Unit One Assignments
Part 1:
Choose one of the co
ectional models that was presented in Chapter 3. Your task is to create a
flyer (using Word) that you would use to convince co
ectional officials to follow your
model of co
ections. For example, if you chose the crime control model, you might have a
small blu
on your flyer about Robert Martinson and the “Nothing Works Doctrine”.
You’re graded on:
- Accuracy of Information (15 points)
- Creativity (Not so much, but don’t just turn in a plain document!) (5 points)
- Must be a full page flyer (10 points)
Worth: 30 Points
Upload to D2L
Part 2:
Answer the following discussion questions:
1. How do you think that offenders will be punished in the US in the future? What
established punishments will still be around and what kinds of new sanctions might
emerge? (Chapter 3)
2. How may specific underlying social factors have influenced the development of
co
ectional philosophies? (Chapter 2)
3. Contrast the role of crime with the role of politics in the growth of co
ections. Why is
this contrast important? (Chapter 1)
Worth: 30 Points
Upload to D2L
Both assignments together are worth 60 total points. Please upload each part separately to
D2L under Unit 1 Assignments.
The Co
ections System
The Co
ections System
Co
ections in America
Chapter 1
Hello everyone and welcome!
I am happy to be your professor for this section of Co
ections in America. These PowerPoints will be available for you to aid in your learning. These note sections can serve as my lecture. Not every slide will have commentary, but if it does, you know I’m talking about something super important!
If you haven’t, please go read the syllabus and complete the syllabus quiz!
That being said, let’s move forward through the first chapter, which is going to focus very
oadly on the co
ectional system. As we move through, I may ask you to take time to think about something, etc. Let’s go!
1
Learning Objectives:
Describe the range of purposes served by the co
ections system
Define the systems framework and explain why it is useful
Name the various components of the co
ections system today and describe their functions
Identify at least five key issues facing co
ections today
This slide represents our learning objectives for the cu
ent chapter. Obviously, you can read them. But most importantly, I want you to leave this chapter with a basic knowledge of the system overall, including why we punish, what the goals of co
ections are, and the different types of punishments. There are a few more things that we’ll throw in, but those are the most important.
2
The Purpose of Co
ections
Central purpose: Ca
y out criminal sentences
What kinds of criminal sentences?
Probation
Parole
Jails
Prisons
So, what is the purpose of the co
ectional system? Arguably, it is to punish, right? Co
ections tends to come at the end of the criminal justice process. Offenders commit their crime and are caught by the police. That is stage one. Then, offenders are tried, or they plea. They are either found innocent, in which case they are released, or guilty, in which they move forward into the co
ectional phase. Therefore, the central purpose of the co
ectional system is to ca
y out criminal sentences.
What kinds of criminal sentences? Well,
iefly, probation, parole, jail sentences, and prison sentences. We will get into much heavier detail of these later!
3
Goals of Co
ections
Fair Punishment
Community Protection
We know what the overall purposes of the co
ectional system are, so now, let’s look at the goals of the co
ection system. There are two distinct goals of co
ections and they are fair punishment and community protection. Talking more specifically, fair punishment is the idea that offenders aren’t being over or under punished for their crimes. An example: A man who runs a red light and doesn’t hurt anyone should not spend time in prison. In the same vein, a serial murderer should, ideally, not be put on probation only. We can think of fair punishment and community protection falling in line with one another, though sometimes it doesn’t work out that way. Community protection entails the idea that communities will be safe while offenders are being punished in the co
ectional system. Communities remain safe because we keep those offenders who have been found guilty locked away, and we hire individuals to maintain the security of these institutions.
4
The Co
ectional System Today
The U.S. co
ectional system employs more than 700,000 people in various roles
The average cost is over $60 billion
Of the 50 states, four tend to dominate the scene:
California
Florida
New York
Texas
The co
ectional system is undoubtedly very large. Cities have multiple jails, states have multiple state and federal prisons. For example, Ohio has about 28 state prisons. Compare this to Kentucky’s 12! This of course, doesn’t count federal prisons or county jails. And all these facilities house inmates, right? And housing inmates costs money, we all know that! You pay for your dorm room, rent for your apartment, have a house payment. Therefore, the budget for co
ections is ever increasing, with the last known cost being over $60 billion. That is a ton of money. We’ll talk more about why it costs so much later in the semester. Although there are facilities in each of the 50 states, four states tend to dominate the co
ectional scene. These include California, Florida, New York, and Texas. The co
ectional systems in these states are vast and contain many inmates.
5
Issues within Co
ections
Managing the Co
ectional Organization
Goals: Conflict! Lots of conflict! Punish more? Or work to rehabilitate?
Funding: EXPENISVE! But, why? And how? Would you rather house more inmates or get your trash picked up more than once a week?
Bureaucracy: Not enough resources
Interagency Coordination: Lots of small organizations loosely tied togethe
There are certain issues with co
ections that can be identified immediately. One of which, is the conflict su
ounding the goals of the co
ectional system as a whole. More often than not, co
ectional leaders, politicians and every day people disagree on what the overarching goal of co
ections should be. More conservative individuals may argue that the goal of co
ections is to punish wholeheartedly, with little room for rehabilitative programming. More liberal individuals would argue that punishment and rehabilitation can be done hand in hand. Further, you have co
ectional leaders, who do not want to alienate any of their constituents, speaking in very vague terms regarding their stance and policy su
ounding their institutional goals.
Next, we can talk about funding. Money, money, money, aint it funny, in a rich mans world! So
y, that’s from ABBA.. Maybe you don’t know who ABBA is. Maybe you do. We talked
iefly about how co
ections is just downright expensive. Think of all of your expenses, housing, food, fun, bills, clothes, etc. Now multiply that by however many inmates are in an institution. Then multiply by how many institutions in the U.S. This doesn’t even count the extra money needed to pay staff (security, treatment and administrative) or to build new institutions, etc. So where does all this money come from? Well… where all money comes from! From you and me as taxpayers. Co
ections, though extremely expensive, is often underfunded in the ways that matter. Why is this? People would rather their tax money go to services and programs that will effect them directly, such as better schooling, more ga
age pick up, and road repairs. Let’s remember, though, that the problem of underfunded co
ectional systems is often invisible until something heinous happens. Finally, another issue with funding comes down to “turf”. Cities and counties both own jails, there may be arguments between whether the city or the county gets that money and what is done with is. Further, you have arguments between state, private, and federal prisons. All on different levels of government. This causes extreme strain on the money flow.
The idea of funding flows directly into our next topic which is bureaucracy. There are extremely limited resources for individuals who work directly with the community. More often than not, these resources are inadequate. Co
ectional workers and their clients face formidable obstacles. They have to be very creative with the resources that they do have, and even then, cannot often spread them out among the population that they work with. The number of clients is simply too large.
Finally, we can talk about interagency coordination. Frankly, the co
ectional system is hardly a giant cohesive organization. More accurately, it is a number of small, loosely tied organization with some goals in common. This lack of cohesiveness makes it hard to identify what…. Goals! See, we’ve come back around. But there are other issues too, including the idea that the policies that govern one jurisdiction may not apply in another. For example, one jurisdiction may send offenders to prison quite frequently and another may shy away from using prison for technical violations. This makes the system confusing, more confusing then it needs to be.
6
Issues within Co
ections
Working with Offenders
Professional v. Nonprofessional Staff: probation officers, co
ectional officers, counselors, etc.
Uncertain Technologies: Dealing with offenders can be a guessing game
Exchange: A mutual transfer of resources based on decisions regarding the costs and benefits of alternative actions
Uncertainty about Co
ectional Strategies: Remember all the issues with funding, bureaucracy, and goals? Yeah.. That’s uncertainity!
While the co
ectional system as a whole as its issues, a few of which we just discussed, there are more specific issues, including the actual working with offenders. There are four main issues we can talk about today. The first of which is professional v. nonprofessional staff. When we talk about co
ectional staff, it’s easy to just think about prison officers within an institutional setting. However, here, we are talking about a
oad term that includes probation and parole officers, co
ectional officers, counselors, or any individual responsible for the daily management and supervision of offenders. Professional staff include those psychologists, counselors, and administrators, who general hold at least one college degree. Many professional staff members believe they can work without close scrutiny and can make decisions on their own without consulting rulebooks or guidelines. Nonprofessional staff are those considered to not have a college degree, such as co
ectional staff. In some jurisdictions,