Week 8 Blog Prisoner "Power"

In this particular blog our text discusses how the notion that prisoners have any “power” within a prison contradicts the nature of the prison environment. However, some prison sociologists look at prisons as a social system rather than institutions to be governed (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2011, p. 345). The notion I have of life inside prison was always based on “inmate balance theory.” This theory to my understanding provides insight on the maintenance of order and prevention of collective violence. In other words for the prison system to operate effectively, officials must tolerate minor infractions, relax some security measures, and allow inmate leaders to keep order. When guards go too far in asserting their power by cracking down on inmate privileges, the delicate balance of shared authority is upset. Which in turn unleashes collective disorder. However, while discussing this specific blog with a friend which is currently a correctional officer at a maximum security prison, she indicated that there is an alternative explanation of prison disorder, which is called “administrative control theory.” This perspective indicates that disorder results from unstable, divided, or otherwise weak management. In my opinion weak management may permit gangs and other illicit groups to flourish. These groups, in turn may help mobilize disturbances. It is noteworthy I mention that my opinion is simply an attempt to distinguish a well-run prison from a substandard prison. Traditionally, there is a set belief on how we believe our prisons should be ran. Most feel a stern environment with very few privileges. However, I believe what is important is governance: the sound and firm management of inmates and staff.   

References:

Clear, T. R., Cole, G. F., & Reisig, M. D. (2011). American Corrections (Ninth ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.


Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justices Ethics (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Week 7 Public Opinion About Punishment

In this particular blog for week seven I chose to discuss chapter seven’s “Public Opinion about Punishment.” When dealing with administering punishment for those who have committed a crime there’s always going to be a difference in opinion. However, the key issues are to find justice for what was unjust. If sentencing and correctional policies were determined by public opinions some might argue that the environment where the crime happened would weigh heavy on the decision made for justice. In other words if a crime happens in a large area with a high crime rate the public may tend to want a harsh sentence with the intent to get a message across. Whereas, in a small less likely crime area the public may be more lenient to punish showing more sympathy to the accused.

Subsequently, the opinions on punishment will always have its different views on how much time an individual should receive as-well-as what kind of punishment that individual should receive. Capital Punishment for an individual has in my opinion been the main focus with the public. Some believe that no person should be able to take another person’s life just because he/she has killed someone. Others feel an eye for an eye… In my opinion I believe that compensation is needed when a love one has been taken because of murder. I feel in order to move on some families feel taking the life of an individual who has killed their love one is restitution. Others not so much…

I just added a must see video that discusses why this blog is relevant to the public’s opinion about punishment. After viewing Anderson Cooper 360 please feel free to address your opinion in this specific case. Is age, race, and wealth the reason why some argue there’s no justice in the Criminal Justice?

Week 6 Blog Defining Terrorism

In this specific blog I chose to discuss terrorism. Terrorism in my opinion is premeditated violence. However, there is no single uniformly accepted definition of terrorism that is applicable to all places and all circumstances. After the events of 9/11 it was clear that disaster can happen anytime and anywhere. September 11 attacks was all the federal government needed for a motive to create a comprehensive plan to synchronize the nation’s preparedness. Although, I believe the incident in New York was handled with a great deal of courage, other may feel different. Some argue how they believe New York first responders handled the incident poorly and it hindered our safety and wellbeing. Compared to the attack to the pentagon I can see why some argue that New York first responder’s response to a crisis was problematic. This in turn, would cause President Bush to mandate a plan to develop a National Response Framework. I believe the United States ultimate goal is to achieve preparedness so the horrific activities on 9/11 will not be repeated. After the 9/11 attack we now have what we call the National Incident Management System (NIMS). This system allows all acting agencies on scene to be on the same page. Without unified command (UC) theirs no structure or a strategy for one incident action plan. Simply stated, in my opinion the partnership between first responders proved a great deal of readiness is important in the heat of battle.

Week 5 Women's Incarceration

In this particular blog for week five, I will be discussing chapter six Women’s Incarceration. The first factor to recognize in the United States, more than one million women are behind bars or under the control of the criminal justice system. Our text book indicates that the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) is the largest women prison in the world. Inmates at CCWF are classified according to their level of security risk derived from the offense for which they were arrested. It is noteworthy that I mention over 75% of the inmates are classified as low risk (Banks 2013, p.145). When dealing with women being incarcerated research gives information which indicates that 52% of incarcerated women are alcohol or drug dependent. Although the public commonly believes most females prisoners are incarcerated for minor offenses, sentences for petty crime are usually served in jails; prisons hold the more-serious offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at the end of 2005 approximately 35 percent of female state prisons were serving sentences for violent offenses. What can we say is the reason for so many women being incarcerated? There are arguments which states, “Women care to take role and lack of options forces many into crime to support their children.” If so, what can we do? Assistance with health care is a start as well as affordable housing, and increasing living wages. In my opinion if something is not done quickly the problem will get worse. Simply said, once these women are released from jail/prison many have nowhere to go and must find a place to live, but federal laws restrict subsidize housing for former prison inmates. Now the pressure is back on , and they find their selves back into the life of crime.

 

 

References:

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justices Ethics (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAkoKCqNlo

Week 4 The Purpose of Criminal Punishment

In this weeks blog I will be discussing how I believe criminal punishment is split between retribution and prevention. On the retribution side it insist that only the pain of punishment can pay for offenders’ past crimes. In other words, punishment justifies itself. As for the prevention side utilitarians insist with equal passion the pain of punishment can and should be only a means to greater good, usually the prevention or at least the reduction of future crime. The principle of punishment holds that no crime can be said to occur where punishment has not been specified in the law. For example, a crime like larceny, would not be a crime if the law just said, “It is illegal to steal.” Punishment for the crime must be specified so that if a person is found guilty of violating the law, sanctions can be lawfully imposed. Our text book reads that punishment, in the sense of a sanction imposed for a criminal offense, consist of five elements:

·         It must involve an unpleasantness to the victim.

·         It must be for an offense, actual or supposed.

·         It must be of an offender, actual or supposed

·         It must be the work of personal agencies; in other words it must not be the natural consequence of an action.

·         It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the offense has been committed… (Banks 2013, p.114).

When dealing with retribution it can be argued that punishment benefits not only society, but also criminals. For example, just as society feels satisfied by paying back criminals, giving criminals their punishment, offenders benefit by putting right their evil. It is my opinion that society pays back criminals by retaliation; criminals pay back society by accepting responsibility through punishment. Which I feel both paybacks are at the heart of retribution. Retribution has several appealing qualities. It assumes free will, thereby enhancing individual autonomy. However, determinists which include most criminologists, reject the free-will assumption underlying retribution.

Supporters of prevention argue that prevention looks forward and inflicts pain, not for its own sake, but to prevent future crime. As I researched some tools on prevention I discovered that theirs four kinds of prevention. 1. General deterrence, 2. Special deterrence, 3. Incapacitation, and 4. Rehabilitation (Samaha 2011, p.24). These four ideas formulate the classical deterrence theory. In other words these four indicate rational human beings will not commit crimes if they know that the pain of punishment outweighs the pleasure gained from committing crimes.

Finally, I believe if we could obtain empirical support for criminal punishment, deterrence is unjust because it punishes for example’s sake. I feel punishment should not be a sacrifice to the common good; it’s only just in my opinion if it’s administered for the redemption of particular individuals, say the retibutionists. To be clearer I believe punishment is personal and individual, not general and societal. Please do not misunderstand me I believe that those who commit crime should be punish. However, I feel as long as offenders are in fact guilty, punishing them is personal. It is noteworthy I mention that I believe we live in a country where it is just to use individual punishment for society’s benefit. Historically, societies has justified punishment in my opinion on the grounds of retribution. But, this in my opinion will soon be replaced by rehabilitation because rehabilitation programs can reform offenders. The “if they knew better they would do better” theme will soon dominate the reform discussion widely publicized on the effectiveness of treatment programs.  

 

References:

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justices Ethics (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Law (10th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning 

Week Three "Private Prisons"

In this particular blog for week three I focused my attention on “private prisons.” Recognizing that over the past 25+ years, entrepreneurs have argued that they can build and run prisons as effectively, safely, and humanely as any level of government. In fact they claim that they can do so more efficiently, which saves taxpayers money. However, this remain very controversial giving rise to many issues that do not validate this claim. It is noteworthy I mention that this is one of the myths in corrections, because the reality from research in many cases shows that private prisons are no more cost-effective than public prisons. A variety of other factors, such as security level, inmate population size, and the age of the facility, influence a prison’s daily per diem cost. Related to this debate is the constitutional question of whether, and to what extent the state and privately own facilities address constitutional violations against inmates. As I discuss this matter I want my readers to recall that Section 1983 allows prisoners to sue public officials for constitutional violations. Private companies acting under the color of state law had originally assumed that they could be sued under Section 1983. But the U.S. Supreme Court examined the question of the liability of guards in private prisons. The Court said that private prison guards did not have this legal protection and are fully liable for their actions when they violate a protected right.  
 

Subsequently, the arguments on private prisons are associated with a large amount of issues ranging from constitutional violations to private corporations attempting to make a profit on the punishment of people. Historically, the prison system has in my opinion profited from the use of prison labor as a standard feature. In this sense, profit and incarceration have a long tradition of association.

  

 

 

Reference:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+video+of+private+prisons&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=2A17E64626224EE997CA2A17E64626224EE997CA

In this particular blog chapter six discusses Ethics in Corrections. What should be the basis for an ethical system of guarding prisoners? The first factor is the need to protect the staff and consider security the dominant purpose of a prison. When dealing with ethics in corrections there are three models of incarceration that has predominated since the early years: custodial, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Each reflects one style of institutional organization. For example, the custodial model assumes that prisoners have been incarcerated for the purpose of incapacitation, deterrence, or retribution. The rehabilitation model emphasizes treatment programs designed to reform the offender. Lastly, the reintegration model is linked to the structure and goals of community corrections. This particular model emphasizes maintaining offenders’ ties to family and community. It is noteworthy that I mention that we can find correctional facilities that build off each of these models. However, with my evolvement and communication with those affiliated with the prison system it appears that most prisons are mainly custodial. Most likely because it emphasizes security, discipline, and order, which subordinate the prisoner to guards and higher authority.

 Corrections is a people-processing operation, its personnel are its resource. A number of studies have attempted to explain the basis and nature of this coercive power and authority. It is the exercise of this power that creates ethical issues and dilemmas. The most obvious fact about the prison environment is that guards are vested with power and authority over the prisoners which they exercise power to control inmates in accordance with prison rules and regulations. Our text discusses five forms of guard power: legitimate, coercive, reward, expert, and referent. With legitimate power, guards are invested with authority to command as a result of their position as a guard of prisoners. It is the position of guard itself within the institutional structure that confers the right to give instructions and to be obeyed. In short, a guard's command are obeyed because they are the commands of a guard, and prisoners comply by virtue of their status as prisoners. Prisons are expected to be impersonal, quasi-military organizations where strict discipline, minimal amenities, and restrictions on freedom carry out the punishment.

 Subsequently, because prisons are expected to pursue many different and often incompatible goals, it would seem that they are almost doomed to fail.