Category: Prison

Essay on Prisons: Solitary Confinement in the United States and Austria

Prisons exist around the world and every prison is different in each country. Individuals that defy the law will be subject to different punishments and every country implements different forms of punishment. In Austria, fines and incarceration are two punishments for offenders who break the law. Offenders who have a poor financial status have difficulty paying their fines, so they will be incarcerated for a certain amount of time (Bruckmüller & Graft, n.d.). However, 2008 was a turning point because community service served as a replacement for incarceration (Bruckmüller & Graft, n.d.).

In Austria, incarceration is the punishment that affects many of prisoners. The courts can implement sentences that last for many years depending on the severity of the crime. The more heinous the crime, the longer the prison sentence the offender will endure. For example, murder is between ten to twenty years or for life, rape is between six months to ten years, serious theft is three years, burglary is between six months to five years, and aggravated assault is between five to fifteen years (Bruckmüller & Graft, n.d.).

The United States has the largest incarceration rate in the entire world: over two million people. In 2013, for every 100,00 people, the United States incarcerated 707 people and Austria only had 98 (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). Severe crimes account for heftier sentences because there are many charges that are included in the sentence. Violent offenders are incarcerated between five and twenty years in prison because violence is a serious crime compared to petty theft (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014).

The United States and Austria incarcerate many individuals, and some suffer from different aspects of prison. Some will attempt suicide because they cannot endure prison any longer, some will be sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives because of the severity of the crimes and the prisoners’ actions, and some will have deteriorating mental health due to being placed in solitary confinement. The remainder of this paper discusses the differences between the United States and Austria in their handling of prison suicide, implementing life sentences, and utilizing solitary confinement.

Prison Suicide

Suicide prevention is an extremely important topic in public health. Numerous clinics, organizations, and groups raise awareness about suicide prevention because it affects an extremely large number of people every year. Even though suicide prevention is important to many people, prison suicide often goes unrecognized. This is because the public may not be familiar with how common it is, or some individuals do not care. Common beliefs include the prisoners have already committed terrible crimes and they should rot in prison, their death would not be a loss and ‘good riddance.’ These beliefs prove that the prison suicide rate of Austria and the United States is an issue.

Austria has high suicide rates and over the past twenty years, prison suicide has been increasing (Daigle et al., 2007). Preventing suicide is of high importance to the correctional staff because of the increasing rates of suicides that occur in Austrian prisons (Frontier, Fruehwald, Schwärzler, & Bauer, 2002, as cited in Daigle et al., 2007). Prisoners must be observed when they enter prison and during their incarceration, because they are at a higher risk of suicide (Levey, 1990, as cited in Fruehwald, Frontier, Eher, Gutierrez, & Ritter, 2000). Observing the prisoners is especially important when they are first arrested and brought to the prison, as this period is when they are the most susceptible to die by suicide (Fruehwald et al., 2000).

Prisoners in Austria and the United States are evaluated similarly to see if they are a high risk of suicide during their first week, but this is only completed within this allotted time and not throughout their incarceration period (Daigle, 2007). Psychiatrists with the appropriate training are not used to conduct these evaluations because staffing is inadequate; therefore, the evaluation may not be completely accurate. Inaccurate evaluations can increase the rate of suicide among incoming prisoners because their mental health needs are not accurately discovered. To accurately examine the prisoners, Fruehwald, Frontier, Matschnig, König, and Bauer (2004) explain that there is a suicide screening that the officers use and will continue to use instead of trained psychiatrists (as cited in Daigle, 2007). Once a prisoner enters prison, the suicide screening will measure how large of a suicide risk the prisoner is, and prisoners with a low risk will continue through the prison booking process (Daigle, 2007). A prisoner that exhibits a higher risk of suicide will then be referred to a psychiatrist for further diagnoses and treatment and will be continually observed to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves (Daigle, 2007).

Throughout the literature about suicide in Austrian prisons, many researchers agree on specific factors that increase the risk of suicide in prisons: overcrowding, deprivation of certain freedoms, and the prison environment. Overcrowding Theory and Deprivation Theory are two theories that explain why prisoners may attempt suicide during their incarceration. Overcrowding Theory states that when prisoners are housed too close together and with too many people, they will become increasingly violent (Huey & McNulty, 2005). They are denied personal space and may have to share cells with many other people in the prison (Huey & McNulty, 2005). Adequate rehabilitation programs and other services are insufficient because there are too many prisoners and the prison budget cannot afford the programs for every person (Huey & McNulty, 2005). This causes frustration among the prisoners because they are not receiving services that may be of help to them (Huey & McNulty, 2005). The prisoners can give up hope because they are suffering in the overcrowded prison which can lead to suicide (Huey & McNulty, 2005).

Deprivation Theory says that prisoners will take their life when they are denied personal freedoms (Huey & McNulty, 2005). For example, suicide is more likely among maximum-security prisoners because they have increased limitations (Huey & McNulty, 2005). This is not surprising because maximum-security prisoners are more of a threat than prisoners in lower-security prisons. By limiting their freedoms, the officers can manage the prisoners easily, but this causes an increase in suicide because prisoners are not able to see their families, have personal items, etc.

The literature is supported by the Overcrowding and Deprivation Theory. Overcrowding is a major issue in Austrian prisons because this can aggravate prisoners, which leads to violence among the inmates (Marcus & Alcabes, 1993, as cited in Fruehwald, Frontier, Eher, Ritter, & Aigner, 2000). Additionally, when there is a copious number of prisoners in a small area, the officers overseeing the prisons will not focus on prisoners on an individual level (Marcus & Alcabes, 1993, as cited in Fruehwald, Frontier, Eher, Ritter, & Aigner, 2000). If prisoners require special needs while incarcerated, their needs will not be met, therefore resulting in suicide.

Deprivation of freedom is another factor of suicide because the prisoners are deprived of seeing their families, personal freedoms, goods and services, and a possible future (Radeloff, Lempp, Kettner, Rauf, Bennefeld-Kersten, & Freitag, 2017). The prisoners are isolated from the outside world, cannot talk to their families whenever they wish, are forbidden from possessing certain items, and are unsure about if they will have a hopeful future. The overcrowding becomes unbearable, so this results in high suicide levels.

Finally, suicide is more common among prisoners with citizenship than prisoners who are foreign (Radeloff et al., 2017). Similar to the United States, Austria has an influx of immigrants and some of these immigrants commit crimes and are taken to prison. The study conducted by Radeloff and colleagues (2017) demonstrated that immigrant prisoners have a more difficult time than domestic prisoners because they are interacting with foreign individuals, are not familiar with the country’s customs, and do not speak the language. Strangely, these immigrant prisoners were not as likely to die by suicide than Austrian prisoners.

Overcrowding is more of a problem than the deprivation of freedom in American prisons. Mass incarceration affects American prisons since many of the prisons “operate over capacity” (Kupers, 1999, as cited in Huey & McNulty, 2005). Overcrowding can overstimulate some prisoners and in order to prevent this, prisoners need adequate light, space, and clean air (Suto, 2007). Hayes (1995) stated that when prisoners are denied these needs, the prisoners can develop symptoms that can cause further violence (as cited in Suto, 2007). Some symptoms are psychotic which causes extreme anger and further suicidal tendencies (Suto, 2007).

Even though overcrowding is a factor that leads to suicide, some literature differs by showing that social isolation increases the rate of suicide among inmates. Marzano, Hawton, Rivlin, Smith, Piper, and Fazel (2016) conducted a descriptive study where they reviewed prisoners’ attempts of suicide. Overcrowding was not the reason to attempt suicide, rather social isolation was the issue. When prisoners were isolated from human interaction for a long time, they developed certain psychological issues which affected their mental health. Suto (2007) stated that the prisoners needed air, light, and enough space for their mental health to be stable, but Marzano and her colleagues (2016) differed by saying that the prisoners should not be isolated from other prisoners because they need human interaction.

The literature provides recommendations on how to manage prisoners who are mentally ill or have suicidal tendencies. The first recommendation is to have every correctional officer and personnel partake in suicidal prevention training and CPR because the correctional staff must know how to treat an individual that may be suicidal when they enter prison (Gater & Hayes, 2005, as cited in Suto, 2007). Officers interact with the prisoners every day and should be knowledgeable about signs of suicide because prisoners will attempt suicide over the weekend, at night, and in their cells (Gater & Hayes, 2005, as cited in Suto, 2007).

A further recommendation is to establish communication among every person involved in the prison process, such as the officers, prisoners, staff, and families (Suto, 2007). Everyone involved in the prison process must communicate well in order for stability. For example, if there is not effective communication between the medical staff and prisoners, suicidal prisoners may not receive the proper care and can have an increased risk of completing a suicide attempt.

When prisoners first enter prison, they are evaluated by a medical professional to examine if they may have suicidal symptoms. Suto (2007) recommends that prisoners should be examined more than just when they enter prison because suicide can occur at any moment. Therefore, the examination should become a process throughout a person’s incarceration to screen for any possible suicide symptoms (Suto, 2007). If a prisoner is suicidal, they should live among the other inmates or in a “mental health unit” because solitary areas would increase the risk of suicide (Suto, 2007). Many suicides occur when a person is alone; therefore, decreasing isolation would help prevent suicide attempts (Suto, 2007). Finally, suicidal prisoners should be observed often to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others in the prison (Suto, 2007). Prisoners may not exude signs of suicidal behavior, so it is imperative to monitor those who do not show symptoms because the officers will not know when a suicide could occur (Suto, 2007).

Life Imprisonment

Life sentences are imposed by the courts on prisoners if they have committed heinous crimes and should remain in prison for the remainder of their life. The United States imposes this sentence on many prisoners, but Austria has a different approach. In earlier years, Austrian courts used the death penalty as its highest form of punishment for crimes such as murder, arson, military crimes, and property destruction (Gleispach, 1933). However, it was eliminated it in 1919 because it was too harsh of a punishment (Gleispach, 1933). Instead of the death penalty as the highest form of punishment, life sentences and hard work in prison were used to rehabilitate the prisoners and as retribution for their crimes (Gleispach, 1933). Regular sentences were amended on July 23, 1920, when conditional releases were enacted. If a prisoner is to serve a sentence, they only need to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence as a way of retribution for the crimes that they committed (Gleispach, 1933). Additionally, they must be law-abiding citizens when they are released in order for conditional releases to be considered (Gleispach, 1933). Life sentence amendments were enacted with this law because, after fifteen years, a prisoner can be considered for parole (Burgstaller, 1999). They must behave when they are in prison, or they may lengthen their sentence (Gleispach, 1933).

Prisons in the United States are different than in Austria because they impose more life sentences and continue to use capital punishment. Life sentences have been used all throughout the 20th century but started to be used more adamantly when the criminal justice system became tougher on crimes (Nellis, 2010). At first, prisoners did not have a set amount of years that they had to serve; it was a range of years as well as parole if they showed signs of rehabilitation (Nellis, 2010). Today, prisoners who have committed terrible crimes may not receive parole because they are a danger to the community (Nellis, 2010).

There are a copious number of prisoners that are serving life sentences in the United States. Nellis (2010) stated that between 2003 and 2008, there was a 22% increase of prisoners that would be in prison for the rest of their lives. This number increased to over 140,000, which is more than any other country in the world (Nellis, 2010). This is due to legislation being written that increases the penalty for criminals. Certain legislators are not in favor of granting parole to violent criminals; therefore, they help enact laws that increase the rate of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Nellis, 2010). Regarding crimes that are worthy of life imprisonment, murder is not the only crime. Nellis (2010) adds that along with murder, life incarceration without the possibility of parole also includes “kidnapping, burglary, robbery, carjacking, and battery” in many states.

Prisons in the United States and Austria are different politically because the United States focuses on tough-on-crime strategies and Austria focuses on human rights. The United States wants to deter criminals by demonstrating that if a person commits a violent crime, they will pay for it for the rest of their life in prison. Legislators have scare tactics by preying on the public’s fear of giving criminals a lenient sentence, so the public will support legislators who are in favor of life sentences.

Austria is different because they do not enforce laws that subject prisoners to life in prison; rather, it is mandatory for the prisoners must serve a specific amount of time in prison before they will be considered for parole release (Van Zyl Smit, 2010). It is believed by the legislators and courts that “no human being should be regarded as beyond improvement and therefore should always have the prospect of being released” (Van Zyl Smit, 2010). The Council of Europe supports this idea of preserving human rights because prisoners are not given a fair chance to integrate back into Austrian society if they are incarcerated even when they are not a threat to the public (United Nations, 1994). Moreover, this is a threat to equality and their personal freedoms. A prisoner that is incarcerated for life will suffer in prison and is similar to an animal in a zoo. They are kept in a cage, which demeans them as human being, and becomes an object to the criminal justice system (United Nations, 1994).

A possible recommendation would be to address prison reform and adopt the idea that prisoners should be considered for parole. A person would be hired to evaluate prisoners and their life in prison to notice if they will change while serving their sentence (Nellis, 2010). If they make progress, they will have the opportunity for release on parole which will help with reintegration into society (Nellis, 2010). Nevertheless, the United States would have extreme difficulty adopting these policies to life sentences because the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world; therefore, considering parole release for every person would take time. Additionally, an increase of parole officers would be required, thus this would cause a problem for budgets because the increased number of parole officers would have to receive a salary. This would be an issue because some prisons cannot afford to have rehabilitation programs, especially prisons that only house women. Female-only prisons do not receive a budget that is like men’s prisons because they do not receive adequate medical treatment, rehabilitation programs, therapy services, or other services (Stohr, Jonson, & Lux, 2015).

Despite the problems that may occur in the transition from tough-on-crime to the preservation of human rights, there is evidence that the United States would benefit from shifting this focus. A study conducted in 2004 studied recidivism rates by prisoners who were released after being sentenced to life in prison. This study discovered that these individuals only had 1/3 the recidivism rate compared to other prisoners that served a lesser sentence (Nellis, 2010). Therefore, prisoners serving a different sentence with fewer years were more likely to be rearrested in the following years (Nellis, 2010). An additional study found that when prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment lived in the same area as other prisoners who would receive parole, the prisoners serving the life sentences did not commit as much ‘violent misconduct’ and were not as dangerous as those receiving parole (Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008).

Additional evidence that the United States should consider reducing the number of life sentences without the possibility of parole is the fact that members of the courtroom workgroup are not in favor of these strict sentencing guidelines. Nellis (2010) accounts for the federal judges who cannot use their discretion in these types of cases. This is frustrating for the judges because if the prisoner is not a societal threat, the prisoner is still subjected to harsh law. Nellis (2010) additionally points that life sentences are often used in drug offenses, as this should not be a life punishment.

Solitary Confinement

The United States and Austria use solitary confinement in their prisons, but each country has different approaches. In the United States, solitary confinement is used for punishment, is a preventative measure, is voluntary, or is used as a tool. It is used as punishment if the prisoners are committing crimes within the prison, assaulting other inmates, assaulting the guards, and other offenses (Smith, 2006). Prisoners that are plotting an escape or are a danger to themselves, such as a suicide risk, are placed into solitary confinement to prevent them from completing their plans (Smith, 2006). Smith (2006) explains that sex offenders, child molesters, and child murderers are placed into solitary at their own request because they are afraid of retaliation from the other prisoners since many of them despise criminals who commit crimes against children. Smith (2006) additionally states that correctional officers use solitary confinement to obtain confessions from offenders because they are aware that many people will confess to their crimes when they are isolated from the rest of the world. An individual can suffer in solitary confinement for an indefinite number of years, but federal prisons only allow 90 days as the maximum days an individual can stay in solitary (Mendez, Papachristou, Ordway, Fettig, & Shalev, 2016).

Solitary confinement in the United States can be viewed as worse than the death penalty because prisoners are isolated from everything. They are denied contact with others, they yell to each other as a way of communication, speak to the guards using an intercom, and are allowed an hour outside under supervision without the accompaniment of their fellow prisoners (Smith, 2006). Meals take place in solitary cells and they are allowed limited items in their cell (Smith, 2006). Some prisoners undergo severe psychological trauma while incarcerated in solitary because their mental health deteriorates.

Austrian prisons do not isolate prisoners in solitary confinement at the rate that the United States does. They incorporate solitary confinement without any restrictions to how long a prisoner will stay there, but the cells need proper ventilation, heat, and lighting in order for the prisoners to retain a healthy mental state (Mendez et al., 2016). Furthermore, the cells include one bed, a closet, a toilet and sink, and a television, while also permitting prisoners to have pictures and other personal objects to decorate their cells (Mendez et al., 2016). The prisons establish certain rules about what they are allowed to have in their cells, so the prisoners are still required to follow the rules (Mendez et al., 2016).

Along with maintaining order, the Austrian prison system uses solitary confinement to prevent suicide and protect the rest of the prison population from diseases (Mendez et al., 2016). Prisoners that have suicidal tendencies are placed into solitary confinement to protect them from mutilating themselves with objects they have in their cells (Mendez et al., 2016). From there, they are evaluated and when they are deemed mentally stable enough, they will return to their normal cells (Mendez et al., 2016). Diseases and infections can infiltrate prisons, affect the prisoners, and spread rampantly to the rest of the prisoners. Solitary is used to prevent the spread of these diseases and infections because the officers do not want the entire prison to fall ill (Mendez et al., 2016). For example, if a prisoner contracts hepatitis C, the officers will wait for a diagnosis, and then place the prisoner in solitary on a medical basis (Mendez et al., 2016). They will be treated and kept isolated until they are in better health and are non-contagious (Mendez et al., 2016).

From 1 June 2019 until 15 June 2019, social work and criminal justice students from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee traveled to Linz, Austria to examine social work and criminal justice differences between the United States and Austria. One of the site visits was to Garsten Prison, a former monastery that turned into an all-men’s, a maximum-security prison. Throughout the tour of Garsten, there were many obvious differences between the United States and Austria, especially solitary confinement. Throughout videos and lectures from previous classes, solitary confinement cells in the United States are shown to be typically grey or other neutral colors. One of the cells in Garsten was neon pink; the walls, the ceiling, the bed, and the floor (A. Holzbauer, personal communication, June 14, 2019). Our contact, Albert Holzbauer, informed the group that this room was used to calm down aggressive prisoners (personal communication, June 14, 2019). They would be placed into the neon pink cell until the prisoner would deescalate their aggression, and then they would be returned to their normal cell (A. Holzbauer, personal communication, June 14, 2019). Many of the students felt that this was odd because it was an intense, bright color and believed that this would be increasingly stressful. However, this method of de-escalation proved to be useful, as there were not any prisoners currently residing in the cell (A. Holzbauer, personal communication, June 14, 2019). Additionally, Mr. Holzbauer said that solitary confinement was used for a few days or up to a week (personal communication, June 14, 2019). This is different than the United States because some prisoners have lived in solitary for years.

The literature has shown that there are differing opinions on the use of solitary confinement in the United States and Austria. The literature shows that solitary confinement is well-known for being detrimental to prisoners’ mental health. Haney (2017) argues that solitary confinement preys on the senses because there is reduced stimulation or overstimulation due to lights, noises, and smells. This can cause psychological distress because the prisoners are unable to control the lights, noises, or smells in the prison and they are not used to this (Haney, 2017). An additional source supports the argument that solitary confinement is dangerous because the prisoners’ mental state will worsen over time which can result in “anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia,” and other psychological issues (American Public Health Association, 2013, as cited in Haney, 2017).

Different literature supports the United States and Austria with their use of solitary confinement to maintain order in the prisons. Bonta and Gendreau (1990) disagree with Haney and the American Public Health Association because they believe that the lights, noises, and smells are not the issue; rather it is how the prisoners are treated by the correctional officers. If the correctional officers have a good rapport with the prisoners, the prisoners will not experience psychological distress caused by solitary confinement (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990). Gendreau and Theriault (2011) agree with Bonta and Gendreau because they report that studies showing prisoners producing psychological issues are “outliers.” These studies only show the severe negative aspects of solitary confinement and do not account for studies that show evidence for the benefits of using solitary (Gendreau & Theriault, 2011). Furthermore, Zinger, Wichmann, and Andrews (2001) conducted a study that found prisoners who were in solitary confinement experienced psychological distress, but it was not due to being segregated from the rest of the prison population; rather, psychological distress is due to the prisoners’ previous deteriorating mental health and the stigma of solitary confinement. When prisoners hear that solitary confinement will cause mental health issues, they will believe that until it becomes a reality because of the numerous studies that have shown negative effects (Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001).

Even though the United States and Austria incorporate solitary confinement in similar ways, there are certain aspects that the United States could change. For example, Austrian prisons require the cells to have proper ventilation, heat, and lighting to prevent sensory deprivation (Mendez et al., 2016). Keeping prisoners in a healthy mental state is important; therefore, the United States should require each cell to have the proper necessities. If the cells purposely do not have proper ventilation, heat, and lighting, this would be considered to be inhumane.

Social contact is important for the prisoners and having a television in the cells may prove to be beneficial. Certain solitary confinement cells in Austria have televisions in them which can prevent psychological deterioration since the prisoners have a way of connecting to the outside world. They are isolated from the rest of the prison and the world, so it is imperative that they have human contact through the television or in person.

Numerous studies have shown that solitary confinement is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and Zinger, Wichmann, and Andrews (2001) provide recommendations for how the United States and Austria could reduce psychological distress in prisoners. The main recommendation is when prisoners are placed into solitary confinement, they should meet with a psychologist for observation (Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001). This can help target mentally ill prisoners since prisoners who suffer from mental illnesses have an increasingly difficult time coping with solitary confinement (Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001). Therefore, mentally ill prisoners can receive certain treatments that they need and prevent their mental health from declining (Zinger, Wichmann, & Andrews, 2001).

In the future, solitary confinement should be studied further in the United States and Austria because the literature supports both sides of the argument. Austrian prisons should conduct more studies because there are not many current studies that support reducing the use of solitary confinement. Additionally, the United States and Austria should follow the recommendations from previous studies and show if the recommendations make an impact on the prisoners’ mental health.

Discursive Essay on Prison Issues

Women prisoners and their problems

Everyone who is in prison faces so many obstacles, but when it comes to women prisoners we cannot say it in words as they bear so much pain. For the past 15 years, the number of women prisoners is increasing. Not every prisoner is accused of a crime, some are innocents, some are under trial and for some prisoners, and they don’t even know the charge made against them properly. Most women prisoners in India are uneducated, poor, and dependent of husband, sons, or daughters and they have no knowledge of what they did until their counsel come up and say.

Women prisoners lack sanitation, and pre and post-natal care, they are denied basic healthcare facilities and have no proper living arrangements.

• Sanitation

During their menstrual periods, they will be so weak, they need utmost care. Most women prisoners are not even getting sanitary napkins, instead, they get pieces of cloth only.

• Living arrangements

They must get proper living arrangements like clean prison rooms, clothing and undergarments, a way for proper disposal of sanitary napkins, clean restrooms and timely food and medical help facilities.

• Pre natal and post natal care

Pregnant women prisoners must be given a special separate accommodation with all medical care. In so many cases, pregnant women are not given a proper medical, as a result of this, after the delivery, children are prone to diseases and the mother fell sick for a long time.

• Medical care

Not only pregnant or aged prisoners, but so many prisoners also don’t get monthly health check-ups, tests and screenings for issues like breast and uterus cancer and all.

• Child care

Until the age of six, children will be with their mothers in prison. But the problem is, after the age of six, children will be sent to childcare institutions, so mothers may not know the children’s well being like how they are growing up without the love and care of a mother.

In the case of women prisoners whose child is out there in their usual place of residence, mothers can decide, with whom her children will be brought up.

• Prison staff and other workers

Wardens, prison officials, staffs, doctors, and other workers are to be transferred regularly, and otherwise, they might involve in corruption or non ethic activities. These people must be available for prisoners and have to take good care of them.

• Labor and wages

In most prisons, wages are not given properly to prisoners irrespective of the effort they make and the work they do. Either prisoners are not doing anything productively or they are not given wages. It is the main problem prisoners face.

Overcrowding in prisons

Overcrowding in prisons lead to think that why there are so many prisoners, why are they inside prisons, did they really commit any offense or are they under trial or they are accused of a crime they did not commit? What is the real reason behind the overcrowding?

The first cause for overcrowding is the increasing of criminal activities and criminals. For the past fifteen years, criminal activities are doubled. Starting from petty crimes like looting, and pickpocketing, to the most heinous crimes like murder and rape, every offense are done by people, even by minors.

The second cause is under-trial prisoners. Under the trial, prisoners are people who are under investigation or suspicion to decide whether they committed a crime or not. Most of the under trials are not even investigated by prison officials and Police persons, so they remain under trial for a lifetime and will die in prison itself for a crime they did not commit.

The third cause is some prisoners are still in prison even after their prescribed punishment period got over. These are the only three reasons why prisons are overcrowded. Overcrowding leads to so many problems like the prisoners won’t get enough space in the room if prison officials accommodate four or five people in room two or three. They will not get basic living arrangements or comfortable space for sleeping and all. Not sleeping regularly or not living in good conditions in prisons will lead to serious mental disorders. Lack of sanitation would raise health issues, for aged people in prison need to be regularly checked.

Overcrowding is an inefficiency of the prison system. Prison officials need to solve this problem and the judiciary must make new directives regarding the importance of opening new prisons for prisoners. But if under trials are properly investigated and released if they did not commit any crime and if the prison officials ensure that no prisoners are still in prison even after their prescribed punishment time, then there will be overcrowding problems.

Juvenile and Adult prison system

There are numerous differences between juvenile and adult prison systems. In adult prisons, prisoners are engaged in labor, while in juvenile even though they are given work, prison officials engage teachers to educate the juvenile to read and write and involve them in physical activities like sports, exercises, and all. In prisons, prisoners will be termed as criminals, but in the juvenile system, juveniles are not termed as criminals, instead, it was considered as delinquent acts. In the juvenile prison system, juveniles are taught about the laws, consequences of the delinquent act they committed, moral classes, and all. But in the adult prison system, in most of cases, these are not taught to prisoners.

Labor system in prison

Why do prisoners need to work in prison? No prisoners are allowed to just be in prison. They are involved in various works and activities so that when they get out of prison they will earn money to look after their family. But labor depends upon the crime he committed. Some prisoners will do hard labor for the heinous crime he committed. When they work in prison, they will be given wages by prison officials, which is funded by the Government of India for well being of prisoners and when they get out of prison. Doing labor will help the prisoners mentally cope up with the prison environment and with other prisoners, they will develop a set of some new skills. But Government and judiciary need to ensure that this labor increases productivity in prisoners as well as the prison department. Because in some districts, there will be a shop that contains only the products made by prisoners. It will be available for sale to the public to buy and use

Prison act, 1984 explains the employment of civil and criminal prisoners.

Section 34 – Employment of civil prisoners

Civil prisoners, with the permission of the superintendent, may do any work or trade or profession. Civil prisoners shall be allowed to receive the whole of their earnings. But the earnings shall be subject to a deduction, and it can be determined by the Superintendent, for the use of implements and the cost of maintenance in prison.

Section 35 – Employment of criminal prisoners

Criminal prisoners sentenced to labor or employed on labor at his own desire shall get permission in writing from the Superintendent and be kept to labor for more than nine hours in any one day. The Medical Officer shall examine the laboring prisoners regularly while they are employed, and shall record the details of examination and weight, and it is subjected to revision of prison officials. When the Medical Officer is of opinion that the health of any prisoner suffers from employment on any kind or class of labor, such prisoner shall not be employed on that labor but shall be placed on such other kind or class of labor as the Medical Officer may consider suited for him.

Section 36 – Employment of criminal prisoners sentenced to simple impris¬onment.

No prisoner not sentenced to rigorous imprisonment shall be punished for neglect of work except by such alteration in the scale of diet as may be established by the rules of the prison in the case of neglect of work by such a prisoner.

Doing labor will help the prisoners mentally cope up with the prison environment and with other prisoners, they will develop a set of some new skills. But Government and judiciary need to ensure that this labor increases productivity in prisoners as well as the prison department. Because in some districts, there will be a shop that contains only the products made by prisoners. It will be available for sale to the public to buy and use.

Open prisons

Open prison means, a prison with minimum security, and less rules compared to prisons, mostly those prisoners have their independent work to do. It is opened with a view to reforming the prisoners. The main objective of open prison is to provide most favorable conditions for the rehabilitation of some selected prisoners as stated in the Nelson Mandela Rules (UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners). Selected prisoners in this open prison means a convict who is in prison for at least five years but has good record of conduct over her period in prison. In these open prisons, prisoners are allowed to go out from their premises after the first roll call and they need to be returned before the second roll call of that day. In these open prisons, prisoners are sometimes allowed to set their own livelihood according to their financial capabilities and to be allowed live with their families. But sometimes, they will refuse to move on from that place, even after the period got over. The cost of maintaining the open prison is so high, the government needs to allocate high funds for maintaining it.

Open prisons are far better than normal prisons. In this open prison chance of reformation of prisoners is so high, when compared to the normal prison system. In this open prison, prisoners earn their livelihood independently according to their financial capabilities, but in usual prisons, prisoners are not getting enough wages for the work they do, they have so many restrictions and conditions which will affect their mental ability and capability. So in the usual prison system, they have no, chance of earning of livelihood which will affect the reintegration of prisoners with society after they leave prison.

Life after prison

The first thing that affects the prisoner after coming out of prison is getting job with a criminal record. No one would dare to give a job for a person who went to prison. So, in these times government is the only one helping hand for him to give him work based on his labor experience in prison. Even if a person learns a new work or any new skill, he must need a platform to show his worthiness. But the criminal record will destroy his future pieces. The second one is reintegration with friends, family and society. It is difficult for them to reconnect with people because people will start rejecting the person who went to prison. Even sometimes his family members and friend would do that, so he will go into a state of depression. Sometimes because of this depression, they will start doing the same things that they did before and will take the wrong path again. So the family members and friends should be with the person and guide him to take a new job, new life, right path and all.

Corrective measures

Prisons are not to punish the person who commits crimes, instead, it is to reform, educate the offender about right and wrong, morality, laws, and tell them about the consequences of the crime they committed and help them to reintegrate with society once they go out of prison. The first corrective measure prison can take is giving parole to the prisoner to allow him to spend some time with his family, friends and society. It will reduce the depression of prisoners and they will also have the relief that their family is in a good state and nothing to worry about them. But parole will only be given to prisoners who are in prison for more than eighteen months.

The second one is probation. Probation means proving worthiness. When a prisoner is sent in probation, then he must abide by all the rules that are laid down by probation officer and prison officials during the time of probation. It will reduce the tension for both him and his family. Probation is given only to the first-time young offenders. If he is not given probation and if he is with the other criminals the whole time in prison, it will destroy his life of him. So the concept of probation is to reconnect him with his family and friends and make him move with society again. Another thing is, if there is need, then not only the first-time offender, but even a previously convicted persons can be given probation with the consideration to nature and conduct of the offender.

Corrective measures are steps toward humanity. They need to turn a criminal into a human being again by educating him in the right way. The state cannot be crime-free, no matter what, it will always happen one or in another way. So we need to reduce crime and criminals. No person is born criminal, situations and circumstances make a person criminal. The act of crime happens in a second of time, without even thinking about the consequence. In many cases, bad company leads a man to commit crimes.

The corrective measures should improve the lives of prisoners. Just punishing and keeping criminals in prisons cannot help the prisoner or society. We must educate the people about the prison system and how it work and helps in reforming prisoner to good human being again. Society’s rejection and ignorance of prisoners would shake the mental well-being of prisoners once they come out of prison. The prisoners will lead a good life after prison time, only when they are educated and reformed in prison and society if as usual reconnect with him.

Reformation is not only about educating or giving works. It is to know the prisoner’s instinct, how they commit the crime, why they committed it, what induced to them do the crime, and respect the feelings of prisoners and give them their dignified life. Not in the nature of the investigation, but to just listen to them as a fellow human being. Giving them proper counseling will lift them up from the guilt they are living within prison. Prison officials need to regularly allow the family members or friends of prisoners, instead of neglecting them. Prisoners should know the rights of prisoners to get bail, to meet with their legal counsel or judicial authorities whenever they want. Most prisoners don’t even know that they can be released in bail, be in prison for the entire time. In the case of illiterate or poor people, they don’t even know they can go for legal counsel to for advice and other matters. It is the responsibility of prison officials to let him know the laws and possible ways of getting bail or parole or probation.

Landmark Judgments

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration on 20 December 1979

Sunil Batra was a prisoner in Tihar jail, he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of India regarding the inhumane conditions prevailing in the Tihar jail. In that, he said about the cruel act of the warden and all. Supreme Court recognized this as public interest litigation and took measures regarding prison reforms.

Suggestions:

I can surely tell that Prisoners were denied fundamental rights and equality. They were not given a dignified life in prison, even as fellow human beings. Prisons are meant to reform the prisoners, not to torture the prisoners. Prisoners have the right to complain about the bad condition of prisoners and if that complaint is made, then the judiciary needs to look at the matter, transfer the staff and officials regularly, and investigate the one who tortures the prisoners. Their voices need to be heard. Every district magistrate needs to inspect the prison once a month in their jurisdiction to ensure that prisoners are not tortured like this and all. Doctors need to give counseling and to check the mental health of prisoners and record it and it needs to be submitted to the prison administration and court. The court must ensure that prisoners are given basic rights and equality and dignity.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416

D.K. Basu wrote a letter to the supreme court of India about the custodial violence and deaths in police lock-ups. Supreme Court held that, Article.21 “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” It cannot be denied to convicts or under trial or prisoners in custody. Any form of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment is completely prohibited. redressal mechanism should be taken seriously. The court applied the principle of strict liability that the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the state, and the defense of sovereign immunity is not available to them.

Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378

In this case, women prisoners underwent custodial violence in prison. So the Supreme Court on the complaint of it, directed that victims should get justice, and legal assistance fully at the state’s expense and they will be given full protection again cruelty and torture.

Supreme court directed the Inspector General of Prisons in Maharashtra to issue a circular to all Superintendents of Police in Maharashtra, that details of all under-trial prisoners to the Legal Aid Committee with the information regarding, the prescribed period of them in prison, and extension period, what offenses they charged with and the prisoners who have been in jail beyond a period of 15 days. Prisoners need to be given legal assistance to the prisoners by Lawyers nominated by the concerned District Legal Aid Committee to enter the jail and interview the prisoners who were in need of legal assistance.

Essay on Effectiveness and Role of Prisons

Does prison work?

1. Introduction

Prisons, most commonly known as correctional institutions, have been an integral part of the Criminal Justice System along with the Police and the Courts. Even though prisons and sentencing vary from country to country, they all operate in same manner, for example to sentence criminals and prevent further damage to society. Offenders are usually sent to prison when a legal penalty is imposed on them. Prison is considered to be as the last resort. In past few decades, prisons have been a controversial topic. Recent trends have shown disapproval of the prison system by the public. There has been lot of debate on whether or not prisons are effective. This abstract opens with a discourse of what prisons are in general looks at analysis and evaluation made by scholars, criminologists, and sociologists on prisons as well as provides insights into possible reforms to enhance prisons’ effectiveness.

2. Prisons in general

According to Christianson, “A prison is any institution or device that holds a captive in custody”. Prisons exist since ancient times. They didn’t serve as a form of punishment back then but were used to hold individuals until they receive their punishment which included beheading, the death penalty, and public shaming. Crime and punishment are both public acts. Ancient punishments were cruel and harsh but today punishment is used as a form to make all offenders or criminals law-abiding citizens including prisoners. In modern prisons, criminals are deprived of their freedom and they must follow all the protocols, rules, and regulations set by the correctional institutions. Jails and closed structures are also considered as part of prison but they just hold individuals for a day or two while they await their trial. Slavery was another form of imprisonment where a slave must abide by his/her master. International Prisoner Trade and Convict Transportation during the seventeenth century which was selling criminals to America, and Australia as slaves marked criticism, which leads to enlightenment along with American Revolution and finally put a stop on International Prisoner Trade in the eighteenth century. Jails, what we call prisons today, were the first modern structure ever built in Colonial America, and the early eighteenth century marked the modern foundation of prisons. Contemporary institutions came into existence in the nineteenth century. They first originated in the United States of America. Prisons hold convicted offenders who have been sanctioned to be there by the judges. In Canada, there are two levels of prisons – the Federal Level and the Provincial/Territorial Level. People serving two years or less go to provincial or territorial prisons whereas inmates serving more than two years go to federal prisons. Correctional System in various countries operates in the same manner but the incarceration rate between all countries is very dissimilar. According to Statistics Canada, about 158,000 people were serving some sort of sentence in 2008 in Canada compared to other countries which is comparatively low. Canada holds 116 per 100,000 population compared to 702 of the United States of America. Compared to the size of the country and rate of incarceration, why is the prison population going up despite the best effort made to rehabilitate offenders? Does prison work? Is the correctional system effective? Prisons have gone through fundamental changes since they first came into existence. Punishment has become very essential for law that are broken. People are always given some sort of punishment if they break any law. There have been lots of issues with prison recently. Criminologists, Sociologists and various scholars have debated both on the success and failures of prison. Lots of scholars argue that prisons don’t rehabilitate offenders, it rather makes them bad. Other scholars argue that prisons are really effective and they are an essential component of the criminal justice system along with society and help in improving all those who have committed crimes. This paper is going to discuss which opinion is more valid and true.

3. Prison does work

Based on research done by many authors, scholars, criminologists, sociologists, and various survey agencies, some evidence has been presented on the success of prisons. They argue that prisons are effective. According to Goodman, who was the former diocesan director of education as well as former chair of the Independent Monitoring Board, prisons are effective and help prisoners change from criminals to law-abiding citizens. The public can play a big role in making their life better. Prisons offer very special courses such as anger management courses to rehabilitate them. Intensive courses are also offered to help prisoners overcome their drug problems. According to the Economic Theory of Crime, developed by Becker, offenders are different and each of them offends due to different reasons. The theory has been tested in various countries and has indeed provided positive results. Punishment does exercise substantial influence on conduct. Prison well-wishers also argue that the courses that are being provided to the inmates have changed their thinking from the criminal side to law-abiding citizen. These courses include educational and treatment programs, adult basic education, and skills development program which helps in shaping their behavior. Rehabilitation programs have been really effective as they focus on targeting specific problem areas. Rehabilitation programs include pro-criminal attitudes, problem-solving deficits, and creating educational and employment opportunities. Prisons are effective as they rehabilitate prisoners along with deterrence. Also, it has been suggested that police arrest rather than reporting the crime to police should be used in minimizing bias in comparative studies across countries regarding the success of prisons. In addition, what varies from country to country is which crimes are considered for incarceration. Saunders and Brillante further defended this point by arguing that the prison deterrence effect does reduce crime. The correlation between crime rates and incarceration doesn’t preclude the success of prisons. For example, in Canada, criminal law is the same throughout the country but dispensed differently on provincial levels. Charles Murray mentioned in his work that prisons do work and are effective. He used the USA as an example and described how high incarceration rates in the USA led to low crimes between the 1980s and 1990s. He further added that even if crime is low, incarceration must be kept high and prison can definitely put halt on crime, that’s the main reason why crime rates in the United Kingdom were up the roof. Dulilio further expanded Murray’s point by saying that prison is an answer to the question of how to deter crime. Crimes in Australia and New Zealand have escalated because of the ease on imprisonment. The New Generation correctional facilities have been praiseworthy. They have dramatically reduced the escapes and violent acts in prison. The direct supervision model has also been considered really valuable. There are six different objectives attached to it along with seven behavioral dimensions that supervise the inmates in pods. Other custody options or alternatives to imprisonment have had mixed reviews. No accurate numbers have been released on whether they have been considered to be far more successful than incarceration, especially treatment approaches and community-based programs. Restorative justices have high review rates. According to Goff, “Restorative Justice refers to activities within the criminal justice system that are directed at repairing the injury to the victim and the community”. It’s one of the central features in Canadian criminal justice. Believers of our system hold the fact that sanction must be proportionate to the crime. It’s different from Utilitarian Goals and Retributive Goals. The offender must realize what he/she has done and how he/she has disturbed society as a whole and should apologize to the victim for his/her actions. One of the main goals of this type of sanction is to avoid the offender from going through the criminal justice process and then be sent to prison. Circumstances, intentions and motives of offenders are always taken into consideration. This type is totally based on restitution. According to Zehr this process rebuilds relationships and restores peace.

4. Prison doesn’t work

Counter-argument for the potency of prisons is the failure of prisons, that is, prisons don’t work. Criminologists have argued that prison doesn’t alter criminal behavior and there’s a very high likelihood that inmates will re-offend once they finish their term and leave prison. People have encountered brutality and unfairness in prisons. According to Frank, Beirie and Mackenzie prisons don’t alter criminal behavior, but they rather often promote criminality. They are generally delegitimizing. Prisons are considered schools of crime. Emotions play a crucial role in the phase of incarceration. Some researchers have indicated that criminals don’t cope well in prisons whereas critics have argued prisons do cope with criminals. According to research conducted by Hurd, prisons don’t work at all. An increase in imprisonment doesn’t reduce crime. He used England and Wales as an example. The number of prisoners increased from 44,000 to 60,000 from 1986 to 1997, but no reduction in crime was recorded. Offenders were being numbered up into jails but the crime was still going up. Other scholars have argued the same thing. Sinead Hanks have argued the same point. The author used England and Wales as an example. In February 2008, there were about 82,000 people in prison, the highest ever in the country. But crimes were still up as more than half of offenders were reoffending within two years after being released from prison. Many prisoners have indicated that they have learned more on how to commit crimes during their imprisonment. Hanks argued that prison has been considered as a dumping ground, that is, people who have mental health issues, drug addiction problems, are homeless and illiterate are offenders. The author also argued that since imprisonment rates have gone up, overcrowding is a big concern in prisons. This problem further leads to a problem of less rehabilitation and higher reconviction rates. The cycle perpetuates itself. It was also discussed that it’s really expensive to keep the offenders in prison and more than half of the offenders are back within two years or so, thus putting an extra burden on the budget. Penal Policy is an important weapon in fighting crime. An article written by Mathews, former inmate, suggests that maximum security prison doesn’t rehabilitate prisoners, it rather makes them worse. He further added that inmates spend twenty hours a day in their cell in total isolation and it’s hard for them to function properly in society after spending that amount of time in total isolation, without any human contact. Most prisoners have developed some sort of psychological illness and for those who had it before, their situation is even worse. Prisoners are abused most of the time. Criminologists argue that this type of incarceration is inflicting punishment rather than rehabilitating those individuals. Individuals also face administrative separatism. This article has received a lot of attention from various scholars, researchers, criminologists, and sociologists and more research is being done on the maximum security aspect of prison. Some of them even say it that it’s totally inhumane and degrading. Roger Matthews, Professor at London South Bank University, mentioned that looking at recidivism figures, it certainly looks like that prison isn’t totally effective. Instead of rehabilitating prisoners, it adds up to the government’s budget. People learn more about crime in prisons. Studies have revealed that prison time can help offenders in enhancing their criminal skills, described as prisonization effect. Other research studies have revealed that incarceration is not meeting up expectations. According to Griffiths, incarceration is not an effectual restraint but being caught and punished is a deterrent. It has also been argued that people who have spent more time in prison feel more comfortable in prison rather then being out in the community. Longer prisons are totally ineffective because sometimes low-risk offenders are exposed to high-risk offenders, and the likelihood of learning other ways to commit crimes is very high. Further studies have revealed that even most offenders prefer probation over incarceration. Studies further revealed that prisons don’t always carry out through its provisions and some of them have even failed to meet their performance targets. There are a bunch of other challenges faced by prisons. Prison Violence is still prevalent. It can be between inmates or between inmates and staff members. Nobody knows what happens inside the walls but official data disclosed that prison violence has gone up since 1989-90. Prison suicide is another challenge faced by correction facilities. No particular details are available why prisoners commit suicide but it has been said that most white males commit suicide in prison. The rising cost of prisons is viewed as another trend in institutional corrections. As per the statistics, in 2003-04, the average cost of inmate housing was approximately $87,000 in federal prisons and approximately $51,000 for provincial/territorial prisons. This further raises questions on the effectiveness and rehabilitation of prisoners. Overcrowding is another issue and has been considered as a leading cause of violence. In federal prisons, about 25 percent of inmates share their room with another inmate. Over-representation of black and aboriginal people has definitely raised concerns. It has been said that the criminal justice system is biased against them and systematic discrimination against aboriginals prevails.

5. Conclusion

The effectiveness of prisons is a hot debate topic but it’s not easy to say whether prisons are effective or not. Studies have definitely revealed that high incarceration have led to low crimes in countries like Australia, England, New Zealand and the United states but at the same time, critics have argued that high incarceration rate have inflicted upon high crime rates in England and the United States. It has also been argued that abuse of power by prison staff is degrading and inhumane and makes them even less collectible, that is, they don’t use their authority legitimately but at the same point, it has been argued that their legitimate authority has promoted people to follow the rules and be of good behavior. Media has also affected our thinking as prisons are predominantly represented as bad places. The charter of Rights and Freedoms provides limited rights to prisoners but their rights are being violated. Overcrowding of prisons and high costs have forced the government to implement reforms. Provincial/territorial governments have debated earlier about the privatization of prisons as private companies can provide better and cost-effective services. This can definitely take off some burden from the budget but at the same time private companies try to maximize their profits by using less staff and paying them low wages. Restorative justice has proven to be successful in recidivism and restitution. The restorative system saves an offender from further damage and helps him/her in reintegration into society. The incarceration rate and its success is a topic that will never have a proper ending. Every time arguments have been presented regarding the success of prison, they have been criticized using counter-arguments and more evidence is presented focusing on the failure of correctional systems. Appropriate reforms should be implemented to make prisons more effective. Social programs should be provided, both inside and outside of prison, to strengthen public safety. Penal Crisis and Justice System reforms should be addressed and modified as per the needs. There’s no need of new prisons, or to rise up incarceration rates. Democratic values of any given country are reflected through prisons and therefore, prisons continue to be an integral part of our justice system and society. Careful analysis needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of prisons as the presentation of incorrect information can be misleading to the society and public.

Bibliography

1. Statistics Canada. Adult correctional services, average counts of offenders in provincial, territorial and federal programs. 2009.
2. Christianson, Scott. Prisons: History. Encyclopedia Of Crime And Justice, Vol.3. 2002.
3. Franke, Derrick, Bierce, David, & Mackenzie, Doris Layton. Legitimacy in corrections. Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 9. 2010.
4. Goff, Colin. Criminal Justice In Canada, Third Edition. 2004.
5. Goodman, Canon Derek. “With help from outside, prison does work.” Europe Intelligence Wire. 2006.
6. Griffiths, Curt T. Canadian Criminal Justice – A Primer, Third Edition. 2007.
7. Hanks, Sinead. Does Prison work? International Review of Law Computers and Technology, Vol. 22. 2008.
8. Hurd, Douglas. Does Prison really work? 2005.
9. Klassen, Jeff. Prison reform: an overview. Canadian Points of View. 2009.
10. Mathews, Bernie. How Maximum Security Jails Make The Baddest Of Men Even Worse. Crime And Punishment: Essential Primary Resources. 2003.
11. Matthews, Roger. “Does prison work? Sociology Review Vol.14. 2005.
12. Ore, Timothy, & Brigden, Astrid. Debate: Does prison work? Policy, Vol.19. 2003.
13. Saunders, Peter, & Brillante, Nicole. Does Prison work? Policy, Vol.18. 2002-03.
14. Tremblay, Solange. Counterpoint: prison reform laws do not reduce crime. Canadian Points of View: Prison Reform. 2009.
15. Zehr, Howard. Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Criminal Justice. 1990.

Impact of Prisons on Prisoners’ Recidivism

The oxford definition of recidivism is defined as, the act or habit of continuing to commit crimes even after being punished (Oxford, 1879) and is such an important topic in society because of the danger and impact that prisoners by using restorative justice, repairing the harm done by the criminal and helping them through a rehabilitation process to prepare them for post-release societal integration. (STERBENZ, 2014). The Norwegian prison system takes the approach of rehabilitation whereby the aim is to make the prison environment as normal and as realistic to real life as possible. There are no bars on windows, kitchens in rooms are fully equipped and often one can find friendships forming between prisoners and guards (STERBENZ, 2014). It`s incarceration rates differ hugely to those of the US (figure 1). On the other hand retribution systems punish prisoners for their crimes through suffering proportionate to how grave the crime they committed was. In retribution prison systems different levels of security and length of sentence can influence the level of suffering the prisoner endures. The US, as an example of retribution, adopts punishment as their way of sentencing their prisoners. Both rehabilitation and retribution systems have strengths and limitations and in order to answer the question one must look at both types of prison systems and how they are both associated with recidivism rates.

(Bhuller et al, 2019) Rehabilitation Prison System: The Norwegian government has never been as aware of supporting the works of rehabilitation of former prison inmates than now. Most crimes that happen today occur by people that already have a criminal record suggesting that the main goal is to reduce recidivism (Langelid, 1996) by Norwegian prison services and prison workers rehabilitating prisoners to a crimeless life (Criminol, 2012). It has been recognized that post-prison release causes huge amounts of problems to inmates during their integrative law ates, establishing daily routines for their prisoners, and helping them have a legal income source. (Criminal, 2012). These produce astonishing statistics which show Norwegians’ low sentencing rates. Only 75 per 100,000 people are incarcerated compared to 707 for every 100,000 in the United States (STERBENZ, 2014)(figure 1).

vism (Criminol, 2012) used a sample of 7,476 prisoners released from Norwegian prisons in 2003 and followed through in 2006 with monthly measures. It was found that the probability of recidivism is significantly low (12%) when inmates are employed after release compared to inmates that are not employed. This supports the idea of Norway`s prison system because inmates are prepared inside of the prisons for employment in post-prison life where more than 40% of former inmates are employed (Telle, 2009), having a direct correlation to Norway`s prison system and recidivism rates. Recidivism rates in Norway are one of the lowest in the world at 20% compared to the 76.6% recidivism rates in the US, whereby re-offending occurs within 5 years of release. Even criminals who mass kill still have access to video games, a treadmill, a tv and an overall luxurious and cozy life in relation to their crimes, characterizing Norway`s prisons as the nicest and the most humane in the world (Tolmasky, 2019) where inmates are not seen as separate individuals from society but rather souls in need of redemption (Tolmasky, 2019). These average approximately only 50 prisoners per prison, in order to allow for inmate families to visit easily and regularly. Prisoners commute from activity to activity within the prison and this is the normalization process, where today`s prisons in Norway try to mimic real life as much as possible. For example, they go the hairdresser, cook and commute to religious services all within the prison campus. This normality is also known as the Library effect whereby the smaller (Meld(2007-2008), 2009). Furthermore, in every prison, the prisoner-to-staff ratio is approximately secure. Inmates receive the full income from their labor and if not qualified for jobs, inmates have the right to receive education whereby they receive accreditation from a local institution which will in effect lead to lowered recidivism rates since this support that Norwegian prisoners are given should set them up for life outside prison and not make them desperate to commit new crimes.

However, it should be said that inconsistency may lie when talking about recidivism rates due to the fact that there are differences between me

That it gives to its inmates where they are given guaranteed healthcare, education and a place to live post-release as they make their way into real life again.

It can be said that it is expected that Norway has low prison population rates compared to the united states, with a mainly homogenous population with not as much diversity as the US-making the US`s prison population seem only to be a product of it`s national characteristics with its different people, economy, politics and geography (Labutta, 2017). to be used because of the US`s vital need of prison reform and its much-needed change of lowering the number of American prison recidivists. In addition, the problems which the US and Norway are facing are fundamentally equal and Norway`s prison system has been shown to provoke more success out of their released prisoners than the US with their lowest reoffending rate of every Nordic country where approximately only 20% (figure 2) of ex-prisoners re-offend within two years of release, compared to the US`s 67.8% (Matthew R. Durose, 2014) (Ploeg, 2015)

Retribution Prisons System: American prisons focus less on reform but rather on punishment, making their prisoners follow strict rules such as a compulsory daily schedule of when to wake up, what and when they eat, and what they wear which is usually a uniform. It neglects any form of bettering the individual and many people view this as exploitation, where prisoners work and making it hard for them to adjust to society.

Economists maintain the idea that retribution places direct and indirect costs on inmates’ lives such as loss of income so much that the person would never choose to go back to committing crimes to avoid the suffering and prison environment they endured whilst in there (Goggin, 1999). There lies data to support this idea from a study done by Fabelo in 1995 (Goggin, 1999), who reported that a 30% increase in incarceration rates across 50 States in the US was associated with a decrease of 5% crime rate for the following 5 years, suggesting the success US prisons have in terms of lowering the number of recidivists who commit crimes after they have been released. However this study was done in 1995 when the rehabilitation system in the US had just recently been abolished and retribution was seen as a popular and constructive way to imprison criminals (Labutta, 2017), meaning perhaps there were still minor rehabilitative practices going on in certain States in the US which would have caused the 5% decrease in crime rate in this study and not the actual retribution style system.

A study conducted recidivism of prisoners of 30 states in the USA in 2005 where the Bureau of Justice Statistics tracked inmates for 3 years following release with a 5 year follow up- The methodology was they selected the States based on whether they were able to provide prisoner records or state identification numbers on prisoners released in 2005 (Matthew R. Durose, 2014). Fingerprint-based identification was used to obtain 70,878 prisoners’ criminal history records and the results show that out of the 404,63 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states, 67.8% were re-arrested within three years of release, shown in figure 3 below. (Matthew R. Durose, 2014)and 55.1% had a parole or probation violation that led to arrest within 5 years of release (Matthew R. Durose, 2014). Furthermore, around three-quarters of prisoners (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years. This suggests that the vast majority of released American prison inmates become recidivists whereby they are either re-incarcerated, re-imprisoned, or return to prison, re-adjudicated or re-convicted showing the lack of success retribution US prison system has on societal integration, placing society at risk with inmates that are completely unchanged, if not angrier when they are released. This supports the idea that rehabilitation-style systems find more success in reducing recidivism rates than the US.

For more than a third of all the inmates that were arrested within 5 years of release, re-arresting occurred in the first 6 months after release, suggesting their lack of support on the outside and their desperation for either money or safety in the form of re-committing new crimes which the rehabilitation systems successfully prevents (Matthew R. Durose, 2014). In addition, a large proportion of the prisoners (16.9%) were 24 or younger years old and these are people with their whole life awaiting them and need better the most. The retribution prison system, no matter the crime, offers nothing in order to better the person. Instead, it offers hours of hard and long hours every day without paying them anywhere near the legal minimum. 75.9% of prisoners aged 24 or younger committed acts of recidivism within three years of release. It can be said that this is done purposefully in order to maintain the motive of the American government to increase the number of recidivists to cause an increase of income coming from state prisons. The average US prisoner cost is $33,274 (Mills, 2017) compared to the cost of $192,222 per prisoner in Norway (News, 2019)showing the motive to continue the retribution-style prison system due to its low cost per prisoner and its low need for skilled educated prison staff and workers which results in a huge income for American prisons.

integrate back into society. US citizens want mass murderers and rapists to be locked up because they want revenge on what these people have done to society, whereas Norwegian citizens leave it up to the prison system in place there which uses the universal declaration of rights that all humans are born equal in rights (Tolmasky, 2019). However, it can be argued that because the right to life of people that have been killed by mass murderers has been taken away, theirs should be taken away also. (Matthew R. Durose, 2014)

New Zealand, a country where it`s prison system is highly punitive and retributive has a re-imprisonment rate of 37% after two years of release (Wolf, 2015), suggesting that just because a prison system is retributive the recidivism rate, in this case, measured as re-imprisonment, is not always as high as other countries with a punitive and retributive prison system in place such as the USA. However, this might be down to cultural and societal differences.

attitudes. Rehabilitation places a large portion of its value on these and ensures that in-prison beliefs and attitudes are appropriate and relevant to the outside and ensures prisoners’ post-release welfare in terms of accommodation and employment, whereas retributive systems don`t. This suggests that in fact, retribution causes higher rates of recidivism.

Recidivism across the world: Over the last four decades prison populations have been increasing more than ever and harsh prison sentences have left people unable to support themselves or family members back into the real world after release often leaving them homeless and prone to being re-incarcerated. A 2013 February study attempted to capture the differences between American and certain European corrections systems (Shames, 2013). For years, the United States was fuelled by the belief that retributive and long-lasting sentences were able to protect public safety within society and eventually policies were introduced including the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences, habitual offender legislation, and parole release restrictions (Shames, 2013). The impacts were clearly shown by the 705 percent increase in prison population from 175000 in 1972 to 1.4 million in 2012 (Shames, 2013). There is no doubt that US incarceration has a negative impact on not only community health but also self-development. This causes implications for the United States, with change being the driving force towards a more rehabilitative stance inside their prison walls, just like in Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands. Incarceration should be less relied on as punishment but rather increased number of community-based sanctions. In Germany and the Netherlands for example, there are many more community-based sanctions issued which are used in order to deliberately keep offenders out of prison. These are used in American prisons, however, the problem lies with the inappropriate application of these sanctions, for example applying these sanctions to low-risk offenders or fines to indigent offenders (Shames, 2013), keeping the recidivism rates high.

A Prison that uses both rehabilitative and retribution styles in their prison system- The Kumasi Central prison in Ghana (Afari, 2015). This study aimed to identify the effectiveness and the guidance of the counseling offered in the Kumasi central prison, a form of rehabilitation. Qualitative research methods were mainly used to obtain the data, using Case Studies and descriptive research methods. Diversity of perspective was enhanced by using interviews, observation, and questionnaires. Stratified random sampling was used in this study in order to collect data from the 140 participants comprising of 30 superior officers of the Kumasi central prison, 50 counselors, 30 social workers and 30 prisoners from the prison.

It was found that there was a shortage of trained and qualified counselors and prison staff which was associated with difficult reform and re-integration potential for ex-prisoners into society (Afari, 2015). This highlights the importance of trained staff and social workers working as prison workers if a prison system were to adopt a more rehabilitative stance, something Norway has an abundance of. Another factor that lead to increased recidivism rates in this prison was the lack of financial assistance programs to help released prisoners which resulted in them becoming desperate and transforming back to their criminal acts despite their personal progress and employable skills they have learned in prison (Afari, 2015). This supports the reasoning as to why Norway`s prison system is so successful- key skilled workers are found in abundance in their prisons and their financial education programs and other forms of education are used as well. If this Ghanaian prison had more financial assistance in employing more skilled and educated workers, the research shows that recidivism rates would have decreased massively.

A systematic review to assess the comparability of recidivism rates internationally was done also in order to develop the best reporting guidelines for recidivism. 20 countries with the largest total prison population worldwide were targeted and due to recidivism being a broad term that refers to any sort of relapse of criminal behavior which could potentially include a range of different outcomes challenges have been faced when trying to compare every country to each other, however, statistics have still been able to be found which support the idea of rehabilitation creating more prisoner success outside of prison-success being less recidivism. It is important to consider that every country has its own way of handling fines, traffic offenses and other crimes. In addition, samples can differ between countries when concertation, the range and quality of intra-prison programs and investment into medical services in order to successfully treat psychiatric and psychological disorders and drug and alcohol problems (Wolf, 2015). The main goal of the systematic review was to review the data worldwide and examine how definitions vary, in order to establish a comprehensive reporting checklist and best practice guidelines for presenting recidivism statistics that are internationally comparable (Wolf, 2015). This is important in examining and determining factors, rehabilitation or retribution-style prisons, that explain differences in recidivism rates in different countries worldwide.

Recidivism rates were measured using re-conviction and re-imprisonment. In Norway, re-conviction rates were at 20% in 2005 re convicting within two years of release compared to the USA`s 36% within two years of release and re-imprisonment rates also supports the theories that rehabilitation prison environments produce better futures on the outside more than retribution style prisons. Other Nordic countries such as Denmark have very low % as well at 29% in 2005, Finland being at 36%. However Sweden with a 43% re-conviction rate opposes its fellow Nordic countries, however, their incarceration rate is low at 67 people per 100,000 people incarcerated showing the positive impact that rehabilitation has in these Nordic countries. However some countries such as Australia, despite their rehabilitative stance, still have a fairly high recidivism rate at 39 which suggests the importance of the consideration of societal and cultural differences when comparing recidivism rates across different countries, because otherwise, inconsistency may lie in the results.

Two main findings to draw from this review are that Nordic countries have the highest quality national crime statistics showing their lowest recidivism rates worldwide and USA`s prison system provokes the highest recidivism rates along with France and other countries that adopt a mainly retributive system, due to its punishing and suffering system rather than bettering the person for a better future for the prisoner but a healthier and safer society as well.

A meta-analysis of 27 studies (Fazel, 2011), including 3511 individuals with psychosis compared to individuals with no current or previous history of any psychiatric disorders, found that there was a 95% increased risk of repeat offending in individuals with psychosis. This shows that in a rehabilitation center, where these types of disorders are combatted and eliminated, prisoners leave with fewer symptoms or even with their disorder eliminated, making them 95% less likely to re-offend, suggesting evidence for the theory that rehabilitation prison systems are more successful in reducing recidivism rates than retribution style prison systems which do not combat patient`s disorders such as the psychiatric disorders studies in this meta-analysis.

Conclusion: In order to answer the question, one must look at all ends of the spectrum. In this case, Norway with its strong usage of a rehabilitative approach and the USA with its strong usage of a retribution approach, and also prison systems worldwide. While the statistics suggest a significantly lower % of recidivism rates in rehabilitation prisons such as in Norway than USA, a prison system with rehabilitation practices in place will not always produce fewer numbers of recidivists. Australia for example had a 39% re-imprisonment rate in 2010 and has a rehabilitation system in place inside prisons, suggesting that rehabilitative prisons do not always find success in lowering recidivism rates even if the system is not at all punitive. However, statistics show that the overall rehabilitation prison system decreases recidivism

Argumentative Essay on Felons Voting

Voting Rights for Felons

On November 8, 2016, an estimated 6.1 million citizens were barred from engaging in casting their votes because of felony charges (Cheung). This disenfranchised population included people currently in jail and also millions of people under parole or probation, and those who had completed their sentence. It is estimated that 3.1 million people are denied their right to vote because of laws that restrict them even when the sentence is complete. According to a report by it the Sentencing Project, the African American communities are mostly affected by the felony disenfranchisement policies (‘The Sentencing Project’S 2019 Annual Newsletter | The Sentencing Project).

State laws administering voter eligibility for felons and ex-felons differ greatly. There are only two states that allow felons to vote Vermont and Maine whereas twelve other states – Ve – inflict a lifetime vote ban on prisoners even when they have finished their sentences and are not on parole or probation. The voting right is safeguarded by the American constitution, which forbids disenfranchisement for reasons like gender, race, and age. Nonetheless, the 14 Amendment gives the United States the power to deny an individual the right to vote because of a criminal charge. As per the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),’ the idea of “ denying a criminal his/her voting right has existed since ancient Rome and Greece Felon (‘Voting Rights). A condition known as ‘civil death’ began in Europe and involved the restriction on voting and restriction in court appearances. It was later adopted in America; however, most aspects of it were removed, leaving felon disenfranchisement. In America, one of the most common justifications for punishing criminals is which maintains that retributivism, punishing a criminal is justified with the reason that he/she deserves some punishment for doing something wrong.

Retributivism justified civic death in the past and is the foundation for felony “ ” disenfranchisement today. However, the issue is that this punishment is philosophically dubious and ineffective. Therefore, there are a number of cases as to why voting rights should be restored to prisoners and ex-felons. Firstly, denying prisoners to vote is the same as restricting their liberty, which has demonstrated much in protecting public safety. The right of self-protection can justify indisposed criminals but cannot justify removing or limiting voting rights. Preventing ex- felons and prisoners from voting does not coincide with public safety and personal liberty.

The United States justice system is going to make great strides if it adopts the normality principle, which is the Norwegian correctional Service. The normality principle states that when serving a sentence, the life inside a prison should resemble the same outside the prison (‘About The Norwegian Correctional Service – Kriminalomsorgen.No’). As per the normality principle, no one should serve their sentence under harsh conditions than what is necessary to maintain the security of the community. Furthermore, the principle states that no rights should be restricted by the court, meaning that prisoners in Norwegian retain their voting rights.

Secondly, disenfranchising and disempowering ex-felons and prisoners have the effect of marginalizing and dehumanizing them. Perpetual punishment, such as restricting voting rights to individuals who have served their sentences has imposed second-class citizenship on millions of people in America. This disempowerment is contrary to the belief of second chance the notion s – that individuals can redeem themselves and correct their course in life. Therefore, if one believes that prisons should focus on rehabilitating prisoners, then retaining voting rights is important. As The Guardian states in 2012, ‘A prisoner’s rehabilitation as a safe, responsible, and productive member of society must include the most basic right of the democratic process the right to — choose who governs us. To remove this right dehumanizes prisoners’ (Walsh 4).

Thirdly is that according to the article the American constitution Politico Magazine, ideals support the voting rights of prisoners, and denying them breaches the concept of self-government, which the founders cherished (Brettschneider). Allowing this right will make sense in the American constitution in terms of policy and politics. As prisons have struggled with the increasing populations, claims of prisoner maltreatment have multiplied, and criminal justice reforms are at the fore of political debate. Therefore, to solve this problem, the country should hear out those incarcerated and allow them to air their views in the national political discussions. By cutting both prisoners and ex-felons from the political discussions, we lose out on major insights that they could provide to help the country. The public would benefit from listening to people affected by crime and are familiar with how the criminal justice system works. Disempowering felons lead to another class of American citizens that are subjected to the country’s laws but do not have a voice to express their views on how they are governed.

The article also notes that the policies of felony disenfranchisement Politico Magazine develop a cast system that is similar to the one during the very days (Brettschneider). The sl majority of state prisoners are not able to vote, and yet they are counted in their legislative district’s population, which is the principal factor that decides the state’s number of representatives alongside the presidential electoral votes. This policy takes after the constitution’s ill-famed three-fifth clause that denied slaves their rights to vote but still counted them in their census for the sole purpose of assembling more representatives pro-slavery. This is an intense, troubling practice that has sad political implications. Politicians have lacked incentives to decrease the number of prisons since they benefit from them politically, and they benefit even when they do not listen to the concerns and grievances of those imprisoned. Lastly, voting is to have a voice in any election, which is fundamental to the democracy of the country. To vote is to participate in the country’s democratic system to express opinions, express civic pride, to express a perception, which makes voting a form of speech that should be protected by the first amendment. At the April town hall, Bernie Sanders, the 2020 presidential candidate, said that each individual should be allowed to vote and termed it ‘un-American and undemocratic to rest prisoners from voting.

In conclusion, the United States needs to allow prisoners and ex-felons to vote. As discussed above, denying prisoners the vote is denying them their right to air their views and grievances to the public. Also, denying ex-felons from voting is like punishing them twice, even after serving their sentences. Policies that justify disenfranchisement should be abolished since they create a cast system that resembles the one during slavery. Our founders greatly cherished the concept of self-government, and it is a shame that prisoners are denied their right to vote, which is supported by the constitution.

Works Cited

1. ‘About The Norwegian Correctional Service – Kriminalomsorgen.No’. Kriminalomsorgen.No, 2019, . http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/information- -english.265199.no.htmlin
2. Brettschneider, Corey. ‘Why Prisoners Deserve The Right To Vote’. POLITICO Magazine, 2016, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/prisoners-convicts-felons-inmates-right- -vote-enfranchise-criminal-justice-voting-rights-213979to .
3. Cheung, Jean. ‘Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer | The Sentencing Project’. The Sentencing Project, 2019, http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/felony-disenfranchisement-a-primer/.
4. ‘Felon Voting Rights’. , 2019, Ncsl.Org http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx.
5. ‘The Sentencing Project’S 2019 Annual Newsletter | The Sentencing Project’. The Sentencing Project, 2019, https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/sentencing-projects-2019-annual-newsletter/.
6. Walsh, Caspar. ‘Why Prisoners Should Be Given The Right To Vote. The Guardian, 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/prisoners-right-to-vote.
7. http://www.plagscan.com/highlight?doc=128666062&source=0&cite=2&hl=textonly#2
8. http://www.plagscan.com/highlight?doc=128666062&source=0&cite=1&hl=textonly#1

Essay on School to Prison Pipeline

Literature Review

The “School-to-Prison Pipeline” is an incessant trend, particularly within urban schools in America. It has increasingly been influenced by discriminatory policies causing disproportionate effects on certain adolescent groups and families on the basis of color. The implementation of a zero-tolerance policy has further mitigated the cause.

Consistent Methodology and Methods

Current Research goes to show the best possible way to conduct research with reverence to this particular subject has been a qualitative approach. Over fifty works of literature have been referenced and analyzed to support this dissertation. An analysis of such literature leads one to conclude that, indeed, the methodology most common and consistent with the scope of this study has been proven to be the “Qualitative Method” of research. The popularity of this method can be found in over half of the chosen work i.e. 50%.

The disproportionate implementation of the School-to-Prison Pipeline can be best assessed in depth by a qualitative approach and yield better results. The landmark research of Crawley and Hirschfield (2018), Wright, Morgan, Coyne, Beaver & Barnes (2014), Fahey (2016), and Heitzeg (2017) illustrated efficiently, through the use of qualitative approach, the proper evaluation of the racial gap, adverse effect of the zero-tolerance policy and play a crucial role in the future researches by heavily contributing to the creation of new ideas for the process of transformation and potential implementation of discipline models wiping out zero-tolerance policy’s detrimental effects.

On the other hand, a mixed approach has also gained sufficient support when it comes to evidence collection. J. Thompson in his article “Eliminating Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: Miami-Dade County Public School’s approach” published in 2016, elucidated the obvious gap in treatment between African-American students with that of White American students. It played a vital role in decreasing school-related arrests, suspensions, and expulsions. (Thompson, 2016)Whereas Moreno and Scaletta (2018) by adopting a mixed approach were better able to highlight the importance of educator perceptions of behavior and the root cause of discrimination.

However, a recent wave of research has primarily been opting qualitative approach. Heitzeg(2017), Gordon (2018), White (2018), Barnes (2018), and Alnaim(2018), to name a few, have been crucial to the development and have all made use of the qualitative methodology.

Approaches, Strengths, and Inherent Weaknesses

Most of the researchers have attempted to incorporate a legal framework in their approaches to properly assess the situations that surround themselves around discriminatory practices against people of color. The most common theories that have been put to test are legal concepts and psychologically based theories. Researchers such as Barnert Et Al (2015) structured their argument on the detrimental effects of incarceration and the lives of students. Similarly, Moreno and Scaletta (2015) structured their findings on qualitatively approached interviews. Berlowitz, Frye, & Jetter carried out interviews in 2017 to form the basis of research titled “Bullying and Zero-Tolerance Policies: The School to Prison Pipeline.” While the majority focused on legal concepts and the implementation of policies. Researchers acknowledge that frequent application of suspension is not educationally justifiable and unavoidable. Zero tolerance policies unsympathetically affect African American pupils in school environments.

The persistent weakness found in the cluster of research has extremely isolated samples which eradicate a comprehensive overview. The focus on subgroups of adolescents affected and isolated contributing factors has created an ignorance of major determinants. To illustrate, the research Fahey conducted in 2016 was limited to three models and the adverse effects on academics only. There was an evident lack of focus on diverging variants that can easily obstruct academic progress. Many other types of research lacked a clear conclusion, or source of discriminatory and misappropriate implementation of disciplines, accompanied by a lack of strategic component targeting systems of inequity and creating systems that encourage justice and equity.

Whereas, the importance of this research can’t be subdued due to the weakness exhibited. For instance, Curtis (2014) in his research “Tracing the School-to-Prison Pipeline from Zero-Tolerance Policies to Juvenile Justice Dispositions” successfully outlined that adults play a vital role in the rehabilitation of students instead of just implementing punishment and toxic disciplinary actions. On the other hand, Heitzeg (2017) illustrates and holds the government accountable for African-American students being discriminated against. It also highlighted how zero-tolerance policy and SROs are much more detrimental rather than beneficial as is their intended application.

Key Concepts

Copious studies have examined the consequence of the zero-tolerance policies on minority youth specifically African-American (e.g. (Finn & Servos, 2014), (Townsend-Walker, 2014), (Busby, Lambert, & Lalango, 2013), (Alnaim, 2018) ). According to these studies, prejudiced and inequitable policies and practices in schools have contributed to racial inequalities in regulation. Public schools are more likely to have School Resource Officers, more jarring discipline practices, and more referrals to law enforcement concerning the United States.

The integral phenomenon discussed is the zero-tolerance policy’s toxic application, exclusionary punishment, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the impact of discriminatory policies in education and the criminal justice system.

The key concepts that can be deduced after a proper analysis of all the available research material are the implicit bias and social dominance theories which have been utilized in sociological research to illustrate how prevalent traditional stereotypes contribute to how organs of certain ethnic groups counter to outsiders and outsiders to them. Hutchinson (2015), examined Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) from a public policy perspective. The study concentrated on felonious statutes that disparately affect people of color. Hutchinson (2015) also elaborated on how linked racial bias and stereotypes can influence and limit lawmakers, and people who are in the position of power to empathize with adolescents of a specific targeted ethnic group.

Theories such as social dominance, implicit bias, critical race theory, and racial threat approach distinctive viewpoints of the school-to-prison pipeline research and assist the argument that implicit bias and stereotypes have heavily contributed to the marginalization of African-American.

Relation and Meaningful Aspect of Approach

As previously stated, nearly fifty percent of the research implied qualitative research to be the best possible approach as it yielded better results as compared to those of other approaches. Multiple researchers such as that Barnert Et Al (2015), Moreno and Scaletta (2018), Berlowwitz, Frye, and Jetter (2017), and Dunning-Lozano (2018) made use of interviews to carry out in-depth research and properly determine the perspective of African-American students and their point of view of the application of zero-tolerance policy which proved to be an incredibly useful insight on how to further approach the case of such discriminatory policies.

As Smith (2015) in his research, “Generation at Risk: The Ties between Zero Tolerance Policies and the School-to-Prison Pipeline” elaborated on the impact of the zero-tolerance policy and its impact on the educational system of the United States. It highlighted the increased dropout rate due to the application of a zero-tolerance policy elucidating the connection between punishment policies and adverse impact on the academic perspective of youth.

Furthermore, Holly (2016) determined and proved the negative impact of ZTP procedures and went on to highlight the negative results such as administrative failure of schools, suspension, and school exclusion increasingly becoming a norm which is an entirely unfair disciplinary policy.

Much of the research was carried out on the implicit basis of General System Theory as well as the integration of a qualitative approach, incorporating the legal aspect to create a rich picture for a much more comprehensive and true analysis of the given situation. The researchers have contributed meaningful data to the pool of information creating an apt platform for future research and for this specific one as well.

References

1. Claim. (2018). The Impact of Zero Tolerance Policy on Children with Disabilities. World Journal of Education.
2. Alam, M. (2018). The Impact of Zero-Tolerance Policy on Children with Disabilities. World Journal of Education.
3. Arellano-Jackson, J. (2015). But What Can We Do? How Juvenile Defenders Can Disrupt The School-to-Prison Pipeline. Seattle Law Review.
4. Barnes, A. (2018). School To Prison Pipeline Unmasked: Review of how the School to Prison Pipeline Reinforces Disproportionality in Mass Incarceration. Academic Works.
5. Barnet, E., Perry, R., Azzi, V., R., S., Ryan, G., & Dudovitz, R. (2015). Incarcerated Youth’s Perspective on Protective Factors and Risk Factors for Juvenile Offending; A Qualitative Analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 1365-1371.
6. Busby, D., Lambert, S., & Lalango, N. (2013). Psychological symptoms linking Exposures to community violence and academic functioning in African American Adolescents. Youth of Adolescence, 42(2), 250-262.
7. Cowan, D. (2016). Men of Colour Evading the School to Prison Pipelines: A Phenomenological Study Championing Justice.
8. Cramer, E., Gonzalez, L., & Pellegrini-Lafont, C. (2014). From Classmates to Inmates: An Integrated Approach to Break the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Equity and Excellence in Education, 461-475.
9. Crawley, k., & Hirschfield, P. (2018). Examining School to Prison Pipeline Metaphor. Oxford Research Encylopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
10. Curtis, A. (2014). Tracing the School-to-Prison Pipeline from Zero-Tolerance Policies to Juvenile Justice Dispositions. George Town Law, 1252-1270.
11. Fahey, B. (2016). A Legal-Conceptual Framework for the School to Prison Pipeline: Fewer Opportunities for Rehabilitation for Public School Students. Nebraska Law Review, 765-797.
12. Finn, J., & Servos, T. (2014). Misbehavior, Suspensions, and Security Measures in High School: Racial/ Ethnic and Gender Differences. Applied Research on Children, 5(2), 1-50.
13. Heitzeg, N. (2017). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Education, Discipline, and Radicalized Double Standards. Adolescent Research Review, 49-54.
14. Holley, V. (2016). Qualitative Study of How Students Experienced Exclusionary Discipline Practices.
15. Sullivan, A., Norman, E., & Klingbeil, D. (2014). Exclusionary Discipline of Students with Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. 199-210.
16. Thompson, J. (2016). Eliminating Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: Miami-Dade County. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2016/iss2/5
17. Townsend-Walker, B. (2014). Suspended Animation: A Legal Perspective of School Discipline and African American Learners in the Shadows of Brown. Negro Education, 83(3), 338-351.

Essay on Punishment Vs Rehabilitation

Society and Crime

The purpose of this paper will serve to provide an overview of how the impacts of crime affect public policy, sentencing, practices, and operations of correctional institutions, along with a societal response to those impacts. We will attempt to examine why there is a need for punishment and crime (or not), take a look at the emphasis on current punishment and/or rehabilitation, and how multiculturalism and diversity may affect the responses to crime.

Society’s views of crime and punishment have changed and evolved since medieval times when punishments were harsh and mainly influenced by the church and punishments were handed down to keep them from committing crimes by filling their hearts with fear. Some of those punishments ranged from floggings, brandings, tortures, fines, and public shaming to more severe punishments like cutting off body parts and, of course, death (Siegel, 4th Edition). Society looked upon these punishments as not necessarily fair but “just” and befitting the crime. Societal views of punishment have evolved just as criminal punishments have evolved. Society’s attitudes toward hangings (which do still exist) and electrocution via the electric chair have evolved as society began to view both as cruel and unusual punishment. Society now views prisons as a form of punishment—if one is incarcerated, they are typically serving punishment befitting the crime.

In today’s world of criminal justice, it is believed justice equals punishment. When someone commits a crime against others, a debt to society must be paid by serving time (punishment) appropriate to the crime. Taking offenders off the streets and incarcerating them in prisons is seen as a protection for society; therefore, a crime is committed, the offender receives a sentence to prison thus removing the said offender from the streets and protecting society from further harm. This view can be true; however, we will see there may be other options for offenders rather than simply sentencing someone to prison.

The emphasis on punishment or rehabilitation is an ongoing debate in society among the everyday citizen and policymakers alike. One legal definition of punishment, like incarceration, is: some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, …” (UpCounsel, 2020). Using this term of punishment, in simple terms, constitutes sentencing an offender to prison to serve a specified period of time, with perhaps rehabilitation services, and eventual release. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, encompasses programs and services to help change criminals into law-abiding citizens providing mental health therapies, substance abuse rehabilitation programs, and medical programs to care for medical issues inmates may have while at the same time keeping the prison population safe from illness and disease, vocational training, educational programs, religious programs including instruction and religious services, to name just a few. These rehabilitation programs are for the benefit of offenders to assist them in overcoming issues and providing a pathway for successful re-entry into communities. The rehabilitation programs may be mandated by the courts as part of an offender’s sentence, and/or for those with lesser charges the offender may be directed to services on the outside, perhaps a live-in facility. Looking at the two options of punishment and rehabilitation leads me to this conclusion. Offenders who have committed serious crimes and have serious charges against them should be sentenced to serve time in prison and be mandated to rehabilitation programs within the prison to help resolve their issues. Those with lesser charges are not going to benefit from being in prison next to hardened criminals and will become more productive receiving outside ongoing treatment.

Since at least the 1970s, there has been a continuous shift in sentencing laws, impacting prisons, the “get tough on crime” policy, and present-day conditions. The war on drugs precipitated speeches by politicians about getting tough on crime meaning to be as harsh on criminals as the law allows. This policy along with sentence restructuring of handing out the harshest sentence possible and mandatory sentencing have all led to the mass incarceration of criminals and the overcrowding of facilities. Sentence reform needs to be ongoing, especially by policymakers. Someone who steals $10 worth of marijuana does not warrant being sentenced to prison for 15 years! Likewise, rehabilitation alternatives need to be considered for those who don’t need to be incarcerated in prison next to a hardened long-term prisoner.

Lastly, taking a look at multiculturalism and diversity indicates treatment may not always be fair when it comes to other ethnicities and races. It is said diversity and multiculturalism are more prevalent in the justice system than in the rest of society, and that various races have an extremely high rate of incarceration versus Caucasians. It is also written that if a specific group of people is alienated from a system due to disparities, there is a distrust of that system (Weedmark, D., n.d.). We need to be more trusting of all ethnicities and remove racial overtones from our makeup, just as all cultures and ethnicities need to have more trust in the US criminal justice system.

Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote: Essay

In comparison to the rest of the developed world, the United States of America has one of the most punitive prison systems. The government claims that its prisons focus on rehabilitation, yet on average, 60 percent of all inmates will return to prison (Chung). Felons’ lives are thereby deemed unlivable because they are perceived as morally corrupt, “social contract” breakers. As a consequence, most state governments, aside from Maine and Vermont, prohibit felons from participating in democratic processes. While the majority of states do permit felons to vote after the completion of their prison sentence and probation period, eleven states – whose prison populations account for 50 percent of incarcerated inmates – permanently disenfranchise all felons (Chung). Their disenfranchisement is often supported by the claim that because felons broke the social contract, it is in the interest of the public to not have their political representation. Under this assumption, allowing the enfranchisement of felons is harmful because society is allowing “morally corrupt” individuals to influence American laws. By upholding these current policies that strip felons of their voting rights, lawmakers undermine American democracy under the guise of a collectivist narrative that supposedly strengthens its citizens’ self-determination.

Regarding felons’ rights, lawmakers have shifted from liberal and conservative ideals to democratic theories of citizenship to support disenfranchisement. Republican theory upholds the belief that disenfranchisement is justified because incarcerated individuals lack the civic virtues required for participation in the political process. Liberal theory, meanwhile, states that because incarcerated individuals violated society’s social contract, they should not be permitted to vote. Both of these theories lack insight into the beliefs and characteristics of incarcerated individuals. There is much more to the reason why an individual commits a crime than just the belief that they are a bad person. The reasons why someone commits a crime are very multi-faceted and many times one’s upbringing plays a large role in their behavior. Thus, Republican theory cannot determine whether or not individual felons possess fewer civic virtues than enfranchised individuals. Likewise, Liberal theory cannot support the idea that, although felons broke the social contract required of American citizens, many of them still recognize the authority of the American government and want to participate in the political process.

Democratic theory, instead of focusing on the actions of the individual, employs a collectivist lens to justify disenfranchisement. Self-determination, the process in which citizens directly control their government, is the main tenant of Democratic theory used to support barring felons from political participation. Supporters of this theory believe that because the public has the right to self-determination, they should be able to decide who is eligible to participate in the democratic process. Democratic theorists, like Peter Ramsay, contend that democratic self-determination requires disenfranchisement (Whitt). In his conclusion, democratic governments require voters to be able to debate, assemble, and cast their votes without governmental interference (Whitt). Since incarcerated individuals do not have these rights, if they were enfranchised their votes would be essentially meaningless and allow an avenue for governmental influence. Other theorists, such as Mary Sigler, similarly believe that disenfranchisement is justified. Sigler sees incarcerated individuals as punishable because they broke laws meant for the benefit of the public (Whitt). Thus, the political rights of an incarcerated individual must be forfeited in order to restore or preserve self-determination. To Sigler, felons should be punished because “they have violated the civic trust that makes liberal democracy possible” (Whitt). In both of the arguments of these theories, disenfranchisement is justified in order to benefit the public.

This manipulation enables lawmakers and theorists to further illustrate disenfranchisement as an avenue to protect American values. One of the main tenets of American society is the belief that the people control the government and that societal values are supported by the democratic process. Disenfranchisement is then seen as a safeguard to protect our democratic values and processes. Thus, few individuals will argue against what is believed to be the right to self-determination. Concurrently, the debate around the political rights of incarcerated individuals has turned from an individualist to a collectivist argument. Disenfranchisement is then not discredited because it is seen as a collective benefit for our self-determination. Due to these values, American society continues to create a group of adults who abide by the rules of democratic society yet lack the ability to decide the laws that govern them.

As a result, the representation of minority communities’ incarceration rates is strikingly higher than those of white Americans. Historically, disenfranchisement laws targeted the offenses that the government believed black men would be most likely to commit (Sanders). This took form, particularly in the South where the Jim Crow, elected solely by the white ruling class, determined and regulated the rights given to African Americans at that time. When discussing Jim Crow and the enfranchisement of black people, Woodrow Wilson said that “the white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers” (Matthews). Although many of these laws have been abolished, the War on Drugs and other federal policies have directly targeted minority communities, which has led to mass disenfranchisement and underrepresentation. It is estimated that over 77% of disenfranchised voters are from communities of color (Sentencing Project). One in every 13 black adults, equating to 2.2 million people, is currently disenfranchised. In the most punitive states, almost one in five black adults can not vote (Aviram). Studies have shown that in prison recidivism rates are higher in states where felons are permanently disenfranchised. The ability to participate in the political process is essential to rehabilitating offenders because it allows them to establish themselves within their communities and contribute to society. When felons are disenfranchised, this alienates them from effectively participating not only in their community but in society. If they believe that their voice does not matter and that they can’t change their situation, it is very likely that they will re-offend. Due to this cycle of recidivism, disenfranchisement disproportionately affects minority communities because they lack the representation and voting power to change the laws that govern them.

When analyzing the thesis, one may counter the argument by claiming that self-determination supports disenfranchisement. Voting to strip away the voting rights of felons would technically be considered self-determination only for the people who are enfranchised. Critics who support this claim, however, do not see the effects that disenfranchisement has on the legitimacy of our democracy and on representation. By disenfranchising over 6 million Americans, the government contradicts the democratic ideals of self-determination it claims to uphold (Aviram). Self-governance allows for each citizen to be equally heard within their country in order to fulfill the principles of a democratic society. The rights and freedoms given to felons are being chosen undemocratically by the enfranchised population. By allowing this to happen, the government clearly violates the principles of our society that all people are created equal and that every citizen deserves the right to determine the laws which govern them. This in turn leads to the underrepresentation of minority groups because a large portion of their population can’t vote. If enfranchised members of minority groups are underrepresented, they also do not have the ability to influence the laws that govern them. Consequently, an enfranchised population is directly disenfranchised because their vote does not have any weight against the vote of the majority group.

Another counterargument that one may claim is that disenfranchisement is beneficial to our society because it protects our interests. They believe that if felons are allowed the right to vote, they will elect lenient judges who will rule in their favor. This idea is unfounded because there are no studies that show a causal relationship between enfranchised felons’ elect and the election of lenient judges(Aviram). Furthermore, it is entirely illegal and anti-democratic for citizens to vote for lenient judges. Disenfranchisement benefits a select group in society, although it claims to further the interests of the American populous. On the individual level, it inhibits felons from becoming productive and contributing members of their community. On a grand scale, minority groups lose their political power because their populations are disproportionately arrested and charged for crimes. Thus, disenfranchisement is not for the greater good if millions of Americans are being essentially silenced by lacking any form of democratic representation.

By supporting the disenfranchisement of felons, American lawmakers call into question the legitimacy of American democratic processes by employing a collectivist narrative. They believe that self-determination not only justifies but supports disenfranchisement. Under this belief, the public is allowed to strip away the voting rights of individuals through a democratic process. However, this idea is clearly undemocratic because it creates a subsection of our population that can not decide the laws that govern them. Disenfranchisement not only defies our own democratic principles but also calls into question our view of felons. The aim of the penal system is reintegration, but felons are still highly alienated after the completion of their sentence. American lawmakers can not claim that felons are reintegrated into society if those individuals can not participate in democratic processes. Felons are thus seen as non-contributing members of society, yet how can they contribute if they legally are not allowed to? If the American penal system wants to be truly rehabilitative, it must allow for the full integration of felons into society upon the completion of their sentence instead of creating a system that continues to punish individuals permanently.

Should Prisoners Be Allowed to Vote: Essay

Can you imagine what it would be like to be dumb? Not being able to express your opinions because no one cared to pay attention to your gibberish. For many inmates, disenfranchisement, which is the act of depriving one’s right to vote, is identical to being democratically dumb. The issue of felon disenfranchisement has been a long-standing one in our Jamaican history, and in support of that, many have argued that prisoners are not responsible citizens so they should not vote. On the contrary, prisoners should have the right to vote because they too have issues that they want the government to address, and dehumanizing the inmates by disenfranchisement is not helping them to prepare for rehabilitation.

Prisoners should have the right to vote because prisoners too have issues that they want the government to address. A major issue that has been a concern for many, including the astonished onlookers of our penal system, is the conditions of our prisons. Nelson (2015) stated that the conditions of the Jamaican prisons and the inhumane treatment of the prisoners have been discussed countless of times; however, the Jamaican government is not doing much to address them. According to Robottom (2011), international bodies such as the UN human rights committee have found that the Jamaican government has violated basic prisoners’ rights on numerous occasions. If the inmates were not dumbed by disenfranchisement, the government would have to take their issues into perspective because their vote would be at stake and therefore, they will try to ensure that the conditions are at least better. Additionally, legislation is formed by the legislators elected by the citizens. The inmates should have a say in the decisions that the government makes while they are incarcerated because it will inevitably affect them once they are released. We removed this individual from society, segregated for years. Then we reintegrated the ex-convicts into society and expect them to function in a normal civilized manner. Imagine having gone through incarceration and the laws as you knew them before are now changed, you were never asked for your opinion. Would you be able to connect the missing dots of all the changes that were made while you were confined to that barred six by eight feet box?

Furthermore, prisoners should have the right to vote because dehumanizing the inmates by disenfranchisement is not helping them to prepare for rehabilitation. After serving a prison sentence, prisoners are re-integrated into society with the expectation that they have been reformed. Behan and Ian O’Donnell (2008) mentioned in their journal that socially excluding inmates and ex-convicts contributes to recidivism. Removing the voting rights of the inmates for such an extensive period does not facilitate the hearing of their opinion, as a result, the ex-convicts may resort to their old mischievous ways of crime in order to bring themselves back to the spotlight. Notwithstanding, the converse may also occur, where ex-convicts neglect their civic responsibility to participate in the electoral process because they have become accustomed to disenfranchisement. Either way, both outcomes do not help with rehabilitation. Instead, the focus should be on changing the inmate as mentioned in an article by Brown-Coverdale (2014) which stated that helping prisoners to build skills for voting and democratic engagement helps prisoners to develop skills they will need when they are released. Rehabilitation, true rehabilitation, requires the government to focus on changing the mindset of those who have run afoul of the laws of our land through encouragement and inclusiveness in the form of enfranchisement.

Conversely, others may argue that prisoners are not responsible citizens and therefore, should not be allowed to vote. Clegg (2018) has opined that voting is a responsibility people who commit serious offenses against their fellow citizens do not meet the standard to bear such responsibility. It would mean that kids, the mentally incompetent, and non-citizens also qualify to select the government. Some may even say felons are a homogeneous group of individuals who can be easily corrupted by politicians to vote in favor of a party that will be most lenient on them.

While it is true that prisoners may not be responsible citizens, revoking their voting privileges will not make them become responsible citizens. Voting is a democratic responsibility that gives citizens of a country the task to select just leaders who will make sound decisions on behalf of the nation. Brown-Coverdale (2014) wrote that if voting is a democratic responsibility, then voting should be encouraged because it will instill a sense of civic responsibility in the inmates. Moreover, research by Hamiliton-Smith (2012) on the issue of disenfranchisement has shown that there is no empirical evidence that suggests prisoners or ex-convicts, either as a group or as individuals, are at a higher risk of committing election-related offenses. In essence, making ex-convicts unable to vote due to them “Not being responsible enough” is a void statement because the onus is really on the penal system to reform the prisoner and make them become responsible citizens.

When one considers the more common view of felon disenfranchisement, one might agree that it helps to purify the electoral system of unscrupulous individuals. However, we must bear in mind that prisoners are faced with numerous challenges that are not being addressed by the government. Furthermore, stripping them of the basic human right to vote is just making the rehabilitation process more difficult as their opinions which can contribute greatly to societal development are muffled by these olden laws. You must remember that at any point in time, an infraction made by you could cause you to be in a headlock by black ink by which these laws were crafted.

Why Felons Should not Be Allowed to Vote: Argumentative Essay

Franchising felons from voting has an impact on elections, silences the voice that felons have, and strips them of a right that they should have.

In the 2016 elections, many states were close, with some winning by only a small margin. Florida was within 120,000 votes to swing for Hillary Clinton (‘2016 Presidential’), which is very close given the population of Florida. As mentioned earlier, Florida had over 1.6 million felons that were stripped of their voting rights. Had all of those felons been able to vote, Hillary Clinton may have won in Florida. Another example of this is Nevada, a state where some felons do not automatically have their voting rights restored. Nevada was also close, as it was within 27,000 votes of swaying to another presidential candidate. Had felons been allowed to vote, this state and several others may of have been swayed to another presidential candidate in the 2016 election.

Being convicted of a felony makes life a lot harder, as many things become more difficult or are unable to be done. Felons lose their right to own a firearm, even if their crime was not related to a firearm in any way. Felons also have a harder time applying for loans and can not apply for state or federal grants, making going back to school to get a better-paying job a lot harder. Felons also may lose parental rights, and almost always lose custody in courts (the law dictionary). Stripping felons of their right to vote prevents them from voting for a candidate that would vote to change these things.

Another problem is that felons are stripped of several rights, even if they had nothing to do with their crime. A felon who has been convicted of a crime such as assault should lose their rights to firearms, however denying them things such as state and federal grants has no relation to their crime and would only pose a problem in their life. Without these grants, felons have difficulty getting back on their feet after prison, and cannot use them to go back to school to turn their life around. If their restrictions were only applied to things relating to their crime, felons would only face restrictions relating to their crime instead of several unnecessary restrictions.

The hardest thing felons have to deal with, however, is employment. Companies frequently do background checks on people they want to hire, and most will turn down a person for having a criminal background. This makes getting a job after a felon has been released extremely hard, or companies will tend to employ someone with no criminal background over someone with a criminal background. As felons are unable to find a job that can sustain them, many turn back to crime and often end up back in prison.

Some people will argue that felons don’t deserve rights such as firearms, as they say, that they have proven that they are incapable of making good decisions, and as such they should not be trusted with those rights. Some people also say that felons are not able to make informed judgments, as they made the poor choice of breaking the law (‘Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments’). While some of these statements hold some truth in them, they are assuming that most felons want to go back to crime and are unable to make an informed vote.

Not all felons want to go back to crime, however, not all of them have a choice. Some felons are forced back into crime, with one reason being financial difficulties. As some felons are unable to get a job that can support them, they turn back to crime in order to make money. Another reason why is that some felons relapse and start doing drugs again, however, the problem with drugs is a different problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics did a study on prisoners released in 2005 on how many were arrested again. Approximately 68% were arrested at least once in the first three years, and 83% were arrested by the end of the ninth year (Bureau of Justice). This study shows a large problem, because if over two-thirds of convicts were arrested again in the first three years, then either prison are not doing a good job of rehabilitating their prisoners, or felons are not given enough to get back on their feet after prison.

Another assumption is that felons are unable to make informed votes. While felons may not have made a good choice in breaking the law, that does not mean that they are unable to make an informed vote. Just because someone was convicted of a crime does not mean that they cannot look at all candidates in an election and make an informed vote. The other problem with this assumption is that prison is supposed to reform convicts, so if a man is reformed through prison and becomes a better person, then she should have the same rights as a regular person. Another assumption is that many felons would only use their vote on people who would lessen their punishments for their crimes. While some felons would use their vote like this, many would vote for candidates who would remove or lessen their restrictions, because as stated earlier not all felons want to go back to crime.

Giving felons the right to vote will give felons a voice in elections and elect people who will work to give them their rights back. This would result in unnecessary restrictions being removed from them, as well as reducing the rearrest rate as they would be able to use those rights to get back on their feet. This would lead to felons having a way to reintegrate back into society. However, without a vote, felons will have a harder time finding ways to get back on their feet and will end up back in prison