Running head: THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
‘
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
Zikiya Berner
CRJ303: Corrections
Professor Ted Ellis
February 22nd, 2021
1
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
2
The Functions, Issues and Objectives in Corrections
Within the criminal justice system, the corrections department is often overlooked. The
correctional component of the system is an intricate function of the criminal justice system. As
American views of crime and punishment have changed, so has the purpose of the American
correctional system. Today’s system goals have developed from punishment and vengeance to
one that encompasses punishment, retribution and re-integration. Other changes such as the
implementation of private institutions into the correctional facility realm has ignited much
change and debate on the goals and capabilities of correctional institutions. This paper will
explore the historical and present day functions of the correctional systems, social justice,
criminal justice, and constitutional issues that effect inmates and on a larger scale society as a
whole.
The Historical Overview of the American Correctional System
Historically, punishment was used to deter any reoccurrence of crime committed by the
individual offender often by cruel and harsh measures. Incarceration facilities were not originally
used as forms of punishment but rather holding areas until punishment could be implemented.
Criminals were confined in “cold, damp, filthy, rat- and roach-infested prisons” until “they
confessed to the crime and their physical punishment occurred” (History of Corrections—
Punishment, Prevention, or Rehabilitation?" Information Plus(R) Reference Series Fall, 2005).
Punishment was used as a form of revenge and serving justice to the offender. During premodern times, jails were used by the church, local authorities and wealthy nobles as an extension
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
3
of punishment (History of Corrections—Punishment, Prevention, or
Rehabilitation?" Information Plus(R) Reference Series Fall, 2005). Much of the American
correctional system was built on the pre-modern English and European concepts of punishment,
cruelty and torture. The early American systems used arbitrary punishment and control
techniques such as fines, public humiliation, physical labor, isolation, long confinement
sentences, and execution. By the eighteenth century more contemporary thinkers began to realize
physical punishment had little to no effect on the deterrence of crime (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019,
sec. 1.4). As these theories on punishment and deterrence evolved, so did the types of
punishment with many viewing it as barbaric British practice. Because of this, state sanctioned
penitentiaries were constructed as a place to house offenders as they repented and underwent
reform.
This new, enlightened thought on punishment led to many changes in penal law and two
distinct systems on how jails and penitentiaries were operated. Both systems used a
cellblock structure, placed great emphasis on isolating inmates from society, believed that
criminal activity was a learned or habitual act, and utilized routine as a form of discipline to
encourage reform. The first system, referred to as the Auburn system, had the prisoners laboring
throughout the day and kept in solitary confinement at night and enforced (often by cruel
physical punishment) a strict silence code amongst inmates (Britannica, T. Editors of
Encyclopedia (1998, July 20). The other system, only implemented in one state was known as
the Pennsylvania system. The Pennsylvania system relied strictly on solitary confinement of
inmate during their time and had little to no interaction with anyone aside from the penitentiary
staff. Neither system was able to meet reform expectations and many had relapsed to British and
European concepts of punishment, cruelty and torture.
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
4
By the 20th century, glimmers of today’s more contemporary correctional systems center
began to appear. More progressive reform was seen through out many institutions. These reforms
focused on providing education and skilled work training for post release. Additionally, a
prisoner classification closely resembling today’s minimum, medium, and maximumsecurity distinctions; and a normalization controlled but not oppressive community
emerged within the institutions for inmates (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019, sec. 1.5). Although
deemed an overall failure, these reform ideas prevailed and are seen in the current state of
American correctional institutions.
Contemporary Corrections System and Functions
The functions of today’s contemporary correctional system are retribution, deterrence,
incapacitation, rehabilitation, reintegration, and restoration. The correctional systems focus on
protecting the community through deterrence, rehabilitation and community corrections utilizing
safe and humane measures. As seen in the Auburn and Pennsylvania system, incapacitation of
the individuals is still a theme and those who cannot abide by community laws are isolated from
the community and punished through confinement. This aides in the goal of deterrence, by
assuming that a logical presumes that individuals will avoid negative consequences of
incarceration (Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. 2019). Themes from the 20th century reform are still
present including educational, trade programs and other rehabilitative measures. Rehabilitation
efforts such as this, aim to change the offender’s behavior from antisocial to law abiding.
Additionally, today’s correctional facilities grant more constitutional rights to incarcerated
individuals. The contemporary system places an increase priority on offenders taking personal
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
5
accountability to victims and the community they wronged also provides resources for
community re-integration.
The changes to correctional institutions policies, operations and focus are largely
positive. However, modern day corrections faces various criminal justice issues including
balancing the rights and treatment of the incarcerated with the functions of the system as a
whole. One major concern is what and if any constitutional rights are inmates entitled to. The
courts original stance was that inmates “have forfeited their liberty, and personal rights” (Oei,
1988, p.399). However, societies views on incarceration and incarcerated individuals changed
the goals of corrections to not only punishment and supervision, but to include treatment and
rehabilitation. This balancing act has proved to be a daunting one for corrections administrators;
and in many cases the final determination has been made by our nation’s high courts. The ruling
thought is that confinement in a correctional system means both the curtailing of certain physical
freedoms and some constitutional rights. Applying this ruling and creating a more balance
correctional state has been a slow evolution into the flawed but improved system we see today.
Balancing Inmate Constitutional Rights and Correctional Aims
The prevailing rule is that in the interest of criminal justice, the safety and security within
a correctional facility ultimately determines what constitutional rights must be curtailed and
inmate rights can be infringed upon in the interest of overall security. The courts have
established a rational basis standard to as a guide to determining the constitutionality an
institutions policy. It is measured by: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between
the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest cited to justify the restriction; (2)
whether there are alternative means available to the prisoner of exercising the right; (3) whether
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
6
accommodating the constitutional right will have an adverse "ripple effect" on guards, inmates
and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether there are ready alternatives to
accommodate the right (Oei, 1988, p.402). So under this standard, many rights such as privacy,
warrantless searches are eliminated; and some variants of the freedom of speech and religion are
curtailed while in the interest of good order and security. Other rights such as due process, and
protections from cruel and unusual punishment are maintained.
The protection from cruel and unusual punishment has been one of judicial discretion and
societal controversy. There are many practices within the criminal and correctional systems that
are arguable cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, the application of the death penalty,
solitary confinement and prison conditions such as overcrowding. The death penalty and solitary
confinement fall within the scope of punishment and is applied sparingly to those deemed
subjectively incapable of rehabilitation. However in the interest of social justice, the goals of
rehabilitation, treatment and supervision prison overcrowding is considered cruel and unusual.
The Supreme Court case of Brown v. Plata made it clear that overcrowding created an
environment that was “cruel and unusual” and unconstitutional under the in violation of the 8th
Amendment (Brown v. Plata, n.d.). The impact of social justice issues has had on private
corrections institution has been controversial. According to the Little Hoover Commission
(2007), forty years of “tough on crime” policies has caused California to lose control of its
correctional system forcing more dependence on the use of private institutions. California
increased its dependence on private institutions as response court rulings that overcrowding was
the inmates’ constitutional associated with cruel and unusual punishment. This dependency did
not do much to remedy the issues.
Incarceration and Criminal and Social Justice Issues
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
7
The major criminal justice concern regarding overcrowding for staff and administrators is
cleanliness, safety, control, supervision, and order within correctional institution due to
overcrowding. For instance, inadequate staffing due to overcrowding can increases dangerous
opportunity for violent incidents within the institution; and creates emergency and security
vulnerabilities. As a social justice concern degradates a multitude of human rights and worsens
inmate psychological and behavioral defects. The effects of overcrowding effect inmates by
increasing “tension and violence, exacerbates existing mental and physical health problems,
increases the risk of transmission of communicable diseases” (Nkosi & Maweni, 2020, p. 339).
The consequences of overcrowding aren’t limited to just physical restrictions, social and
psychological aspects but also have a direct impact on recidivism and reintegration. One study
confirmed what many assumed about overcrowding: Overcrowding strains resources such as
food, toiletries, hygiene facilities, sleeping facilities, and rehabilitation programs. Once
correctional officers account, as recorded by Nkosi & Maweni (2020), “ We don’t have enough
staff to handle this number of inmates and we sometimes lock them in their cells longer than they
are supposed to be there, because we are understaffed. And this restricts them from participating
in rehabilitation programs” (p.344). As an administrative concern overcrowding interferes with
not only poses immense administrative and management challenges but it interferes the basic
rights to provide to provide humane living conditions, rehabilitate resources such as educational
and vocational programs and physical and mental health care to inmates.
The impact of social justice issues has had on incarceration and a correctional institution
has been great. For instance, Brown v. Plata created a ripple affect across state and institutional
policy. Reform efforts saw notable social and criminal justice implications such as a “tough on
crime” sentencing policies. For instance, three strike laws disproportionally affect people of
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
8
color. African American men, who constitute only about 3 percent of California's population,
represent approximately 44 percent of third-strikers among California prison inmates (Chen,
2014, p.553). California’s tough on crime rhetoric and policies such as three strikes have
negatively effected black populations and contributed greatly to overcrowding. As a result
efforts were made to revaluates the tough on crime sentences to reduce California's prison
population and balance racial disparities. The efforts resulted in passed legislative reform that
decriminalization lower-level drug offenses, decreased imprisonment for property offenses and
release non violent offenders resulting in state prison reduction of 30,000 inmates during a single
period (Males, 2018). This reduction in population produced a notable reduction in waste of
taxpayer funds and created more promotion and resources for less costly options such
community treatment and supervision.
Alternative Sentencing’s Methods
California has utilized a combination of legislative and alternative sentencing methods
means to reduce prison population. The first and perhaps one of the most important steps in
reducing overcrowding was changing mandatory minimum prison sentencing and allowing
judges to utilize community and alternative sentencing programs designed to keep defendants out
of jail when appropriate. According to Stojkovic & Lovell (2019) some examples of alternative
sentencing are diversion programs, fines, substance abuse treatment programs, suspended
sentences, probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, or community service (sec 7.3).
Alternative sentencing methods are beneficial to criminal offenders and the criminal justice
system. For offenders, alternative sentencing offers an opportunity to rehabilitate, and avoid
serving jail or prison time. For the criminal justice systems alternative sentencing not only
reduces prison and jail populations, but also are overall cheaper than incarceration savings
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
9
taxpayers money. California introduced Proposition 36, a Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act that provides community-based substance abuse treatment to nonviolent drug
offenders in lieu of incarceration (Evans, Li, Urada, & Anglin, 2014, p.1). Drug offenders were
able to opt-in to the treatment program for as little as 90 days to 12 months. Research indicates
that such forms of compulsory drug treatment have shown a positive reduction of both drug use
and criminal behavior (Federal Probation, 1998, p.37). Treatment and diversion programs are
generally lauded because they offer viable chances for vulnerable populations to break the cycle
of drug use, criminal activity and incarceration.
Another commonly used alternative sentencing method is electronic monitoring.
Electronic monitoring often used in conjunction with another alternative sentencing method,
supervised electronic confinement commonly called house arrest. The monitoring device,
commonly referred to as ankle bracelets are used to track registered offenders using
“Global Positioning System (GPS) and radio frequency (RF) technology” to
“offer continuous, real-time tracking of an offender” (Stojkovic and Lovell, 2019, sec 7.3).
Electronic devices gained popularity among California criminal justice system because it not
only reduces inmate populations but it also provides greater sentencing flexibility for offenders.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and stated that
Electronic In-Home Detention program “is used to monitor offender compliance with imposed
curfews as an enhancement to supervision and an alternative sanction to incarceration”
(Stojkovic and Lovell, 2019, sec 7.3). An offender who are convicted of certain low level non
violent crimes may be supervised with an ankle bracelet in order to continue their employment,
educations, attend drug/alcohol classes, and/or participate in court ordered community service and
counseling appointments in a community environment. Electronic monitoring devices are
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
10
effective in both cost and reducing recidivism. The use of GPS monitoring system by the CDCR
has proven to be more effective than traditional supervision, and more cost effective than
incarceration. According to the Wells (2014), in California, GPS costs approximately $35.96 a
day per person with a 12% re-arrest rate, compared to tradition supervision’s $27.45 a day per
person; with 26 % re arrest rate; whereas civil confinement cost an average $129 a day per
person” (pp 22,23). Alternative sentences such as this alleviate overpopulation in jails and
prisons, save tax-payers money and also allow those who have been sentenced an opportunity to
rehabilitate, and avoid serving jail or prison time, life disruption and move ahead positively and
Diversity and Cultural Competency in Corrections
As modern day populations grow and change, this can also be seen in prisons. This
growth has placed an increased focus on diversity within correctional institutions. Within the
confines of prison diversity and culturally competent must be a priority of administrators. At the
forefront of concerns is diversity within prison correctional staff. Black and Hispanic inmates
make up large correctional populations. Unfortunately, some states find it difficult to hire
minority correctional staff. The deadly Attica prison riot of 1971 increased the urgency to
diversify staff and incorporate competency training within the correctional industry. According
to Paulson (2013), racial tensions were also a major factor in the Attica Correctional Facility riot
the inmate population was nearly 55 % African American and 10 % Hispanic yet all the guards
were White. However, despite the tragedies of the riot and the increase call to recruit more
minorities correctional facilities are still falling short. According to the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, White (non-Hispanic) make up 62.3 % of prison staff while African American comprise
only 21.2 % and Hispanics comprising even less at 12.9% ("BOP Statistics: Staff
Ethnicity/Race", 2021).
Hiring and training practices must be tailored to recognize that the
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
11
ability to interact effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds is paramount
especially in the context of correctional compliance. Increasing diversity also can aid in prison
security. For instance, “language barriers, can impede officers' effectiveness and potentially
compromise their safety if they cannot understand what is being said” or having spanishspeaking officers can aid in translating the rules of the institution (Aguirre, 2004, p.74). Diverse
corrections staff can aid in the occurrence of perceived and actual incidents of racism, prejudices
and intolerance of minority individuals thus reducing violent confrontation amongst guards and
other inmates within a facility. Gone are the days where correctional staff can apply a “one size
fit all” approach to inmates. Our prisons, like our society is made up of individuals from many
different cultures that encompass many different values, faiths, beliefs, and speak different
languages. Because of these differences behavior, body language and even words whether
positive or negative are not always the same across cultures. Today, the there is value in a
diverse correctional staff that has better communication skills, and are capable in discerning
attitudes, traditions or other customs especially in the context maintaining control within an
institutionalized setting.
Public and Private Institution Correctional Effectiveness
Aside from diversity, public and private present many concerns especially regarding their
effectiveness. Public institutions are scrutinized for their effectiveness reducing recidivism and
incarceration rehabilitation programs. A report by the California State Auditor noted many flaws
in CDCR’s programs that reduce its ineffectiveness. According to the report (1) Corrections’
implementation of certain rehabilitation programs has not resulted in demonstrable deductions in
recidivism (2) Corrections is failing to place inmates into appropriate rehabilitation programs,
leading to inmates being released from prison without having any of their rehabilitation needs
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
12
met (3) Corrections has neither developed any performance measures for its rehabilitation
programs, such as a target reduction in recidivism, nor has it assessed program cost-effectiveness
(California State Auditor, 2021, p.7). The CDCR is not meeting its goal of rehabilitation, which
is not only problematic but also costly. According to the California State Auditor the failures
“highlight an urgent need for corrections to take a more active and meaningful role in ensuring
that these programs are effective” by means of “oversight and monitoring” (California State
Auditor, 202, p.13.) It is clear from this report that the CDCR is largely not hitting the mark in
the areas of recidivism and incarceration rehabilitation.
Private institution face scrutiny as well but their scrutiny is large on their effectiveness to
provide the proper supervision and safety within their facilities. California boasted 24 privately
run prison institutions. As a social justice issues the for-profit prison system presents a number
of ethical problems. Many also argue that that for-profit prisons system contributes to over
incarceration. Private facilities have been plagued with concerns of that inmates are subjected to
poor conditions, and that administrators are incentivized to cut cost on the rehabilitative services
provided to inmates. For instance, harsher conditions correlate to lead to higher rates of
recidivism causing more prior inmates to return to prison, thus keeps the beds filled, and
taxpayer per diem payments coming in (Pfaff, 2020, p.996). As a criminal justice issue, this is
concerning, as this conflicts with the goals of correctional institutions. Prisons are not mere
warehousing facility to hold people until their sentence is over, but rather an environment where
punishment and supervision coexists with treatment and rehabilitation. In regards to both social
and criminal justice goals private institutions have no incentive to rehabilitate offenders, reduce
crime or prioritized public safety. As the two largest private prison firms, are both publicly
traded; their fiduciary obligations are to their shareholders “not the communities impacted by
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
13
inadequate prison programming and staffing” (Pfaff, 2020, p.996). As a result of changing views
on private prison institutions, court ruling and increased focus on reform and reentry, California
has recently began efforts to cut ties by passing legislature that prohibits new state contracts with
private prisons and begins phasing out existing contracts.
The correctional system has evolved in many ways throughout the years. From the
arbitrary administering of punishment and control techniques to the now normalized expectation
that institutions focus on rehabilitation, treatment and re-entry of inmates. Despite its many
changes, varying matters such as social justice, criminal justice and constitutional issues remain
a primary interest amongst community and political stakeholders. Controversy such as the
implementation of private institutions into the correctional facility calls into question the
capabilities of correctional institutions and its dedication to rehabilitation. The correctional
system as we know it not perfect, however it is a far cry from its 17th century roots. As our
societal views of crime and punishment continue to form the focus and aims of the correctional
system continue to also evolve for the betterment of our incarcerated members and our society as
a whole.
References:
Aguirre, A. T. (2004). Arguments for a Diverse Workforce. Corrections Today, 66(5), 72–75.
https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
14
library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=14017854&site=edslive&scope=site
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (1998, July 20). Auburn system. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Auburn-system
Brown v. Plata. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-1233
BOP Statistics: Staff Ethnicity/Race. (2021). Retrieved 20 February 2021, from
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_staff_ethnicity_race.jsp
California State Auditor. (2021). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
REPORT 2018-113. Sacremento: California State Auditor.
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-113.pdf
Chen, E. Y. (2014). Three Strikes Legislation. African Americans and the Criminal Justice
System: An Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 551- 555.
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=poli_sci
California profile. (2021). Retrieved 20 February 2021, from
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/CA.html
Evans, E., Li, L., Urada, D., & Anglin, M. D. (2014). Comparative Effectiveness of California's
Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
15
Matching. Crime and delinquency, 60(6), 909–938.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710382342
Federal Probation. (1998). United States: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaflkAFhi2gZd4oPLq0
E0X3NNKD3Sew2CmUcQT5_ZdLk9IKEq1k10A-QyzNYMzg6oLY0fJ3jH394L2qyl88pQA7hBj6SXiHXnG7hFrCJREksL1HdmbQVAdSD3JrpDMIUmi5PolFzsckXAIoDe-xpDobPl0NHzvfuvqsMsreIKFaSssym5glyR00Sqgr1RU87nQ9osRjSoS4MeFmb3GshdgW8U8HxUV8bwuy2JAeLy_IweSdneZ11OVhy_5A8u
4wr8o4OT
"History of Corrections—Punishment, Prevention, or Rehabilitation? ." Information Plus(R)
Reference Series Fall 2005. . Retrieved January 12, 2021 from
Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacstranscripts-and-maps/history-corrections-punishment-prevention-or-rehabilitation
Little Hoover Commission. (2007). Solving California's corrections crisis: Time is running out.
Sacramento, CA: California State Government Organization and Economy.
https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/185/Report185.pdf
Males, M. (2018). California’s County Jails Show Population Reductions Amid Statewide Prison
Reform — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Retrieved 20 February 2021, from
http://www.cjcj.org/news/12138
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
16
Nkosi, N., & Maweni, V. (2020). The Effects of Overcrowding on the Rehabilitation of
Offenders: A Case Study of a Correctional Center, Durban (Westville), KwaZulu
Natal. Oriental Anthropologists, 20(2), 232–346. https://doi-org.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/10.1177/0972558X20952971
Oei, L. G. (1988). The new standard of review for prisoner’ rights: a “Turner” for the
worse? Villanova Law Review, 2, 393.
https://library.ashford.edu/EzProxy.aspx?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.6888163&site=edslive&scope=site
Paulson, L. D/ (2013). Attica Correctional Facility. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Attica-Correctional-Facility
Pfaff, J. F. (2020). The Incentives of Private Prisons. Arizona State Law Journal, 52(3), 991–
1019. https://library.ashford.edu/EzProxy.aspx?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=148509485&site=edslive&scope=site
Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2019). Corrections: An introduction (2nd Ed.). Retrieved from
https://content.ashford.edu
THE FUNCTIONS, ISSUES, AND OBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS
17
Wells, D. (2014). GPS monitoring: an effective, cost-saving option. Corrections Today, 76(1),
22. https://library.ashford.edu/EzProxy.aspx?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.358059473&site=ed
s-live&scope=site