- effective manner than the public sector, and some short-term savings can be realized.87 The state relies on private sector competition to ensure that the good or service is delivered at the lowest possible cost and at a high quality.88 In some cases, private contractors can be more cost efficient than the public sector because they have an incentive to seek new and innovative approaches to reducing the cost of the service. If they do not keep costs low while at the same time maintaining the quality of the service, they could lose any contracts. There is no similar incentive in the public sector.89 There may also be an opportunity for experimenting with new policy ideas and possibly untapped expertise in providing care and treatment of inmates.90 The government can hire specialists and people with other talents without necessarily adhering to the affirmative action requirements.91 Yet others argue that private industry cannot do a worse job than is presently being done by state and local agencies.92 Additionally, political debts can be paid off with private prisons.93

Another benefit to private prisons is that union employees (with generous salaries and benefits) are replaced by nonunion employees who do not require as much training and salary.94 Critics also argue that the need to lower the

Page 19 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

costs of the services will require that the contractor cut corners by hiring inexperienced and unqualified personnel. The administrators in private prisons find ways to keep people inside the institution because they profit from keeping people there, rather than finding ways to return them to their communities. In essence, overcrowding and reduced services mean higher profits. There are allegations of higher violence because of the overcrowding and untrained staff. One study of private prisons actually found a greater number of inmate-on-inmate assaults at private than at public prisons and that the rates of staff assaults, riots, fires and other disturbances were comparable.95 Unfortunately, since there is not as much oversight by the state, there is a serious potential for abuse directed against an imprisoned labor force.

Others would argue that the privatization of prisons leads to more problems within the correctional facility and therefore that the state should not give up this responsibility. They argue that holding, punishing, and/or treating offenders is—and should remain—a state responsibility and that state officials should not turn over that responsibility to private corporations. Corrections should not be a “for-profit” industry. They point out that there seem to be many problems associated with private prisons. One study found that privately operated prisons seem to have more systemic problems in maintaining their facilities. They found more escapes and drug use and higher staff turnover. Overall, the study concludes that there were serious problems with privately operated prisons.96

Despite these issues, private prisons are being used by the majority of states in an effort to reduce overcrowding and cost issues. Whether these prisons remain a popular option to reach these goals remains to be seen.

Inmate Labor

The use of inmates in prison industries has long been a controversial policy used by some prison administrators for a variety of reasons. Allowing inmates to participate in the program can teach them a trade to help them become less prone to committing additional crimes once released. The programs also help reduce “idle time” of inmates, thus reducing violence within the prison. Finally, prison industries can help make money for the institution as it sells its products.

The Federal Prison Industries was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in December 1934 in Executive Order 6917. This established a corporation to oversee the manner and extent of prison industries to be implemented in correctional facilities across the nation.97 Congress also passed legislation that same year to help fund UNICOR, a wholly owned government corporation responsible for the operation of the industries within the federal prisons. UNICOR became heavily involved in the production of military equipment during World War II. In fact, several prison industries operated more than one shift per day and seven days a week during the war.98

Early prison industries focused on several labor-intensive types of industries. However, because of public outcry about the program, prison industries remained stagnant from the 1940s through the early 1970s. Members of the general public argued that prison industries displaced civilian jobs. They were also accused of mistreating offenders with low wages and low compensation. There were other issues surrounding inmate safety and security. The public still does not always support prison industries programs. Because of this, in 1985, Chief Justice Warren Burger made many speeches and wrote an article called “Prison Industries: Turning Warehouses into Factories with Fences.” It helped promote public acceptance of the prison industries program, demonstrating the potential effectiveness of programs for inmates.

In 1979, Congress removed some of the barriers to interstate shipment of prison-made goods. Called the Private Sector Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program, it permitted certified states to sell goods made by prisoners on the open market. The program was revised in 1984 to increase the number of certified states that could take part.

Today, UNICOR provides products to federal agencies at fair market prices. It develops products that minimize competition with private-sector industry and labor. In 1995, UNICOR earned a profit of more than $46 million on $459 million in sales. This profit was possible because of the low wages given to the inmates, which ranged from 23 cents to $1.15 an hour.99 It seems as if many prisoners are anxious to work, whatever the job or pay, because it is better than doing nothing. In addition, the small amount of cash or savings is better than none at all. The prison industries also

Page 20 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

save the state money. Prisoners in Delaware helped save the state $25 million by working for 15 cents an hour constructing a new prison.100

Today, states have a variety of prison industry programs. Some states have agricultural programs, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, bricklaying, cement work, welding, painting, surveying programs, and manufacturing programs. They also do prison maintenance, food service, and laundry within the prison. They make office furniture, dormitory furniture, metal storage cabinets, and general office supplies. Some areas have used prison labor to build new prisons and to work on other construction projects. In other states, inmates do public works projects.

In 2009, New York voters were asked to consider allowing inmates to voluntarily perform work for nonprofit organizations in Proposal 2. Before the proposal, the state Constitution said that “no person in any prison … shall be required or allowed to work.” In 2007, the state of Washington had a measure on the ballot to authorize prison labor programs and it passed by 60.71 percent of the vote.

Prison labor became an issue once again when the Department of Corrections in Kansas closed a minimum security unit, which meant that the state lost thousands of hours of inmate labor they used for park maintenance, construction and landfill maintenance.101

Public opinion for prison labor was changed in Florida, when the Sheriff presented new inmate labor programs that were being used to save taxpayers’ dollars. State officials argued that the work programs were designed to raise the work ethic of selected inmates and give them a productive way to spend their sentences. In that state, inmates poured concrete slabs, put in plumbing and electrical systems, and erected structures needed for all programs. The state has also developed a Swine program that processes pork products; a cattle program; and an ornamental plant program for landscaping and horticulture training for inmates.102 Many inmates who participate in this program receive a sense of achievement and have lower recidivism.

In another county in Florida, the sheriff announced that inmate labor saved over $6,000 in one month. The inmates removed seats from lecture halls, pulled trees, leveled mulch and pressure washed public buildings; they removed weeds and cut overgrowth, trimmed bushes and trees, and set up tents, tables and chairs, and hung banners for special events.103

Inmate labor has been under consideration in other places as well. Charlottesville, Virginia considered using inmate labor to save money on labor costs for the city. It was proposed that nonviolent offenders on work release programs be used for street cleaning.104 Officials in Huston, Texas, were considering a similar program.105

STATE CORRECTIONS

On the state level, the corrections agencies house convicted offenders who violate state laws, including murder, rape, robbery, drunk driving, and domestic violence. Over the years, states have developed their own prison systems, so they vary from one state to another. The states provide for any treatment and/or education programs for inmates within the facilities. All states have developed not only the traditional prison systems to hold serious offenders but also alternatives to prisons for less serious offenders. These can include community alternatives, such as furloughs. State correctional programs are funded and administered by the individual states with additional funding provided by the federal government.

The correctional facilities administered by federal and state agencies can be further divided by the security level of the institution. These are maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security facilities. Minimum-security facilities assume that the inmates housed there are not likely to try to escape and would probably not commit major felonies even if they did escape. Maximum-security institutions usually hold individuals who have been convicted of the most serious crimes against persons and property. In those states that have it, the death penalty may be carried out within this institution. Medium-security institutions fall somewhere in between these two. A prisoner would find it difficult to escape, but at the same time, rehabilitation programs are provided to inmates with the hope that these inmates will be provided skills to live a productive, crime-free life after release from the institution.

Page 21 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

In recent years, a new category of prison has emerged. These have been called “supermax” prisons, such as California’s Pelican Bay, which opened in 1979. Supermax prisons are permanent lockdown facilities where inmates are housed in windowless cells twenty-three hours a day and are not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. The inmates eat, sleep, and live their entire lives alone in a cell. Each cell has a concrete slab for a bed, an immobile concrete stool, and a small concrete writing platform. There is no congregate exercise, job program, or religious service. All reading materials are strictly censored, and educational programs are severely restricted if allowed at all. Visits by family members are restricted. The prisoners have little face-to-face contact with other people, even guards. The guards monitor the inmates from control booths that have video cameras. The prison administration attempts to minimize any human contact and maximize sensory deprivation.106

Box 12.3 Incarceration Rate by State: Inmates in State or Federal Prison with a Sentence of More Than 1 Year, 2008 (per 100,000 Residents)

Alabama 634

Alaska 430

Arizona 567

Arkansas 511

California 467

Colorado 467

Connecticut 407

Delaware 463

Florida 557

Georgia 540

Hawaii 332

Idaho 474

Illinois 351

Page 22 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Indiana 442

Iowa 291

Kansas 303

Kentucky 492

Louisiana 853

Maine 151

Maryland 403

Massachusetts 218

Michigan 488

Minnesota 179

Mississippi 735

Missouri 509

Montana 368

Nebraska 247

Nevada 486

New Hampshire 220

New Jersey 298

New Mexico 316

New York 307

Page 23 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

North Carolina 368

North Dakota 225

Ohio 449

Oklahoma 661

Oregon 371

Pennsylvania 393

Rhode Island 240

South Carolina 519

South Dakota 412

Tennessee 436

Texas 639

Utah 232

Vermont 260

Virginia 489

Washington 272

West Virginia 331

Wisconsin 374

Wyoming 387

Page 24 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Source: William J. Sabol, Heather C. West, Matthew Cooper, “Prisoners in 2008” (December 2009) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.

The number of inmates in state prisons varies dramatically from one state to the next. As Box 12.3 shows, the state with the highest incarceration rate (inmates per 100,000 people) is Louisiana, with a rate of 853. The state with the lowest rate is Maine, with an imprisonment rate of 151.

The federal government can impact the state systems through grant programs. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grant Program gives grants to states interested in building or expanding correctional facilities if they can guarantee that they will implement truth-in-sentencing laws requiring violent offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentences. Approximately $10 billion has been authorized by this program through fiscal year 2000.107

Box 12.4 Community-Based Correctional Options

Probation

This option allows those convicted of crimes to live in the community as long as they abide by certain restrictions and conditions in lieu of incarceration. If they violate the conditions of their probation, then the offender may be required to return to prison.

Parole

This option releases inmates from prison so they are allowed to live and work in the community but under certain restrictions, such as reporting to a parole officer on a regular basis, either face to face or by telephone. Parolees may not be allowed to drink, drive a car, change jobs, move, or marry without permission. A violation of parole may mean a return to prison.

Work Release

If a judge determines that a convicted criminal is not likely to be a future danger to society, the judge may allow the individual to work regular hours at a job and then to spend the rest of the time, including evenings and weekends, in jail.

Electronic House Detention

This technology allows for using the home or apartment of a convict as a type of prison. A judge may order an individual to wear an electronic bracelet or anklet that emits signals to a receiver in the home. Should the receiver fail to get the signals, it automatically dials a central computer and notifies law enforcement officials. The receiver can be programmed to allow the individual to keep a work schedule, go to classes, or participate in a treatment program.

Boot Camps

These programs are often used for juvenile offenders. They are based on military boot camps for new members of the military and are designed to teach discipline. The daily schedule is intense and rigorous and includes demanding physical activity as well as psychological, drug, and alcohol counseling.

Intensive Sanctions (Intensive Supervision Programs)

Here, probation officers see offenders almost daily and assign a heavier set of requirements to the offender than is usually associated with probation or parole. Most offenders are required to work full time, pay restitution to victims, be in treatment or vocational training programs, and provide community service.

Page 25 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

LOCAL CORRECTIONS

Correctional facilities are also administered by local government agencies, typically by a county-level agency. These facilities usually hold the least serious offenders convicted of misdemeanor offenses (for which the sentence is a short term of one year or less) or those charged with an offense and awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing. In these cases, the jail serves as a pretrial detention center. Jails may also hold probation, parole, and bail-bond violators and absconders or may temporarily hold juveniles pending their transfer to juvenile authorities. At times, jails are responsible for holding mentally ill persons pending their movement to appropriate health facilities (or even individuals for the military) for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as witnesses.

Jails are administered by elected county sheriffs who may have a background in law enforcement but not necessarily in prison administration or corrections. Most jails are administered locally with funding coming from local budgets that are partially funded by state allocations. Federal funding also exists for local facilities. However, in some states (including Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the jails are administered by state officials rather than by county sheriffs.108 In a few places, the jails are administered by a specific local department devoted to corrections.

Most jurisdictions have also developed a system of community-based correctional programs that are most often administered on the local level (typically by the county) but partially funded by states. There are numerous community- based programs. The major ones are listed in Box 12.4.

CONCLUSION

The corrections systems attempt to keep society safe from harm by incarcerating dangerous offenders and/or rehabilitating offenders who have that potential. Like other elements in the criminal justice system, the actors in the correctional field are not immune to the political forces around them. The correctional actors have become active in the policy process, having a potentially dramatic impact on the policies that are proposed and passed and how they are implemented.

Notes

1.

Robert M. Freeman, Correctional Organization and Management (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999), p. 32.

2.

Ibid.

3.

George F. Cole, Criminal Justice: Law and Politics (Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1984), pp. 314–15.

4.

Ibid.

5.

Alexander C. Lichtenstein and Michael A. Kroll, “The Fortress Economy: The Economic Role of the U.S. Prison System,” in Criminal Injustice: Confronting the Prison Crisis, ed. Elihu Rosenblatt (Boston: South End Press, 1996), pp. 16–39, at 17.

Page 26 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

6.

Samuel Walker, “Putting Justice Back into Criminal Justice,” in The Criminal Justice System: Politics and Policies, ed. George F. Cole and Marc G. Gertz (Belmont, Calif.: West/Wadsworth, 1998b), p. 493.

7.

Francis A. Allen, The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981), p. 3.

8.

L. Goodstein and J. Hepburn, Determinate Sentencing and Imprisonment: A Failure of Reform (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1985).

9.

Cole, Criminal Justice, pp. 316–17.

10.

James Austin and John Irwin, It’s about Time: America’s Imprisonment Binge (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2001), p. xiii.

11.

Curtis R. Blakely and Vic W. Bumphus, “American Criminal Justice Philosophy: What’s Old-What’s New?” Federal Probation 63 (1, 1999): 62–66, at 64; P. Hahn, Emerging Criminal Justice: Three Pillars for Proactive Justice System (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); G. Bazemore and M. Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997).

12.

Marc Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (New York: New Press, 1999), p. 3; M. P. Roth, Crime and Punishment: A History of the Criminal Justice System (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2005).

13.

Mauer, Race to Incarcerate, p. 4.

14.

Roth, Crime and Punishment.

15.

John J. Harrigan and David C. Nice, Politics and Policy in States and Communities (New York: Pearson, 2004), p. 288.

Page 27 of 27Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, VitalSource for Ashford University

11/1/2016https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781323087008/print?from=368&to=391