Functions, Issues, and Objectives in Corrections
Introduction

The functions of the historical state correctional system have changed since the founding of the nation more than 200 years ago. The Jacksonian Era, the Era of Reconstruction and the Progressive Era on up to the reform of the 1970s all effected different changes to the function—i.e., the goals and activities—of the correctional system. Pennsylvania’s state correctional system was the first to introduce solitary confinement as a way of removing the deviant element from society. This was part of William Penn’s attempt at social reform, a fundamental characteristic of his Quaker ideals (Fantel, 1974). The goal of Penn’s plan was to promote moral rehabilitation and it was believed that through the inmate’s lengthy time alone to reflect on his misdeeds he would begin to develop the moral resolve to reform himself and become a better contributing member of society. Today, solitary confinement is a controversial option in the state correctional system and not one that is used with the same goal in mind as when Pennsylvania instituted the reform-minded approach to corrections. This paper will look at the functions of the state correctional system, analyze criminal justice issues, examine the impacts of incarceration and social justice issues for one correctional institution and one private institution, identify cultural sensitivity and diversity awareness issues, discuss two methods of alternative sentencing, and evaluate the effectiveness of a correctional institution and a private institution.

Functions

The goals of the contemporary state correctional system compared to Pennsylvania’s historical state correctional system are similar in spirit but quite different in terms of function. Today’s activities of the contemporary state correctional system do not focus on removing the deviant from society but rather on building up the character of the prisoner and providing work for the prisoner, education, health care, and support so that the prisoner can rehabilitate and re-enter society with a new set of skills that can be applied to sustainability.

These activities include earning a GED programs, learning new skills programs such as masonry like what the Florida state corrections system offers to inmates (Florida Department of Corrections, 2020). By providing the average inmate opportunities to improve him or herself by using the time available in the prison to the best possible advantage, the corrections system makes improving the chances for rehabilitation the main prospect. However, there are still punitive approaches that remain and not every state corrections system is the same. Some adopt more punitive approaches than others. But overall the trend is towards more humane practices and chances for improvement like what the Florida corrections system has done as opposed to placing an all-out emphasis on punitive practices.

Criminal Justice Issues for Corrections Personnel and the Rights of Offenders

Corrections personnel have to be mindful of prisoners’ rights today, as the case of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) showed. This was the United States Supreme Court that clarified the due process rights of prisoners. The case addressed the issue of how the corrections system could implement punitive measures, particularly with respect to inmates’ good time credits, i.e., credits that the inmates earn and build up over time for good behavior, which they can use for perks in the prison. These credits are an incentive for reform and the prisoners accumulate them in good faith that they can exchange the credits as promised for additional benefits. However, when the California prison sought to take away prisoners’ credits without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in a hearing, the case went to the Supreme Court where it was established that prisoners have a right to due process even in prison. This was an important ruling because due process has been defined as “the highest safeguard of liberty” (Oaks, 1965, p. 243).

Thus, punishments cannot be implemented unilaterally without regard for inmates’ right to due process; nor can rehabilitation involve the use of cruel or unusual punishment. As Richmond (2015) points out, solitary confinement has been used as a form of cruel and unusual punishment and has been linked to severe negative side effects on prisoners to the point where it can no longer be justified because of the psychological harm it causes. Today, there is a mandatory standard of living that all prisoners have a right to (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019). And the provision of mental health services is one of those rights, which should be part of that standard of living (Compton et al., 2017).

The problems that corrections personnel face, however, is how to ensure their own safety and the safety of prisoners while maintaining an environment of cultural sensitivity, support, civility and due process. In the control model of the corrections institution there are issues here because the personnel attempt to exert total control over the prisoners, which appears to deny the prisoners their right to due process and to human respect. The responsibility model has been employed in the past but is not a model that can be used in every case, particularly with prisoners who have no intention of reforming themselves. The consensual model involves prisoners taking part in the administration of the prison and was used in California in the 1970s, but it presents its own set of problems as well with respect to maintaining discipline and security for prisoners and the staff (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019).

Impacts of Incarceration and Social Justice Issues

Correctional Institution

The Minnesota Department of Corrections offers supervised release programs for prisoners who have served two-thirds of their sentence in prison. The final one-third is offered through supervised release (MN, 2020). Social justice suggests that former prisoners be given support as they shift their lives from prison to the community, and the supervised release programs facilitates that goal as well as the criminal justice objective of rehabilitation.

Another example of social justice among correctional institutions is that of the Florida Department of Corrections (2020), which offers the Paving New Roads to Construction program for inmates so that they can learn a useful skill so that they...…health care framework is critical for the nation, and it is especially relevant for poor communities, communities of color, and other socially marginalized groups that are both disproportionately imprisoned and often disenfranchised from medical care” (p. 464). Care could also be improved in prisons (Rich et al., 2014). The Affordable Care Act called for more accountability among care organizations and correctional health could easily fall under this mandate. In the private institution of Kingman Prison, efforts have been made and have been shown to be effective at improving the health of prisoners who need treatment for mental health, addiction, and other issues.

However, making sure that this is the standard across the board is really what is needed, and that would require new regulations. Yet, because the prison industry has been privatized to a large extent there are problems of conflicts of interest that also need to be addressed. Corrections institutions are not just supposed to be a place where punitive courses of action are pursued, where prisoners are sent for the sake of justice. Social justice also has to be considered, and in the context of social justice corrections offers an opportunity for inmates to grow, develop, mature, and take responsibility for their lives and actions (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019). Thus, this is a significant issue that affects the population’s health, the government’s role in overseeing corrections facilities, private industry, and the criminal justice system. If left untreated, the prison population’s health will only worsen with time. The private institution of Kingman Prison has taken the initiative of addressing the health of its inmates by improving access to care and by offering treatment programs that provide the mental health counseling and support network they need to get a handle on their addictions and begin to improve their own lives.

Conclusion

The corrections industry, whether private or state-run, has a responsibility to reach social goals that benefit the community and the prisoner alike. Since the formation of the corrections system reform and rehabilitation have been goals, though punitive approaches have also been part of the system. Under William Penn, the first approach to solitary confinement was adopted and this was done not to punish so much as to give the prisoner time for solitude and mental, prayerful reflection. The aim was to help the prisoner adopt a more introspective mentality. However, there was also an element of the need to remove the deviant from the rest of society. Over time, this approach or over-reliance on solitary confinement has been viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners have the Constitutional Right to due process and that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the Constitution. Thus, prisons today focus on rehabilitation in proactive ways, i.e., by getting prisoners involved in programs that will teach them skills or help them to earn a degree. They also provide them with mental health services and use alternative sentencing approaches such as restorative justice and electronic monitoring to keep people…