CA 1 – MIDTERM

CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION TO CORRECTIONS

In criminal justice system, corrections is an umbrella term describing a variety of functions typically carried out by government agencies,
and involving the punishment, treatment, and supervisions of persons who have been convicted of crimes. These functions commonly include
imprisonment, parole, and probations. A typical correctional institution is a prison. It is also known as a penal system, and which refers to a
network of agencies that administer institutional corrections and community-based programs.

The corrections system, also known as a penal system, thus refers to a network of agencies that administers prisons, and community-based
programs like parole, and probation boards. This system is part of the larger criminal justice system. Corrections operate as part of the criminal-
justice system, providing housing and programs for offenders who have been convicted of crimes that necessitate the loss of freedom for the
offender. Incarceration is the most serious punishment to which a free society can condemn an individual.

What is Corrections?

Corrections is the branch of the administration of criminal justice system that is taking charges with the custody, supervision, and
rehabilitation of the convicted offender. Corrections comprises the vast number of persons, agencies, and organizations that manage convicted or
adjudicated criminals and juveniles. These functions commonly include imprisonment, parole, and probation. In the academic field, it is
concerned with the theories, policies, and programs pertaining to the practice of corrections. This includes personnel training and management as
well as the experiences of those on the other side of the fence, the unwilling subjects of the correctional process .

Early Origins of Corrections

 Imprisonment as a punishment is found in ancient Greece and Rome. In 640 BC, the Mamertine Prison was constructed by Ancus Martius
(616 BC-678 BC). This is a vast series of dungeons constructed under the main sewer of Rome, called the “Cloaca Maxima,” and it housed
a variety of offenders. In addition, to this facility, rock quarries and strong cages were often used by the Romans and others to incarcerate
political dissidents, social misfits, and criminals.

 The role of religion in the development of prisons and punishments is particularly evident from ancient times through the middle ages. The
Spanish Inquisition, a religious tribunal reorganized after earlier thirteenth-century inquisitions to suppress and punish non-conformist for
assorted heresies, existed for many years and was widely feared as severe sanctioning medium. Joan of Arc (1412-1431) was an early
victim of such inquisition and was burned at the stake for alleged witchcraft

 In Biblical times, banishment was frequently used and often amounted to capital punishment. Food and shelter would be denied to those
banished within a distance of 400 to 500 miles, thus dooming them to certain death. In later centuries, banishment was used for other
purposes. Probably the first recorded case where banishment was used for as punishments was Adam and Eve.

 During the 18 and early 19th centuries, several French, English and Italian philosophers and social reformers achieved prominence
through their criticisms of corporal punishment. Some of the more influential humanitarians were the Frenchman Charles-Louis de
Secondat (1689- 1755) and Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu (1989-1755). Montesquieu believes that punishment should fit the crimes
and that more humane conditions should be provided for offenders.

 Another French philosopher and social critic, Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778), was appalled by French Injustices meted
out to criminals Voltaire believes that judges ware capricious in their sentencing practices, Secret trials were conducted and equal protection
under the law for citizens was non-existent. A less influential Frenche and anarchist, Denis Diderot (1713-1748). has also campaigned
strongly for political penal reforms.

 English penal philosophy during the late eighteenth century was influenced by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) The hedonistic
reasoning of Bentham was that criminals engage in crime for pleasure. He pioneered the "panopticon or circular design for prisons,
whereby correctional officers may monitor many offenders from one central location. The most influential writer of that period was Cesare
Bonesana. Marchese di Beccaria (1738-1794), an Italian jurist and economist Beccaria developed the classical school of criminology.
Accordingly. punishment should be rational and fitting for whatever crimes are committed

 However, there are several uniquely American innovations associated with correction in the United States. However, many US penal
practices were also derived from procedures and policies developed by other foreign countries. The system of punishment used during the
American colonial period was patterned after English penal methods, largely because most colonies emigrated from England and continued
those punishments familiar to them. However, there are several important differences.

 The American colonies reserved execution for the most serious offense. The colonists perpetuated the pillory, flogging, mutilations
branding, and even banishment to the west, known as "the wilderness." as corporal solutions to crime and as sanctions for other forms of
deviant behavior Banishment to the Western territories meant almost certain death at the hands of hostile Indians, who dominated these
territories and were intolerant of intruders
 A comprehensive descriptive of corporal punishment used by the early American colonies was the ducking stool The offenders were placed
in chair at the end of a long lever and dunked in a nearby pond until they almost drowned. These offenders were often town gossips or wife
beaters Branding irons were also used to brand both serious criminals and petry offenders Thieves were branded with a "T" and drunkards
were branded with a "D

 Finally, these punishments continued to be used in the colonies until Quaker founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn (1644-1718), who
began several correctional reforms in 1682. Under the "Great Law ofP Penn abolished corporal punishment and gradually introduced fines
and incarceration in facilities known as jails, named after their "gaol," pronounced jail. Penn commissioned each country to establish jails to
accommodate offender. Local constables and sheriffs were appointed to administer these county jails.

Modern Corrections Goals

 Most correctional agencies are designed to control and to punish offenders. Attempts to change offender's behavior are secondary to these
goals. Control makes the public feel safer, and punishment appeals to the current sense of fairness. Even so, many voices emphasize that
reforming offenders is more cost effective in the long run. Like fairness and efficiency, the contradiction between punishment and reform is
at the core of many of the problems faced by the correctional process.

 Punishment may be fair, but reform offers the greatest hope of long- term efficiency. Punishment means to inflict penalty for wrongdoing
deliberately causing someone to experience pain. Discipline is training designed to assure obedience to a set of rules. It instills the sort of
self- control that assures the law-abiding behavior.

 The opposing position, sometimes called "normalization," maintains that offenders should be treated as much like ordinary people as
possible except for the deprivation of liberty implied by their sentence. The idea of approximating normality in prison in an attempt to teach
offenders to behave responsibly reduced instances of recidivism from among the criminal offenders.

 Punishment requires that the status of the offender be reduced in some way, it often deprives offenders out of society as outcast. By
lowering the status of the offender and making him or her deprived outcast, a form of fairness was achieved, known as retributive justice
An alternative approach, restorative justice, tries to assure that the situation of offender, victim and community are better off after the crime
than they were before the crime was committed.

Approaches in Corrections

A number of approaches to corrections are commonly accepted in other foreign countries and in the local setting, as follows:

1. Retribution - Probably it is the most ancient rationale for punishment that calls from, inflicting pain on the offender that is equal to, or
greater than the harms that has been done to the victim. It is based on the desire for revenge. Its main idea is to "even the score" with
offender. It is based on the theory justice that considers proportionate punishment as an acceptable response to crime, or a harmful
action against a person in response to a grievance. An example of retribution is when someone gets the death penalty for committing
murder.

2. Just Deserts - The just deserts philosophy maintains that punishment should be used to secure a sense of fairness in society. While
similar to the idea of retribution, it stresses social justice rather than revenge. The moral justification demands equal punishment for
similar crimes. The phrase represents the idea of a fair and appropriate punishment related to the severity of the crime that was
committed. It is sometimes referred to as the "retribution type of sentencing." In other words, one should be punished simply because
one committed a crime.

3. Deterrence - Deterrence tries to use the threat of punishment to influence how people make decisions. If people know that certain
behavior will be punished, it is assumed that they will avoid that behavior Law should therefore be designed to guide people's
decisions in directions that will benefit the society. For example, punishments with specific deterrence may include fines, prison
sentences. or both, and the severity of the punishment typically determines the effectiveness of the deterrence.

4. Boundary - Setting Societies have always identified some behaviors as criminal in order to set boundaries that distinguished one from
another Members of a society cannot feel united as long that unless there is some readily identifiable boundary setting, the people will
not identify with whom to contrast themselves. Hence, the criminal law. sets the boundary setting for the criminals, and prescribed
punishment for crossing it, but it does not require particular behaviors of those who stay within the boundary that sets it.

5. Restitution - Restitution repays the victim for material and financial losses suffered as results of crime, its concern is more with the
victim than with the offender. Restitution focuses on material losses, while retribution is more concerned with suffering and moral
symbolism. It is aimed at restoring people to useful life, which is based on the assumption that people are not constantly criminal. It is
aimed at preventing habitual offending, or criminal recidivism. According to this approach, criminals should repair the harm that have
done to others.

6. Incapacitation - Incapacitation prevents offenders from committing further crimes by making it physically impossible for them to do
so. This is particularly important when serious crimes are involved. More important, this approach overlooks the facts that many will
be more dangerous when they leave prison than they entered it. Alike deterrence, is also aimed at preventing offenders from future
crimes, but usually in a physical way. For instance, imprisonment does not allow crimes when being under constant monitoring.
 7. Problem-Prediction - All laws targeting repeat offenders presume that they can predict which offenders will commit crimes with a
reasonable degree of accuracy. This is both a moral problem and a moral Issue that results from over-confidence in the ability of
science and law to predict human behaviors. Identifying and incarcerating career criminal is essentially a problem-prediction. There
are three basic methods of problem prediction, such as, actuarial approach, prior history of individual, and clinical evaluation.

8. Treatment-Reintegration - Corrections treatment is an attempt to convert offenders into law-abiding citizens. It is supported by the
same utilitarian logic that urges efficient crime prevention. Treatment is the method of this approach, while reintegration into society
as taxpayer in the goal Reintegrating back into normal societal life or getting back to work after treatment is going to come with ups
and downs, no matter how well prepared a person deprived of liberty feel at the start, after release at corrections facilities

Various Models of Corrections

To understand functions of corrections, it is a must to examine briefly some of its competing models:

1. Treatment Model - The treatment model assumes that criminal behavior is the results of psychological or biological conditions that
can be treated. If the premise of the medical model will be accepted, the identification of cures is vital to remedying these criminal
behaviors Successful treatment model implements the evidence-based practices or EBP that proceed by conducting a thorough
assessment of offenders risks and needs, and then address these issues using the principles of responsively. This model is best begun
by using the techniques and guidance of motivational interviewing.

2. Reform Model - This model stresses reform and rehabilitation reform and rehabilitation may be traced to Penn's work in correctional
reform, the most significant support for the reform orientation came from Brockway's Elmira Reformatory. As the term suggests, the
corrections were intended to reform persons deprived of liberty rather than to punish or exact retribution on them. The methods used to
effect reform usually involved a combination of physical exercise, labor, training for industrial and agricultural careers, and instruction
on values, morality, and religion.

3. Community Model - The community model is a relatively new concept based on the correctional goal of innate integration into the
community Sometimes called the "reintegration model," the community model stresses offender adaptation to the community model of
corrections has gone through a long and complicated process of development Throughout this process, the specific purpose community
corrections has not always been clear. These developments Community help to make sense of the various challenges associated with
community corrections sanctions and also provide guidance for their future use.

4. Just Deserts Model - The "just deserts" model emphasizes equating punishment with the severity of the crime. Offenders should get
what they deserve. Therefore, retribution is an important component. "Just deserts" dismisses rehabilitation as a major correctional
aim. Just deserts, as a philosophy of punishment, argues that criminal sanctions should be commensurate with the seriousness of the
offense. Hence, there are two dimensions of criminal sanction that needs to be examined to understand punishment severity, such as,
the type of sanction received and the length of sentence.

5. Justice Model - Like the "just deserts" model, the justice model rejects rehabilitation as the major objective of punishment. By the
same token, sentencing disparities for offenders convicted of similar crimes are opposed. The key proponent of the justice model is
David Fogel (1925-2000). Justice model is the application of a system or set of rules that fairly resolves conflicts while protecting the
rights of the individual. In addition, what is fair is a subjective term. It is an attempt to bring about a greater degree of compatibility
among the various elements which make up the entire criminal justice process.

Numerous in Legal Approach

The several ways in legal approach, are as follows:

1. Determinate Sentence - Penalties are determined solely by the person's crime and prior record. Judges choose from a range of years set by
the legislature. While one offender may get two years and others four or five years, each knows exactly how long he or she must serve
when being sentenced. Only good conduct time allowance can reduce the length of sentence under this approach. A determinate sentence is
a sentence that has a defined length and cannot be changed by the parole or probation board or other government agencies.

 For example, a sentence of six months is determinate, because the prisoner will spend six months behind bars, minus the good conduct
time allowance, work-release, or other alternatives to in-custody time, when applicable. Determinate is often seen as a "tough on
crime" because of its mandatory minimum sentences. Its proponents claim that it also leads to greater fairness, because when the
legislature sets a determinate sentence and judges have little discretion, people who commit very similar crimes receive very similar
sentences.

2. Mandatory Sentence - These sentences give judges virtually no discretion. Everyone convicted of the same crime gets exactly the same
sentence using this approach. The legislature controls the penalty for crimes punished with a mandatory sentence. Prosecution gains power
because they decide what offenders will be charged with what crimes. This requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain
 crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law, these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the
judicial system

 They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion
Moreover, mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious or violent crimes, and require a
prison sentence. Therefore, mandatory sentence laws vary across nations, they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because
civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

3. Presumptive Sentence - Sentencing guidelines are set by 3 commission, appointed by the president. The commission began by setting a
narrow range of time to be served based on the average of sentences assigned for each crime under the older indeterminate structure. This is
based on: (a) severity of the offense, and (b) salient factors that predict recidivism. Sentencing guidelines are based on the belief that
punishment should be more severe for more serious crimes and for repeat offenders.

 Sentencing guidelines set a "presumptive sentence" based on the severity of the crime and also on the offender's record of prior
convictions Under specific mitigating circumstances, the judge can reduce the sentence by ordering a downward departure from the
presumptive sentence Under specific aggravating circumstances, the can order an upward departure from the presumptive sentence,
thereby increasing the sentence However, the presumptive sentence is imposed most of the time.

Decision Making in Corrections

There have been four primary approaches used in decision making in corrections, purposely in setting its goals, as follows:

1. Scientific Approach - The scientific model holds that the courts should judge each offender as unique individual. This judgment can
stress the offender's capability, dangerousness, treatment needs, or other factors. This view suggests that some people are less able to
avoid crime than others, and thus question the idea that crime is always a product of free will. Decision making in criminal justice
involves more than the learning of rules and the application of them to specific cases.

2. Legal Approach - The legal approach is based on the justice model, which presumes that each person has a natural dignity and value
that require respect because they rationally choose each of their actions. It argues that law should be used to encourage people to make
socially desirable choices for using punishment to deter crime. Decision making in criminal justice involves more than the learning of
rules and the application of them to specific cases.

3. Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) - It is a strategic and deliberate method of applying empirical knowledge and research-
supported principles to justice system decisions made at the case. agency, and system level. The initiative team developed the EBDM
framework, which posits that public safety outcomes will be improved when the CJSs sakeholders engage in truly collaborative
partnerships, use research to guide their work, and work together to achieve safer communities, more efficient use of monies, and
fewer victims.

4. Structured Decision Making - This acts as a road map or guideline for professional decision-makers to help them reach consistent.
transparent, and defensible high-quality conditional release decisions. It acknowledges the professional expertise and extensive
experience of parole decision-makers by using a structured approach that guides paroling authorities through the process of making
parole decisions by considering offender information demonstrated to be closely linked to post-release performance.

Contradictions in Corrections

 Different methods of sentencing develop out of different justifications for punishment, which, in turn fundamentally different beliefs about
human nature. However, some very serious contradictions exist between the basic goals of sentencing and those of the correctional process
There are contradictions between incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. Each is oriented mainly to punishment rather than
"corrections," and rely on infliction of pain.

 These justifications of punishment conflict with treatment; thus, frustrate attempts to reintegrate offenders back to society. It is impossible
to develop the kind of environment for treatment while inflicting misery on people. The contradictions between punishment and
reintegration are shown by their effects on offender's status. Punishment drives offenders out of society, treatment pulls them back in the
society. Retribution reduces the status of the offenders or deprives him or her in some way
 In addition, reintegration requires improving the status or skills of the offenders. But, treatment advocates of helping the offenders to
become effective. Moreover, justice demands punishments, but the desire for efficiency seeks reintegration of offenders. Therefore, the
model proposed for examining the contradictions in corrections was not specifically a theory of law making.

 Finally, it was instead an attempt to provide a theoretically grounded description of how the operations of specific institutions, bound in
time and place, was an expression of specifically of how the operations of the corrections system was the outcome of contradictions
between fiscal and political pressures Despite its rootedness in time and place, the model focuses on structural contradictions imbedded in
the implementation of law-based strategies of crime control.

Several Reforms in Corrections

 The history of corrections is a history of reforms. The Quakers sought extensive reforms in Pennsylvania and other colonies in the
eighteenth century and have continued their efforts well into the twentieth century. These reforms were directed at inhumane prison
 conditions, and several religious and other philanthropic interests have engaged in social experiments and instituted innovations designed to
eliminate or alleviate inmate sufferings.

 During the period 1790-1820, the wholesale use of capital punishment was gradually replaced by lengthy incarceration. By 1870, and
during the next few decades, offender imprisonment became less popular as rehabilitation and reforms gained. During the 1900-1960
period, rehabilitation program dominated the correctional scene, and sentencing patterns were closely identified with and influenced by
rehabilitation as the major correction objective.

 In recent years, the shift to justice oriented sentencing has been noted. But it is argued that justice model is an illusory reform, and that it is
only a matter of time before it is replaced by other reforms. In an analysis, perhaps it is true that the history of corrections is a graveyard of
abandoned fad. Present problems of prison and jail overcrowding raise serious questions about policies and reforms that will increase prison
and jail inmate populations rather than decrease them.

 During the 1980s, architects and correctional officials worked to devise new schemes for prison construction, organization and operations.
But new prison and jail construction did not solve the overcrowding problems. This fact has caused criminal justice system professionals to
examine non-incarceration alternatives such as community-based programs, especially for those designated as low-risk offenders. Although
it is presently unknown where these reforms are leading, few critics question the need for them.

 Lastly, central to the arguments to promote prison reforms is a human nights argument – the premise on which many UN standards and
norms have been developed. However, this argument is often insufficient to encourage prison reform programs in countries with scarce
human and financial resources.

Roles of Corrections in CJS

 Generally speaking, the criminal justice system consists of five pillars, four of which are formal components, and one of which is informal
component, historically speaking. The formal components are the police or law enforcement, prosecution, court, and corrections The
community is an informal component. Of these formal components, it is perhaps the corrections pillar, that is least understood, least visible,
and least respected among much of society. The reasons for this have to do with the functions of each of these pillars. The corrections pillar,
despite its lesser appeal, is integral to the ability of the other pillars of the system.

 Unlike the police or law enforcement pillar that are tasked with apprehending offenders and preventing crimes, corrections pillar often
works to change, or at least contained the convicted criminal offenders' population. This if often a less popular function to many society,
and when the corrections pillar is tasked with providing constitutional standards of care for the persons deprived of liberty, many people in
the society may attribute this to "coddling" of inmates or detainees, while inside corrections or jail facilities.

 Hence, discerning what must be done with each convicted criminal offender based on the crime, the criminal, and the risk that might be
incurred to the society is the role of the corrections system. Further, it is the responsibility of this system to keep these persons from
committing future crimes against society, a task that the other pillars of the criminal justice seem unable to do. The corrections pillar is
impacted by all of the other pillars, and largely speaking, is at their mercy in many respects.

 Indeed, as the police or law enforcement pillar effect more arrest more people are locked-up in jails and corrections facilities, and the
corrections pillar must contend with housing more detainees, or persons deprived of liberty. When courts sentence more offenders, the same
situation happens. The court has the luxury of engaging in plea bargaining to modify the contours of a sentence, but the corrections pillar
has few similar forms of latitude, other than letting the offenders out early for good behavior or through good conduct time allowance, an
option that people in society bemoan as the cause for high crime rates.

Principles of Corrections

 If deprivation of freedom is the only morally acceptable method of punishment in today's world, then in sentencing offenders, the court
achieves the goal of punishment and social protection in the same way Therefore, by prescribing an offenders freedom, the court is at one
and the same time inflicting punishment and providing a mechanism for social defense
 Having denounced the criminal act in the finding of guilt, the court recognizes that the offender has breached the trust of the community
and therefore forfeits some of his or her freedom. In sentencing, it is therefore the task of the court to determine parameters on this
deprivation of freedom correctional authorities may impose on the offender.

 Rules should ensure fair and equitable access to facilities, programs and the variety of other opportunities, which ought to be available to
inmates. This is of primary interest to the inmates themselves. Here inmate members should have a strong role in devising rules and
regulations and developing programs, services, and opportunities.

 Nevertheless, even in maximum security institutions, inmate participation in decision making on matters relating to programs and related
matters, should be encouraged. If punishment is a legitimate response by society to criminal activity, is it not reasonable to assume that
institutional rules can be used by correctional authorities to punish unacceptable behavior in prison?

 Whereas this will be addressed in detail in future submissions, we acknowledge here that rules must exist which allow correctional
authorities to exercise sanctions for unacceptable behavior Because prisoners retain ce.tain rights as citizens it is important that these rights
be established to safeguard those rights for citizens generally.
 Therefore, where prisoners violate institutional rules which correctional services have created to accomplish the goals of sentence
administration, the corrections authorities may be empowered, with regard to the principles of natural justice, to take limited punitive
action.

Perspective on Corrections

 It is worth asking first why criminal law and punishment are so closely connected in our minds. There seem to be two important reasons
First, most people believe that without punishment, the law could be widely disrespected. Second, deep down there is a feeling that to fail to
punish those who break the law is unfair to those who respect it. It seems that if the law is going to be respected, those who break it must be
punished. On this point there seems to be a deep consensus.

 There is a secondary element to this consensus. Punishment, if it is to be fair, must vary in severity with the seriousness of the crime
committed. It is at this point that people encountered two paradoxes. First, the criminal law punished those who commit serious crimes by
imprisoning them. The second and related paradox, putting someone in prison is like voting no confidence in his ability to use in a
responsible way, the kind of freedom our society makes available.

 It is expected that when someone is released from prison he or she will have “learned his or her lesson.” But how can an individual learn to
act responsibly in an environment which strips him or her of the freedom to make significant decisions about the course of his or her own
life? Broadly speaking, there are three ways in which we might respond to these paradoxes. First is to eliminate punishment; second is to
insist on punishment as imposed; and third, to see punishment as an end in itself.

 For this reasons too, a warehousing approach to prisons is morally objectionable as well. To see punishment as an end in itself is to forget
that the law is only one of the instruments available to build a society fit to live in. What is more, not all of the values that people cherish
are captured by the criminal law. It is also important not to lose sight of a serious practical consideration. The people cannot and do not
keep offenders in jail forever

 The view of corrections system taken by the society over its history is marked by vigorous debate. However, today, attitudes have changed
imposing physically painful or harmful punishments is no tolerated. The problem is that as a description of punishment, this is very unclear
this uncertainty is the basis of much confusion about how someone who is in prison should be treated.