The primary goal of the disciplinary report is to depict the fight, which occurred in Valley State Prison for women. The fight took place on January 18, 2005, 8:02 and recorded by the security camera, which is targeted at the segregation area (Prsnguard AKA Penguard 5150, 2008). Arlene Mitchel is viewed as a primary initiator of the fight, and the second woman can be referred as an opponent in the risen conflict. The fight is rather short but violent. At 8:02, the tear gas grenade is used to pacify the fighting inmates (Prsnguard AKA Prsnguard5150, 2008). However, it does not stop the women, as they continue to fight while falling. Arlene Mitchel has a dominating position and attacks the opponent from the top by using fist as the main weapon (Prsnguard AKA Prsnguard5150, 2008). At 8:03, five rounds of rubber bullets are shot to terminate the fight. The women are not responding to the command get down (Prsnguard AKA Prsnguard5150, 2008). By 8:03 the fight is diminished, as the fighters fall on the ground (Prsnguard AKA Prsnguard5150, 2008). It could be said that Arlene Mitchels behavior and aggression can be considered as the core reason for an occurrence of the fight. The previous violations of the order were present.
In this instance, the critical documentation for the event litigation is the video recording and the written report of the correctional officer. Additionally, the prisons staff can be used as the sources of information to design the overall perception of the situation. These aspects will contribute to finding a solution to the case due to the essentiality of this matter in the criminal law (Davis & Kam, 2010). Lastly, they assist in the decision-making regarding the isolation of Arlene Mitchel to minimize the presence of violence on the territory of the prison.
The Purpose of the Report
Based on the information provided above, the primary goal of the report is to present the flow of events in an organized manner to depict all evidence highlighted in the case. In this instance, its beneficial influence cannot be underestimated, as it eliminates the possibilities of confusions and minimizes the occurrence of misunderstandings. In turn, it could be said that the selected information adds details to the presented data by complying with the principles of good corrections report such as who, what, where, and when (Davis & Kam, 2010). Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that it tends to document all the evidence to increase awareness of the jail administrator and contribute to the event litigation (Davis & Kam, 2010). Lastly, the report is an advantageous instrument of the corrections officer, as it helps remember the sequence of events, which took place in the past.
Immediate Report of the Incident
It remains apparent whether or not the incident has to be delivered to the administration of the prison is dependent on the actions and conditions, which are presented. Nonetheless, the occurrence of the fight has to be reported immediately in the context of the selected case. The primary reason is the utilization of the tear gas grenade and five rounds of rubber bullets to terminate the fight (Prsnguard AKA Prsnguard5150, 2008). In turn, Arlene Mitchel is viewed as a violent and aggressive inmate, whose actions have to be monitored on the regular basis to eliminate the presence of the similar situations.
References
Davis, J., & Kam, R. (2010). Report writing for criminal justice professionals: a complete text from English composition to interviews and investigations. San Clemente, CA: Law Tech Publishing Group.
The private prison business, as modernity knows it, emerged in the mid-1980s. The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) was the first to privatize a correctional institution in Hamilton County, TN (Clear, Reisig, and Cole 257). The privatization meant that the government granted a private operator the right to run the correction facility for the first time in history. The questions of safety, efficacy, and efficiency have started to arise immediately after the privatization practice came into being. Today, although opinions differ, there is a solid body of evidence contradicting the initial claims of privatized institutions safety, efficacy, and efficiency in many respects.
Safety
The safety concerns are quite understandable with regard to correctional facilities. The purpose of jails is to confine the offenders so as to ensure their safety, that of the prison personnel, visitors, and society in general. At that, safety is regarded as insurance that the inmates do not commit violence against other prisoners or stakeholders and are unable to escape. Supporters of the privatized prison systems argue for the safety of the latter being superior to that of the public institutions.
There is an opinion that, because such institutions are privately funded and operate for profit, there is a strong incentive factor ensuring safety. Violence and escapes are too costly for them to handle in the long run, which is why such prisons do their best to secure their facilities. There is, however, an opposing view: although it is agreed that privatized institutions make the safety of the facilities their priority, the opponents state that they do so at the expense of other operational aspects.
Research demonstrates that private prisons tend to have fewer personnel at hand (Siegel and Bartollas 156). The resources that they do have are reported to be less well-trained than those subsidized by the government, which increases the danger of assaults and escapes. All that speaks to the disfavor of privatized facilities. With scarcer and poorer-trained correction personnel, such institutions do not seem to have much to rely on except incarceration; from that viewpoint, private prisons efficacy seems to be just as questionable.
Efficacy
The issue of efficacy is critical for the public vs. private argument, considering the punitive and rehabilitative role of prisons as a social institute. Here, efficacy denotes the prisons capability to both punish the offenders and restore their social skills (Le Vay 15). Therefore, the main idea of imprisonment, rather than merely punishing, is to allow inmates (as human beings and parts of human society although temporarily deprived of this status) to continue functioning as its members. Rehabilitation is known to reduce the rates of violence and decrease the risk of relapse, which makes it generally effective as a restoration practice.
Proponents of private corrections systems suggest that the profit incentive drives them to invest in treating the inmates well and adopting rehab programs because dealing with violence can be costlier in the long run. However, evidence suggests that the main expense item in public prisons is the security of the buildings and cells, which is ensured at the expense of commodities like food and healthcare. Additionally, rehabilitation officers are scarce and poorly-trained, which does not speak for the humane treatment of private prison inmates. Studies have shown that poor treatment is more likely to result in relapses than rehabilitation, which casts doubt on the efficacy of private prisons (Mason 12).
Efficiency
One of the strongest argument points for the privatization is their self-proclaimed efficiency in other words, the supposition that it costs less to run a private institution than a government-subsidized.
In this respect, the proponents refer to a body of research conducted in individual states and nationwide, which demonstrates substantial cost savings. For instance, a study conducted in 1997 in Arizona found that average daily costs per inmate are 17% lower in private than government prisons (McFarland, McGowan, and OToole par. 15-17). On the national scale, as the studies reported, in 1998-1999, the average costs per inmate were about 14% higher in government than in privatized institutions (McFarland, McGowan, and OToole par. 15-17).
However, such evidence may have been skewed because researchers, either intentionally or inadvertently, tended to overlook important factors such as cost of contract negotiation, which encompasses proposal-gathering, endurance, healthcare, etc. Subsequent studies, such as the one conducted in 2012, took all these aspects into consideration; when every potential expense item was accounted for, the analysis did not evidence public prisons to make any significant cost-effective difference (Henrichson and Delaney 68). Additionally, healthcare is reported to be one of the expense items where private prisons sometimes corner-cut; thus, even if some marginal cases prove to be more efficient, they are probably doing it at the expense of the inmates well-being.
Conclusion
To conclude, private prisons have not proved either safer or more effective and efficient in the long run. Therefore, the conception of a private institution operating more cost-effectively, safely, and efficiently than a public one, while at the same time creating profit, has not proved relevant in this case.
Works Cited
Clear, Todd R., Michael D. Reisig, and George F. Cole. American Corrections. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Henrichson, Christian, and Ruth Delaney. The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers. Federal Sentencing Reporter 25.1 (2012): 68-80. Print.
Le Vay, Julian. Competition for prisons: Public or private? Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2015. Print.
Mason, Cody. Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America.The Sentencing Project. The Sentencing Project, 2012. Web.
McFarland, Stephen, Chris McGowan, and Tom OToole. Special Project Summary. Restructuring Local Government. Cornell University, 2002. Web.
Siegel, Larry J., and Clemens Bartollas. Corrections Today. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.
The criminal justice system in the United States plays a critical role in ensuring that there is rule of law in the country. The correctional facilities are designed to ensure that those who break the law are transformed into people who can fit into the social system. The study looks at the United States prison system and the primary challenges it faces.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Corrections, according to Shipley and Arrigo (2012, p. 78), is a term describing a variety of functions typically carried out by government agencies, and involving the punishment, treatment, and supervision of persons who have been convicted of crimes. The term can also be used in the field of academics to refer to the study of programs, policies, and theories that are related to the practice of corrections (Mallicoat & Ireland, 2014). In the United States, corrections form part of the major components of the criminal justice system. When criminals are arrested, taken through the court system, and proven to be guilty, they are handed over to the correction system. The correction system is responsible for the imprisonment of the people, their parole, or probation.
As the name suggests, the primary goal of the correctional system is to transform the prisoners so that they can become better persons who can be integrated back to society after serving their term. In most of the cases, people often consider prisons as facilities meant to mete out punishment to those who are proven guilty and given jail terms by the courts. Lack of some of the freedoms and rights enjoyed by other citizens out of correctional facilities is the main reason why many people believe that prisons are meant to punish offenders. However, Cusack (2015) says that it is important to have a positive attitude toward the correction system. When the behavior of an individual becomes a danger or a bother to other members of the society, it may be necessary to take them through the correction system so that they can come to appreciate the need to respect the law. In this paper, the purpose is to conduct research about corrections and its importance in the United States.
Research problem
According to a study by Pollock (2014), most Americans still do not understand what corrections mean in relevance to the criminal justice system. The prison system is still viewed as centers for punishment and confinement of those who break the law. Others view it as a place where the lives of those who are sentenced to death are taken. The negative perception that most of the Americans have towards correctional facilities is not entirely unjustified. No one, in his or her right mind, would want to be incarcerated. People love their freedom and the benefits that come with it, and as such, would always avoid going to prison at all costs. The prison system was traditionally used as a place where those who break the law are tortured.
Many people have died in prison under very unclear circumstances (Innes, 2015). However, it is also true that many more always come out of these facilities fully transformed and ready to integrate with the rest of the society without being a threat to anyone. Cusack (2015) says that most criminals often turn to their criminal acts because of emotional, psychological, or economic reasons. In the correction centers, they get experts who can help them overcome the weaknesses that drive them into crime. When they are finally released, they can use the skills learned in the prison to make their society a better place for them and for others too. Conducting a study in this field will make it possible to create an understanding of correction and for the society to appreciate its relevance in transforming offenders into law-abiding citizens.
Literature Review
The criminal justice system in the United States has gone through massive changes over the recent past, and one of the areas that have witnessed these massive changes in the correctional system. Scholars have conducted extensive research in this field of corrections. In this section, the researcher will conduct a review of literature, in the form of annotated bibliography, to help understand this system.
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Cole, G. F. (2016). American corrections in brief. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.
In this book, the authors focus on corrections in the United States. They appreciate that the correction system in the United States has gone through a massive transformation over the recent past as the stakeholders try to ensure that prisoners can be transformed into better people in society. Those who go to prison are loved ones of American citizens or residents. The reason for their going to prison is related to their actions or inactions which go against the law. The aim of the correctional facilities is to remind the offender that they have a responsibility to society and that their actions or inactions have consequences. The primary goal of these facilities is to make the prisoners understand and appreciate the need to respect the law.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
The scholar focused on the ethical dilemmas and decisions that often have to be made in the criminal justice system in the country. Not everyone who is taken to court and proven to be guilty is guilty of the crime for which they are charged. There are cases where innocent people are forced to accept crimes they did not commit so as to get certain favors and to protect the real perpetrators. When this happens, the entire criminal justice system fails. The police fail in arresting the criminal. The prosecutors prosecute innocent people. The court sends the wrong person to jail and the prison systems start correcting the behavior of a person who needs not such services. In some cases, innocent people are framed up and taken to prison for offenses they never committed. The dilemma that the system faces is how to deal with a situation where innocent people end up in prisons. The scholar insists that it is the work of the police and the prosecution to ensure that innocent people are not framed for crimes they never committed.
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2017). Criminal justice in America. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning
The criminal justice system in the United States uniquely focuses on the need to mete out punishment in equal proportion to the offense committed. Criminal acts such as murder, rape, and robbery with violence are some of the offenses that attract serious punishments. Specific economic crimes may also attract serious punishment. It is the responsibility of the courts and the prosecutors to ensure that the jail term that one has to serve is proportionate to the crime committed. The authors criticized situation where low-level thieves are sentenced to over five years in jail for stealing food items, while corrupt government officials who steal millions meant for the public are sent to jail for less than one year because they can afford the best lawyers to argue out their case. Justice can be seen to have been served only if the punishment is proportionate to the crime. When a government official steals money meant for hospitals, many people may end up dying because of limited facilities or personnel. Such a crime can only be comparable to murder. The sentence that a serial killer would get should be the same as that given to such a corrupt government official.
Turvey, B. E., & Crowder, S. (2013). Ethical Justice: Applied issues for criminal justice students and professionals. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
Ethical justice is important but very elusive, according to these two authors. When a judge and the jury sits to listen to both the prosecution and the defense attorneys argue out their case in court, it is often believed that their knowledge of the case and decision shall purely be based on what is presented. It is expected of them that their ruling shall not, in any way, be influenced by the external forces. However, the truth is that in many cases these court officials allow themselves to be influenced by external forces. The jury or the judge may be compromised financially, through threats, or personal interests. Once these officers are compromised, ethical justice cannot be witnessed. The decision made will be biased and made to unfairly favor one party at the expense of the other. Such incidents are often common when the wealthy and the powerful find themselves in courts. Their influence makes it possible for them to bend the law in their favor. In such cases, innocent people find themselves serving jail terms for offenses committed by other people.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D. B., & Klofas, J. (2014). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management. New York, NY: Springer.
In their book, these scholars look at the role and responsibility of criminal justice organizations. The book emphasizes the role of the courts and prisons in making society a better place for everyone. The courts are expected to offer a stage where the prosecution and the defendant can argue their case in a fair platform. When the courts reach a conclusion that a given person is indeed guilty, it should be that the evidence presented is as convincing as possible. The criminal should then be handed over to prison service to start serving the sentence. The authors argue that the circumstances under which a person committed a given crime should be clear to the prison department. The correctional facilities should offer the offenders the opportunity to change their behavior. These correctional facilities have specialists who can help such individuals. However, that can only happen if they can get to learn the truth. The courts should coordinate very closely with the prison department, especially at the time of handing over an offender to the prison officers. The goal should be to ensure that the crime of such a person and circumstances under which it was committed remains clear to the prison officers.
Shahidullah, S. M. (2012). Comparative criminal justice systems: Global and local perspectives. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Shahidullah conducted a comparative study of the criminal justice system of the United States and that of other countries around the world. According to this research, the United States has a very unique criminal justice system compared with other countries. The manner in which different people are treated based on their crime differs across the world. For instance, many developed countries around the world still have the death penalty, but those sentenced to death end up serving their entire lives in prison.
However, the United States still has cases where people sentenced to death are killed, especially using lethal injections. Another uniqueness of the United States criminal justice system is the use of Guantanamo Bay as a military detention camp for people suspected to be terrorists. The scholar argues that some people spend more time in this concentration camp than they would serve in prison if they are sentenced in court. This system has seen many people admit to crimes they never committed. According to the United States constitution, the prosecution is prohibited from using torture or coercion to force a suspect to confess his crime. However, suspects sent to Guantanamo Bay are often subjected to emotional and physical torture. The conditions in this camp are worse than it would be in maximum prisons. As such, suspects would prefer owning mistakes, even if they are innocent, to avoid such harsh conditions.
Innes, C. (2015). Healing corrections: The future of imprisonment. Boston, MA: University Press of New England.
In this book, the scholar argues that there is a need to fight the rot in the prison system within the country. Imprisonment is not something that any person would want for him/herself, for a close friend, or a relative. However, it is an eventuality for people who are caught going against the law. Once one is imprisoned, there is a pattern that should be followed in ensuring that he or she pays for the mistakes committed. However, some corrupt prison officials are creating safe heavens in prisons for influential prisoners. Such prisoners end up in special cells where they have access to almost anything they may want. They can get to meet their family members and friends at any time. Some of them are criminals who get to continue running their criminal gangs even more efficiently while in prison. In such a system, the prisons fail in their cardinal duty of correcting offenders. They become institutions that facilitate crime in society. Such illegal practices need to be stopped.
Copes, H., & Pogrebin, M. (2016). Voices from criminal justice: Thinking and reflecting on the system. New York, NY: Routledge.
The United States criminal justice system has faced criticism over the years because of what many consider as favoritism for the rich and powerful, and injustice towards the poor. Many prisoners have offered accounts of how they were skillfully framed for offenses not even known to them. When taken to court, the system was efficient in sentencing them and sending them to prison. These people have tried to fight for justice while in prison, but the system is designed not to favor them. They are left to suffer and pain knowing that they are innocent. The impact of such actions is negative because these individuals when released may decide to take the law into their own hands as a way of seeking justice or revenge. Instead of fighting crime, such actions end up promoting it.
Cusack, C. M. (2015). Animals and criminal justice. New Brunswick, NY: Transaction Publishers.
Cusack conducted research on criminal justice and how the courts and prisons work to promote the creation of a society where people abide by the law. In this book, the scholar notes that the prison system has made an effort to ensure that prisoners get the best chance to transform their way of life to be in line with what is expected of them by society. However, the author laments that there are still some issues that need to be addressed in both the corridors of justice and in the prison system. In the corridors of justice, there has been a practice that ones innocence can best be demonstrated if they have financial strength. Without a good lawyer, it may be impossible for one to argue out his or her own case. The court-appointed lawyers are often overworked and lack the motivation that would drive them to fight for the rights of the accused. They care little about the freedom of their clients when working on pro bono.
Currie, E. (2013). Crime and punishment in America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
The author focuses on the need to ensure that crime is properly punished through the court and prison system in the country. However, the punishment should be meted out only after ascertaining that the suspect committed the said crime. When an innocent person is taken to jail because of the lack of resources to prove his or her innocence, then a cycle of injustice begins. When such a person is taken to court, there is nothing that can be done to him or her to transform him into a better person because he is not an offender, to begin with. In most of the cases, such people leave prisons worse than they were. The desire to seek revenge may drive them to interact closely with some of the hardcore criminals and even form alliances so that they can work as a unit once they are either released or when they manage to escape from prison.
Methodology
When planning to conduct research, one of the most important things to do is to come up with a methodology of how needed data will be collected and analyzed in order to get the desired results. In this section, the researcher will look at the method that will be used when gathering the data from both primary and secondary sources.
Data collection
Data will be collected from both primary and secondary sources. A secondary source of data will be obtained from books, journal articles, and other reliable online sources. Primary data sources will be obtained from specific individuals who will be sampled to take part in the study. The researcher intends to have correctional facility officers, prisoners, probation and parole officers, and court officials as participants in this study. Given that the participants will be people in different positions and capacities, stratified sampling will be the most appropriate way of selecting the sample. The groups mentioned above will be the different strata that will be used to identify the participants. In each stratum, a simple random sampling method will be used to identify specific individuals who will be part of the study. The participants will be duly informed about the intended study. The researcher plans to get permission to conduct the study from the relevant officials of the court and prisons selected for this research. Each of the selected participants will be prepared for the study before the actual day of collecting data. Data will be collected through interviews. The interview will be conducted using questionnaires.
Statistical data analysis
Data analysis may take qualitative or quantitative form based on the objectives of the study. In this research, the statistical method of data analysis was considered appropriate based on what the researcher seeks to achieve. There are a number of statistical methods that can be used when conducting quantitative studies. Mean is one of the methods that can be used to analyze data in detail. Through this method, we can determine how rampant such malpractices as corruption and favoritism are in our prison system. The biggest advantage of this method is that it allows the views of different people to be weighed before making a conclusion about how rampant a practice is within the system. To determine the mean, the response must be structured and assigned specific values.
Standard deviation is another important data analysis method that can be used in this study (Innes, 2015). It is used to determine how data is spread around the mean. For instance, there are people who believe that there is a rot in the correctional facilities and nothing is being done to address the issue. However, others believe that progress towards having a fair and corruption-free prison has been witnessed. To know how these varying views are spread around the mean, the standard deviation is very important. The third analysis that is important and may be very useful in this study is the regression analysis. This analysis helps in explaining the relationship that exists between dependent and independent variables. The analysis helps in determining whether the relationship is weak or strong. In this research, we will be looking at some of the issues causing inadequacy in the prison system. We will look at how strong the relationship is, and what can be done to address this issue.
The three statistical methods are very important in this study because they serve different purposes. However, the most important of the three analyses is regression analysis. The regression analysis makes it possible to determine the strength of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. As such, it will be possible to identify the primary causes of issues raised about our prison system. Identifying these independent variables makes it easy to find the desired solution.
Nowadays, significant restrictions are imposed on the participation of prisoners in scientific research, and these restrictions are the result of the disturbing history of inhumane and unethical experiments. At the same time, prisons do contain the population that is often suffering from diseases that still have no cure. Therefore, involving them in drug testing can bring positive results for themselves and the community.
This paper reviews the events that led to the introduction of restrictions and considers the positions of their opponents and proponents. The paper uses two peer-reviewed articles, a book from a reputable publisher, two websites (one governmental and one belonging to a professional medical organization), and two articles from the New York Times. New legislation is described by the most recent source, but the historic part uses less contemporary materials. I conclude that we are not ready to lift the restrictions, but the improvement of the quality of life in prisons and the control over ethics in research might allow us to consider changes.
History of the Issue: Dr. Kligman
Dr. Albert M. Kligman was an outstanding scientist. He described human hair cycle and the acne development, discovered the beneficial effects of tretinoin (the ingredient of remedies for acne and wrinkles), and found treatments for poison ivy effects. Moreover, he made dermatology scientific in nature and sponsored the University of Pennsylvanias dermatology department with the help of the money that his cosmetics discovery generated (Gellene, 2010). Unfortunately, this success was based on abusive, unethical experiments that were run at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia between 1951 and 1974 (Urbina, 2006). The prisoners who had been experimented upon in the 1960s kept reporting skin problems like blisters and rashes in the 2000s (Reiter, 2009). The inmates did not only test shampoos and tretinoin (which caused wounds and sores as the right dosage was sought for); they were also exposed to a variety of harmful (radioactive, toxic and hallucinogenic) substances and infections, which were of interest for pharmaceutical companies and governmental bodies (Gellene, 2010, para. 10-12). As a result, Dr. Kligman left another trace in our history: the scandals related to his experiments led to the development of federal human experimentation restrictions that were introduced in 1976 (Reiter, 2009) and nowadays can be found at the National Institutes of Health (2016) website in their updated version.
Admittedly, Kligmans studies were not the only ones that had caused public outrage. Between 1944 and 1975, the US Government was involved in chemical weapons testing and radioactive exposure studies (The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, n.d.); the Tuskegee Study that was carried out between 1930s-1970s involved infecting Alabama black males with syphilis and not treating them to study the development of the disease (Urbina, 2006, para. 4). However, the Holmesburg Prison was unique in demonstrating the vulnerability of inmates, which led to the restrictions aimed at protecting them.
The restrictions also had an adverse effect: because of them, even beneficial research was stopped (Gellene, 2010, para. 16). Nowadays, prisoners are supposed to be available only for non-intrusive, low-risk, individually beneficial research (Reiter, 2009, p. 502), and the studies are to be controlled and supervised by the representatives of the Office for Human Research Protections (National Institutes of Health, 2016, para. 10).
Agreeing with Dr. Kligman
Despite the limitations, medical experimentation in humans is still necessary: any drug must be tested on a sufficient number of human subjects before it can be used in healthcare (Urbina, 2006). As a result, the population of prisons becomes very attractive to scientists, especially since the number of people suffering from the diseases like AIDS, the treatment for which is still being developed, is quite large among inmates. In fact, scientists keep finding loopholes for using prisoners for tests. An example is the experimental Prometa program that was carried out between 2006 and 2008 to find addiction treatment. Prisoners could be directed to take part in Prometa if they were found to possess drugs, even though none of the treatment prescriptions had received proper approval (Reiter, 2009, p. 503).
This fact hardly testifies to the development of ethical practices in the modern scientific community, but hypothetically, an ethical research is not expected to carry significant risks. Moreover, its benefits are supposed to be immense for the entire population of the planet, including the inmates, who, as was stated, often suffer from diseases that the modern medicine only seeks to cure (The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, n.d.). Consequently, the scientific community proceeds to attempt to lift the prisoner participation restrictions (Urbina, 2006).
Disagreeing with Dr. Kligman
Prison inmates are admittedly a vulnerable population, and when considering the changes in regulations, it is necessary to focus on whether they might benefit in the end. Supposedly, new drugs should be able to treat AIDS more effectively, but the idea that the newest drugs will become accessible to HIV-positive prison inmates causes serious doubt (Urbina, 2006). In fact, it is most likely that the price of such treatment or cure will be prohibitive. The issue of money involved in research also endangers the ethical conduct. Dr. Bernard Ackerman, who had worked with Dr. Kligman, states that the studies in the Holmesburg Prison were turned into a business (Urbina, 2006, para. 19).
It is not surprising that people were regarded as the means of achieving an aim. One might argue that they had expressed consent and even volunteered for the procedures, but it should be pointed out that consent is especially dubious when a prison is involved (National Institutes of Health, 2016). Nowadays, it is a requirement to provide the documents in the language that a person knows (Lo, 2010, 46-50), but even this fact cannot guarantee that the person who is not acquainted with science is capable of understanding the possible consequences. Even outside the prison, consent is often considered just a bureaucratic procedure or even responsibility exemption, which affects the effectiveness of fulfilling its aims: that is, informing, and ensuring the freedom of choice (Takahashi, Ramos, Pinheiro-Neto, Miziara, & Oliveira, 2011). In prison, concerns can be raised with respect to coercive prices of participation, and the problem of the low quality of life (including inefficient medical care), the improvement of which can become a coercive element (Urbina, 2006).
In general, as pointed out by Reiter (2009), the arguments that are used for the experiments that involve prisoners presuppose a base level of acceptable conditions in prison and ethical motivations among researchers (p. 565). If a means of guaranteeing these two aspects are found in the future, lifting the restrictions on prisoner involvement in research may be considered. Until then, it is hardly a possibility.
Conclusion
The history of prisoner involvement in research is extremely disturbing. The arguments that are being made in favor of lifting the restrictions imposed on prisoner participation in studies are concerned with the potential benefits that the society can gain from the discoveries. Opponents of changes in the legislation point out the questionable nature of informed consent in prison and emphasize the fact that prisoners are unlikely to benefit from the discoveries. It can be concluded that given the current level of control over the studies, the inefficiency of informed consent, and the quality of life in prisons, the restrictions imposed on prisoner participation in research cannot be lifted at the moment.
The fact that some children in the United States are sent to adult prisons is of great concern to many researchers and policy-makers. In particular, they focus their attention on the difficulties experienced by these individuals (Kolivoski & Shook, 2016). This paper will explain how and why some minors may be put in adult prisons. It is also critical to describe the way in which they are treated and protected.
Finally, one should explain how one can sentence these children without sending them to adult prisons. Overall, American legislators should adopt the policies helping convicted children re-integrate themselves into society; to achieve this goal, they should reduce the incarceration of underage people in adult prisons.
The Cases When Children Can Be Put in Adult Prisons
There are several situations when a minor person can be transferred to an adult prison. The offenses committed by these people are normally heard by juvenile courts. Nevertheless, sometimes, the criminal justice system can try and punish these children as adults. Firstly, one should speak about the cases when an underage individual commits a serious felony such as rape or murder (Abrams & Terry, 2017).
Additionally, it is possible to consider the situations when a minor carries out an offense despite the previous efforts to rehabilitate him/her (Abrams & Terry, 2017). Under such circumstances, the judge of the juvenile court has the authority to transfer the child to an adult court. Additionally, there are statutory requirements according to which a child, who has perpetrated a certain crime, should be transferred to an adult court. Sometimes, the jurisdiction over a case is dependent on the charges made by the prosecutors (Abrams & Terry, 2017). Furthermore, if a juvenile was once tried as an adult, the subsequent offenses committed by this person also have to be heard in adult courts. Thus, the criminal justice system can sometimes lead children to adult prisons.
One should bear in mind that in the United States, there is no universal standard determining when an underage individual can be put in an adult prison. In many states, there are no minimum age standards that can prevent a child from being tried in an adult court (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015). Very often, juvenile courts can transfer minors to adult courts if these people are aged 14 or above (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015). Thus, children in the United States are not properly safeguarded against being put in adult prisons.
The Protections Available to Minors
The treatment received by underage individuals is determined by the distinct needs of these people and their vulnerabilities. It should be noted that they are usually more exposed to the risk of both physical and sexual abuse when they are sent to adult prisons (Kolivoski & Shook, 2016). Additionally, they must not be deprived of opportunities for continuing their education even when their liberty is restricted.
Therefore, the representatives of the criminal justice system are expected to take several measures. Firstly, in some cases, children are allowed to remain in juvenile facilities even when they are found guilty of serious crimes. They are transferred to adult prisons only when they turn 18 (Kolivoski & Shook, 2016). This precaution is aimed at minimizing their interactions with habitual adult offenders. Moreover, this policy is supposed to reduce the risk of their victimization.
In those cases, when minors are incarcerated in adult prisons, they are expected to be separated from adult offenders. These requirements were formulated in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (Benekos & Merlo, 2014).
Much attention should also be paid to the Prison Rape Elimination Act that requires correctional facilities to safeguard minors from this abuse (Soyer, 2018). For instance, there should be a certain minimum number of officers monitoring juvenile inmates (Soyer, 2018). Additionally, prisoners should be allowed to complain about such cases to outside authorities. It is also critical to consider the developmental needs of these people. In particular, the correctional facility is obliged to help these people receive the education required for the re-integration into society. Overall, the government is obliged to recognize the distinct characteristics of underage convicts.
Fair Sentencing for Children
Those children, who are now put in adult prisons, require the close attention of legislators, social workers, and policy-makers. At first, public administrators should have a clear idea of such a phenomenon as juvenile delinquency. In particular, they should remember that this phenomenon is primarily caused by the failure of social institutions. For instance, children growing up in impoverished communities normally have fewer educational opportunities (Decker & Marteache, 2016). Very often, they attend schools that do not receive sufficient funding. Furthermore, they live in neighborhoods in which crimes are very widespread (Decker & Marteache, 2016).
From their perspective, delinquent behavior becomes something habitual. By focusing on this issue, one can understand the injustice of the sentencing policies allowing children to be incarcerated in adult prisons. These policies are not aimed at helping underage individuals become full-fledged citizens. More likely, such sentencing practices marginalize these children and turn them into hardened criminals. It should be mentioned that these people are more likely to commit crimes in the future (Black, 2018). Furthermore, they have fewer opportunities for securing any well-paid employment (Black, 2018). Thus, it is essential to adopt alternative approaches to this problem.
Legislators should design several policies that can promote the rehabilitation of underage individuals. Firstly, if children are not found guilty of any violent crimes, they should not be incarcerated in adult prisons. In such cases, they may be required to go to juvenile facilities. Secondly, they may be obliged to participate in various rehabilitation programs without going to any correctional facilities. One has to admit that in some cases, incarceration in an adult prison may be the only option available to a court. This argument applies to cases when a minor commits a felony, such as rape or murder. However, if a child perpetrates less serious crimes, he/she should not be incarcerated in an adult prison.
Conclusion
This discussion indicates that, at present, the American criminal justice system exposes many underage individuals to additional risks by placing them in adult prisons. There are some safeguards that are supposed to minimize their victimization. For instance, it is possible to mention the requirement according to which they should be separated from adult convicts. Nevertheless, these measures are not sufficient because they do not ensure that convicted children can reintegrate themselves into the community. In their turn, legislators should adopt a different policy; in particular, they should minimize the transfer of minors to adult prisons. In this way, they can assist them in becoming law-abiding citizens.
References
Abrams, L., & Terry, D. (2017). Everyday resistance: The transition to adulthood among formerly incarcerated youth. Newark, NY: Rutgers University Press.
Benekos, P., & Merlo, A. (2014). Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Black, D. (2018). Ending zero tolerance: The crisis of absolute school discipline. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Decker, S., & Marteache, N. (2016). International handbook of juvenile justice (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Kolivoski, K., & Shook, J. (2016). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons: Examining the relationship between age and prison behavior is transferred juveniles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(10), 1-18.
Neubauer, D., & Fradella, H. (2015). Americas courts and the criminal justice system (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Soyer, M. (2018). Lost childhoods: Poverty, trauma, and violent crime in the post-welfare era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Incarceration is one of the forms of punishment for committed crimes. The Prison system in the United States consists of many correctional facilities that are intended to rehabilitate criminals. It includes federal, state, and local (county and municipal) stockades. The modern U.S. penitentiary method has retained the influence of the Pennsylvania-Oborne system: prisons use strict policing measures, but there are some elements of a progressive punishment reflection. Penitentiaries can also be divided into several types depending on the form of imprisonment. Convicts expecting sentencing or being condemned for a misdemeanor offense are kept in jails (Wagner and Bernadette 2). People that are convicted of a felony are usually sent to prison. Those who have committed particularly serious crimes are often held exclusively in solitary confinement.
The U.S. penitentiary system has many problems, the chief of them is the huge number of inmates. There are approximately 2,5 million people in prison, about 25 percent of the worlds jail population. They are so overcrowded that the Supreme Court has decided that the United States needs to reduce the defendants number. California has decreased the amount by more than 15 thousand people, but it has not lessened the acuteness of the crisis in which the whole penitentiary system is. Most U.S. prisoners are people of color, which means that the American penitentiary system does have a pronounced racial character. According to the federal Bureau, 38.6 percent of convicts are black, and 30.1 percent are Hispanic (Melossi and Massimo 61). The rest are white (27.5%), Native American (2.4%), and Asian (1.5%).
The countrys jail population, which has grown to millions, is seen in the United States as a unique social phenomenon and is referred to as a policy of mass incarceration. The term spread in America back in the early 1970s, when the number of people put behind bars increased exponentially. This course was largely due to the 37th president of the United States, Richard Nixon, declaring war on drug-related crime. Ronald Reagan continued his direction; during the eight years of his rule, the number of prisoners in the United States rose from 329,000 to 627,000 (Melossi and Massimo 64). Due to the dramatic increase in captives in the 1980s, the country faced an acute shortage of jails. Private companies came to the aid of the state, to which they began to transfer the custody of prisoners.
The most famous prisons in the United States are Alcatraz and Guantanamo. Alcatraz is located on a rocky island near the city of San Francisco. Originally Alcatraz was a military jail, so the main contingent of the institution consisted of privates and officers convicted by a tribunal. In 1934, a new building was erected on the island, cause of the transfer of Alcatraz to the U.S. federal system. The security measures were seriously strengthened, the number of cells was increased to 600, and prison towers were built along the perimeter of the building. In 1963, the penitentiary was closed due to unprofitability, and now there is a museum on the island. Guantanamo was established in 2002 on the grounds of a U.S. military base. The central purpose of the Guantanamo Bay prison is to hold terrorists and those accused of collaborating with them. The terms and regime can be changed by prison authorities or U.S. military officials (Melossi and Massimo 54). There have been reports of prisoner mistreatment since its inception. Among other things, sleep deprivation, exposure to loud sounds and silence, and various torture are practiced here.
Works Cited
Melossi, Dario, and Massimo Pavarini. The Prison And The Factory: Origins Of The Penitentiary System. Springer, 2018.
Wagner, Peter, and Bernadette Rabuy. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017. Prison Policy Initiative, vol. 119, 2017, pp. 123.
The Notorious Prisons episode covers a comprehensive review of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, also referred to as the Big Mac . As of the time of the video, the prison termed unique among other penitentiaries within the country housed over 1400 adult male offenders (Gray, 2016). Many of the inmates are maximum-security offenders; a fact that the narrator provides is underlined by the prisons sordid history of prisoner riots and inmate brutality and violence.
The prison staff closely monitors the inmate population. An inmate may not use any of the facilities, including the yards, the medical facilities, or the phone booths without a personnel escort. This close scrutiny is, however, inadvertently justified in the 23-hour lockdown that has been implemented in the penitentiary in an attempt to control to the inmate population. This lockdown was effected following two particularly destructive prison riots; the first in 1973 in which most of the prison succumbed to flame, and the second in 1985, where most of the prison staff was grievously injured.
While the measures may seem excessive, the prison staff, as well as the inmates themselves concur to the dangerous nature of Big Mac through several interviews interspersed within the video. For instance, Kenny Funkhouser, an inmate serving a life sentence in the penitentiary alludes that he has witnessed several stabbings and strangulations, and other more novel ways to kill within the walls of the prison (Gray, 2016). Alan Fulbright supports this morbid assertion, another inmate commuting a 100-year sentence, and a correctional officer, Daniel Wilson. Calving Alexander, another convict serving a 25-year sentence reiterates that the nature of Big Mac is owing to the fact that it is home to some of the deadliest criminals in modern society (Gray, 2016). The extensive security measures undertaken by the prison may be in direct response to this fact as well.
Through a retrospective section, the narrator asserts that Oklahoma did not have its own prison at the turn of the 20th century. Instead, convicted felons were ferried to the Kansas State Penitentiary. In 1908, the city made plans to build its prison on a parcel of land south of Tulsa, which had once been occupied by the Choctaw Indians. The East cellblock, is now deserted due to inhumane conditions, was the first structure to be built, and was designed to hold 100 men; a number that had been far exceeded by 1935. The prison has a distinct shape, with a central rotunda, with connected cell blocks and offices that resemble spokes on a wheel (Gray, 2016). To date, the rotunda remains the hub of the Oklahoma Penitentiary and is the key to operating the prison.
The prison has endured an arduous history of inmate violence and escape, which is why the current procedure of handling inmates is considerably strict, despite an individuals non-combative outlook. In as early as 1914, several people were killed when inmates stole a gun and staged a break-out. Thereafter Bloody Sunday saw an attempted escape in 1941, with several casualties including the warden and the deputy. Grievances of inadequate food and healthcare and allegations of racial discrimination brought about the riots of 1973; which was the greatest challenge as per that point in its history (Gray, 2016). The aging and understaffed prison were severely overcrowded, leading to conditions that resulted in an extremely chaotic riot that necessitated the intervention of the National Guard.
Today, the prison is reflective of how attitudes towards building prisons changed throughout the 20th century. For instance, Cellblock F is the oldest section still in use, with its long steel bars reflective of the period in which it was built. Unit A features solid doors which are reminiscent of a time in the 1980s when privacy and quiet were believed to be essential for prisoner rehabilitation. In contrast, Unit H is partially underground and cordoned off within its own security fence. This unit houses the most dangerous inmates, and its windowless, heavily reinforced cells had been initially built to withstand the rigors of lockdown (Gray, 2016). However, breakouts continue to be attempted in more recent times.
In conclusion, the narrator reviews an issue that has been relatively controversial in moral and legislative domains; that of capital punishment. An electric chair, called Old Sparky among prison staff was installed in the Oklahoma prison in 1914 and was used for the next 50 years; electrocuting 82 inmates in the tenure of its use (Gray, 2016). However, in 1977, Oklahoma became the first state after Texas to adopt execution by lethal injection instead; which was termed more humane than the electric chair. A notable figure executed via lethal injection in prison would be Thomas J. Grasso, who requested his extradition from New York to Oklahoma, as the former had outlawed capital punishment.
Overall, the Oklahoma State Penitentiary presents a moral conundrum of ethics and humanity. On the one hand, the 23-hour lockdown imposed on inmates presents a depiction of albeit excessive punishment but placed in the context of the riots, the brutality of the inmates, and the very confessions of some of the inmates interviewed may be argued from a logical and ethical perspective. However, the annual games and charity events held on the grounds depict an entirely different story, if only one of hope, that some level of decency and reform exists in this prison. Ultimately, the question remains whether the quiet atmosphere of resignation imposed by the perpetual lockdown is sustainable.
References
Gray J. (2016). Notorious prisons sE01 Oklahoma state penitentiary documentary. [Video file]. Web.
Between the articles of violence and the observations about the extent of injustice in the American prison system, there is a high level of injustice instigated by the U.S. government to the African Americans. The design and laws governing injustice in the country rely heavily on deeply entrenched racial prejudice used to undermine black Americans continuously. While both races, Caucasians and blacks, commit violence, the significant violence, as Afzaal (2012) shows, is being committed by the U.S. government and through its structural actors.
Structural violence is a means by which the government, while it might appear not to be directly involved in creating unequal chances, is now harming the black Americans. Through ethical and legal systems, the African American community has been preoccupied with intentional harm is concerned with portraying, punishing, or holding blacks as the guilty party (Afzaal, 2012). That is the reason why as Rich (2014) shows first, nearly half of the prisoners in the U.S. have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy nonviolent terms. Second, there is an increase in prisoners in state institutions that are serving life sentences without parole.
Some other institutions apart from schools, hospitals, and courthouses, where structural violence might exist, are the legislative arm of the government. In the U.S., almost one-quarter (23 percent) of the Senate and House of Representatives members belong to ethnic minorities and blacks (Schaeffer, 2021). Like in all other institutions, ethnic minorities and African Americans are denied equal representation, making it challenging for them to fight for equality in a heavily founded country on racial segregation. Meaning, the fight for equal rights between these groups will never be achieved unless there is a fifty-fifty representation in all groups in the political divide.
References
Afzaal, A. (2012). The Violence Triangle. Ahmed Afzaal. Web.
Rich, B. A. (2014). Observations on the Nature and Extent of Injustice in the American Prison System. American Journal of Bioethics, 14, 7, 1-3.
Over the years, the U.S correctional system endured several reforms that started when the country got its independence in the 18th century. Reformatory reforms have occurred through the history of the U.S from the time when the earliest prison was constructed during the late 1700s. Two U.S federal states namely Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, initiated the reformatory reforms in the U.S. Before the reform, several of the common punishments practices were considered cruel, barbaric, unreasonable, and anti-human rights. The reform agenda that was started in the 1700s saw the creation of prisons as a departure from hanging of offenders, to cruel punishment, to manual labor, to rehabilitation and to current reforms that continue to change the U.S correctional system.
Principals of the reformatory improvement
One of the principals of the reformatory reform was Dorothea Dix. Her notable work included humanizing the living environment of inmates. She won a case against one American jail. This win saw women living surroundings get better to include dirt free and warmed cells. Apart from this case, she traversed the world championing the course of improving living conditions of inmates in Africa, Europe and America (Brown, 1998). Other notable work include plead for human rights to Queen Victoria of England and the Pope. Dorothea, in addition, offered support toward the transformation of the U.S jail system from sign-up manual labor to training (IHAP, 2012).
Dr. J. Galt is another pioneer reformist of the U.S prison system. He established the earliest known psychiatric sanatorium in America around 1841B.C. He was a strong advocate for prisoners categorization with regard to their mental health. He proposed this approach because he believed that all people should be treated with dignity. Dr. J. Galt held that, the mentally ill and disabled inmates deserved to be treated with self-respect. He proposed the outpatient option in place for lifelong stays in prison. He also proposed the talk therapy approach (IHAP, 2012).
Louis Dwight championed juvenile rights in prison. He proposed the separation of children offenders from mature inmates. He founded the Boston Prison Discipline Society, and facilitated the establishment of prisons rigorous penal systems.
Francis L. Howe and Samuel G. Howe shared a common purpose with Dorothea. They proposed the creation of libraries and other essential literacy facilities in prisons, discontinuation of beating and whipping of prisoners, besides the separation of juveniles, women and psychologically troubled inmates from other inmate populations.
What Historical Forces Led to this Movement?
While the reformatory reforms were being initiated, the U.S was undergoing major transformations. They included population growth, several battles that saw the conquering of both California and Texas and the concern for slavery. In addition, this era was characterized by people fighting for their civil rights, and women starting to claim the rights they had been denied for several years (Reid, 2012).
This era in the American history was the basis upon which the humane treatment of prisoners was launched. Many Americans used the constitution that had just been established to fight for their rights. During this era, the society began to notice the manner in which detainees were being penalized, and it resolved that habits such as beating and whipping were appropriate for beasts than for human beings. One of the people who discredited the practice of whipping inmate was Benjamin Rush. Benjamin considered whipping as a display of violence that if left unattended could have spread through the society and have a negative effect (Reid, 2012.).
Was Prison Reform Successful?
The prison reforms started in the 1700 were successful. The reforms helped several individuals establish effective new rules that improved the welfare of prison populations. Even though these reforms pioneers concentrated on specific issues, every effective improvement they undertook led to the emergence of an additional improvement. The diverse reforms that came about, allowed new prison facilities to be put together, more compassionate handling of inmates, and separation of inmates. However, because of the vicissitude of viewpoint concerning the purpose and status of penitentiaries, changes will always take place (McShane, 1996).
Influences of the System on the Correctional System Today
Today, penitentiaries not only partition residential areas into cells, but also have numerous professional and learning programs to support the rehabilitation of inmates. Furthermore, the Pennsylvanian structure, which was founded in the 18th century following the reformatory reforms, is still practiced in several penitentiaries in the U.S today. One aspect of this structure entails division of inmates as per crimes committed as well as isolated imprisonment.
Influences That Have Changed
One of the influences is that solitary imprisonment is still a contentious issue in prisons nowadays. The other influence is that the initial stages reformatory reforms were not entirely victorious in abolishing what critics suppose to be bad suffering. In addition, parole was introduced to deal with the problem of overcrowding.
Roles of Probation and Parole Officers in the Criminal Justice
Depending on the system, the responsibilities of these officers may converge or diverge. For instance, in some systems the parole officer is involved in a criminal case after the lawbreaker completes some of his or her sentence-time in jail. On the other hand, a probation officer is involved when a court of law puts an offender under probation. The other roles of these officers include, helping the court sentence convicted criminals, considering offenders criminal evidence by interviewing their friends and relatives, getting involved in pre trial investigations, rehabilitating offenders and arresting probationers or parolees if they break the law. They also help former inmates integrate into the society through helping them find work, housing among other things (Martin, 2005).
History of Probation and Parole in Criminal Justice
Available literature shows that the idea of probation and parole began in England, where the jury or the judge used courts official pardon to reduce the sentence of those who committed felony. Probation was accepted in the U.S in the 19th century. John Augustus popularized parole and probation in the American judicial system, earning him the name the Father of Probation (Siegel, 2010).
Theories of Community Corrections
One of the notable criminal theories is the Labeling theory. The Labeling theory articulates that when a person is labeled a lawbreaker, the public creates an image from which that individual cannot break out. According to this supposition, the likeness formed defines the role of ex-criminals roles in the society. In addition, it incarcerates the labeled individual to a life of crime from which they can never flee. This theory correlates perfectly to the concept of expunging of criminal record as a way of re-integrating criminals back to the society (Hanser, 2010). Other theories include the broken window theory, which correlates to graffiti reduction programs, and the three strikes theory that correlates to the classical school of criminology.
References
Brown, T. J. (1998). Dorothea Dix: New England reformer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hanser, R. D. (2010). Community Corrections. Los Angeles: Sage.
Torture occurs when a person imposes severe psychological or physical pain on someone else for a specific reason. Authorities torture a person to obtain a confession for a crime or to gain information from them. According to Amnesty international (2020), it is used as way of punishment in prisons around the world. Under international law, torture, among other forms of ill-treatment of inmates, is always illegal and has been outlawed for decades. However, many countries have failed to criminalize it as national law hence defying international law. The United States criminal justice system is one of the countries that ignore the guidelines in regard to the law.
High profile bodies such as the CIA have misled the public to understand torture to be generally confined to national security and terrorism cases. However, research reveals that it can happen to anyone found on the wrong side of the law (Amnesty international, 2020). Torture methods have several variations: they can be physical; the torturer gains total authority over the prisoners body and, in most cases, is done by more than one person for physical dominance. It involves practices like an electric shock of the body, extreme beatings, pulling off body parts like nails, and many more (Amnesty international, 2020). The main aim is to have the prisoner suffer physically, either with or without direct contact with the torturers. For instance, depriving sleep does not directly involve physical contact, yet an inmate ends us excessively exhausted hence suffering physically (Amnesty international, 2020). It is a form of torture which is not generally undertaken to punish the victim but to break the prisoners will. For instance, when a spy is being tortured to obtain information, the torturer must first break his/her will. Therefore, physical torture as punishment does not consist of pre-set, lawful guidelines over a definite period.
The second form of torture is long term isolation in prisons. For the safety of prisoners, the prison officials isolate those who exhibit violent behavior and those sentenced for the extremely severe cases (Amnesty international, 2020). In this light, different classes of isolation units range from very restrictive to less restrictive. Isolation in less restrictive cells allows the inmates to socialize once in a while with others. However, for those in very restrictive cells, total isolation is involved where inmates are confined for up to 25 years (Amnesty international, 2020). Due to this, many penology scholars have condemned this form of punishment and labeled it as a level of punishment similar to psychological torture. Amnesty international (2020) states that the probability that long-term isolation contributes to a reduction in criminality in jails has been featured as speculative by some scholars. Evidence has proven that they have done so little in reducing criminal activities in and outside prisons.
The death penalty involves a punishment where a prisoner is sentenced to death for a crime committed. It is mostly used in severe crimes such as murder, rape, drug-related infractions, among others (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). In my opinion, death penalty is immoral and represents a lack of appreciation for human life. It forever deprives a prisoner of the chance to gain from new evidence or new laws that may warrant the reversal of a conviction or the revoking of a death sentence.
In conclusion, this paper has successfully discussed the issue of prison punishment by specifically looking at the two types of tortures which are often used in obtaining information from suspects. Even though the methods are often considered effective by many security agencies such as the CIA and others around the world, they are usually harsh to the people being tortured. The issue of death penalty has also been discussed. It is high time countries find other ways of dealing with people who commit serious crimes instead of the death penalty. Life imprisonment is probably a better option that countries could consider.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2020). The case against the death penalty. Web.
Amnesty International. (2020). Why Amnesty thinks torture should be abolished everywhere. Web.