Você está na página 1de 3

Correctional Theories

Currently the United States correctional system forms an important part of the criminal justice system. The systems conception of justice, punishment and correction is made up of a combination of retributive, denunciation and utilitarian theories. These theories are based on two common principles within the corrections system-punishment and rehabilitation. These are the basic competing theories that define correctional operations in the United States of America. The most common traditional rationale for correction and punishment in the U.S. is retribution (Seter, 2011). Retribution is seen in the rationale behind sentences given to defendants where the sentence is a form of retribution. A sentence may as well combine retributive and utilitarian principles of correction to facilitate two core objectives of correctional facilities-obtaining justice for the offended and managing to rehabilitate the convicted individual. This could be exemplified by an incarceration period followed by rehabilitative programs such as counseling and educational programs meant to enhance the skills of the prisoners (Conis & DeLisi, 2009). The incarceration period serves the purpose of delivering justice to society by satisfying the desire for vengeance from the public, whereas; the rehabilitation programs serve the purpose correcting the behavioral aberrations in the convicted population by letting them learn constructive skills and positive behaviors. The training and counseling reflects the rehabilitations utilitarian goal and on the other hand the incarceration period serves as a retributive punishment. Social scientists have argued for a long time about the application of correctional theories and the common emergent issue has been the importance of rehabilitation being made the dominant theory in correctional programs. This proposition has been elicited by the overwhelmingly large numbers of prisoners that have constantly been burdening the correctional facilities across many states (Seter, 2011). Recidivism has also been on the rise, with a large number of offenders constantly getting back to prison as repeat offenders. The high number of repeat offenders shown by recidivism rates and over-stretched correctional facilities have brought to question the efficiency and effectiveness of the correctional system in punishment and rehabilitation to the end of deterring crime. The two major theories emphasize different goals all of which are meant to deter crime, deliver justice and rehabilitate the individual. Retribution based theories deliver justice and deterrence by incarcerating an individual for some length of time. This is meant to satisfy societys desire to make criminals pay for the wrongs they have done to society and thus delivering justice. At the same time the prisoners are also deterred from further crimes due to fear of being punished again. The incarceration under retribution serves as an example to other would be offenders and thus deterring them from engaging in similar offenses (Conis & DeLisi, 2009). However, the correctional objectives behind these forms of correctional programs do not offer intrinsic behavioral transformation and as such given an opportunity prisoners from such programs may become repeat offenders. On the other hand, the utilitarian based modes of correction are based on the principle of rehabilitation whose main objective is to transform an individual into a law abiding and positively productive member of society (Seter, 2011). Its main purpose is to make the prisoner into a good person so as to prevent him/her from any further engagement in criminal activities. The two main theories differ on one aspect which is embedded in their objectives. This is the intrinsic behavioral transformation of an individual. They also differ by virtue of the methods employed. The retributive programs mainly use incarceration, labor and hard training as modes of delivering justice and punishment, whereas; utilitarian programs make use of training programs and counseling to change an individuals behavior and make him/her more productive to society (Seter, 2011).

The current state of over crowded and over-stretched prison facilities elicits a call for changes in the correctional system so as to address the rising number of inmates. In the past the criminal justice system has tried to apply probation and parole as means to reduce the population of prisoners currently under incarceration. However, this has failed to work, because recidivism rates seem to prove otherwise, and as such there is a need to seek other means to reduce the high rates of recidivism by ensuring that released prisoners integrate well into society and keep off from engagement in crime. According to a study (Confronting confinement)conducted by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons in 2006, there are approximately 2 million people in prison each day and in a year 13.5 million Americans serve some jail sentences. According to the same report 67% of the released prisoners are get arrested after their release and out of the rearrested 67%, 52% of the group get re-incarcerated (Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, 2006). This rate of recidivism implies that theories commonly applied in traditional correctional programs meant to deter crime are not working as expected and thus proving that the call for more rehabilitative programs and application of utilitarian theories is long overdue. This is an important issue for review because the over-stretched facilities are quite expensive to the American economy because the correctional facilities consume about $60 billion annually, and taking up such an amount without good delivery of results may indeed be counted as a loss of the tax payers money. Additionally, the large number of prisoners also released each year pose a threat to the society, because it is highly likely that they will go back into their criminal activities because they have not changed as implied by the high rate of recidivism. Rehabilitation theorists propose the use of education programs, counseling and job-training as the most effective ways of transforming prisoners in order to reduce recidivism and crime rate (Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, 2006). These concerns are currently addressed by the new restorative justice programs meant to balance rehabilitation and punishment concepts through bringing victims and offenders together so as to mend the psychological and social damage already done. The failure of traditional; correctional models has led to the development of new modes of corrections that are deemed to be more effective. These include examples such as strength based interventions and ISP (intensive supervision probation or electronic monitoring). Strength based interventions were not correctional in their traditional sense, but they have been adopted for correctional purposes. The solution and strength based treatment involves focusing on prisoners strength and helping them master their personal assets which they may be unaware of (Kurtz & Linneman, 2006). The correctional counselors are engaged in sessions that are akin to training sessions meant to improve the skills and knowledge that one inherently posses. This allows both the officers and prisoners to focus not on the negative but on positive achievements attainable. There is little existent research and data that can support strength based interventions that are combined with probationary measures. However, this could be proved with time after the initiation of the programs. (ISP) Intensive supervision probation which uses electronic monitoring is a program that ensures there constant contact between the offenders and probation officers on a weekly basis, while the offenders are actively monitored through electronic tracking (Kurtz & Linneman, 2006). The program also involves a combination of other measures such as regular drug tests, curfew monitoring, employment verification and engagement in psychological counseling or drug abuse treatments. ISP programs are quite different from traditional probation programs because a significantly small number of clients are supervised by a single ISP officer-normally less than 40. ISP and strength based interventions are currently favored because they are relatively cheaper compared to traditional incarceration. The probationary based programs are also flexible to individual and

community needs. The approximated cost of placing an offender in a probation based program is much lower in a day compared to incarceration in a correctional facility, where many other expenses are incurred to facilitate the offenders stay. The average expense for confining a single offender is $100 dollars in a day, which could be eliminated if alternative modes of corrections were sought (Kurtz & Linneman, 2006). The flexibility offered in these alternative programs allows offenders to continue staying the community and receiving other services of a rehabilitative nature. According to Kurtz and Linneman (2006), these approaches are effective because they help reduce prison populations whilst offering close monitoring of offenders in a manner that discourages their engagement in crime. Additionally, other enhanced additions in these programs such as drug tests and regular mandatory counseling sessions help the offenders to reform and learn new behaviors that enhance their integration into society. A study conducted in Kansas portrayed low rates of recidivism amongst offenders from community based alternatives of sentencing compared to groups of offenders under traditional modes correctional measures (Kurtz & Linneman, 2006). The table below shows data obtained from the study, and the percentages of re-arrest are way below those experienced in other programs whose recidivism rate is usually above 60%. References Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons (2006),. U.S. Prisons Overcrowded and Violent, Recidivism High, retrieved on 20th April, 2011 fromhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html Conis, J. P. and DeLisi, M. (2009),.American Corrections: Theory, Research, Policy and Practice: Jones & Bartlett Learning Kurtz, D. and Linneman, T. (2006),.Improving Probation through Client Strengths: Evaluating Strength Based Treatments for at Risk Youth. Western Criminology Review Journal, volume 7, issue (1):pp. 9-19 (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v07n1/09/juvprobation.pdf). Seter, P. R. (2011),. Correctional Administration: Integrating Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall

Você também pode gostar