Prison Reforms and Alternatives

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

To begin with it should be stated that the issues of imprisonment are widely regarded in the literature and specialized periodic issues. The fact is that, this sphere of legislative branch of any country is subjected to steady development, and is of highest importance, as it is the tool of achieving the order and granting internal safety for the citizens. The fact is that, there are several ways of the deprivation of freedom, and each may be differentiated with the level of monitoring and the level of deprivation of freedom.

History of Prisons

As for the matter of history of imprisonment, it should be stated that for the most periods of historical development imprisonment was not regarded as the way of punishing criminals, but, just a way of keeping them, and restricting their moving before their capital punishment. The first mentioning of prisons and imprisonment may be found in Old Testament. Originally, dungeons were built to confine prisoners and those who were not meant to be killed. Often the galley slaves were confined in such dungeons. The debtors were often arrested and put into debtor’s prisons until they were able to pay their debts, thus paying for their freedom. (Beattie, 2004)

The first mentioning of prison as we got used to know it was in the 19^th century in Great Britain. The imprisonment system which is used nowadays was born in London on the basis of the views by Jeremy Bentham. The very notion of imprisonment started to be regarded as a part of punishment, and the issues of incarceration were used. The fact is that, the imprisonment was not just a time for waiting a state trial or hanging, thus, it was deeply revolutionary.

As Braune (2003) states, the first prisons, which are regarded as close to modern prisons, were sometimes known as “penitentiary”. From the name of these tpes of prisons it is possible to make the conclusion that the aim of these facilities was to achieve the penance of any prisoner. This was achieved by strict discipline regimes, silent reflections and often forced, harassing and often useless labor. It is also necessary to mention that this system of prisoners management, which is often called “Auburn System”, is reinforced by properly worked out prison architecture: separate system and Panopticon

The 19^th century prison system development also originated the issues of rehabilitation by the means of education and skilled labor. However, the sanctions, which were imposed for criminal behavior were always the public event, which were aimed to shame the imprisoned, and prevent others from resorting to the criminal behavior. The sanctions included the ducking stool, the pillory, whipping and branding. Still, lots of crimes presupposed the death penalty.

In spite of the fact that he ideas of imprisonment as a part of punishment started to spread, still, the imprisonment rarely was the only punishment, and people were often held before their trial or awaiting the punishment itself. The prisons themselves were common, independently on the age and sex of the prisoners.

It is often emphasized that the prisons were awfully maintained, and the warders who controlled the prisons and prisoners were too negligent. People often died of such called gaol fever (a form of typhus).

It is necessary to emphasize that one of the most significant and revolutionary innovations of this period was the creation of the first correction house (the prototype of a boot camp) – the London Bridewell. The fact is that, these houses were the part of the Poor Law system. The main aim of these houses was to instill habits of industry through prison labor. These houses confined minor offenders, vagrants and local poor people. They all were absorbed in the overall prison system under the control of the local Justices of the Peace. (Gibbs, 2008)

Overcrowding

To begin with it should be stated that the overcrowding is one of the most challenging issues in the sphere of imprisonment. The fact is that, the legislative systems all over the world are facing this problem. On the one hand it signifies the effective work of criminal justice systems, on the other hand, this problem requires urgent and effective solution, as the personal space should be regulated and observed even in prisons, where all the other spaces and freedoms are heavily restricted.

According to the statistical data, the filling of the European prisons is 130% of their nominal capacity. The USA represents the value of 107%. African countries show h leading numbers on these issues: Bangladesh – 228%, Kenya 337% (the highest rate off prison occupancy in the world (Simon, 2002). Mitchell and Herman (2007) state the fact that prison overcrowding is a consequence of criminal justice policy, not rising crime rates. The over-use of pre-trial detention, along with strict sentencing practices, is just two contributory factors. Imprisonment is increasingly being used for minor and petty offences. The mentally ill and drug users are far more likely to be detained in prison than in an appropriate care institution.

Originally, the main problem of overcrowding is that it essentially undermines the capability of the imprisonment system to meet the general and basic needs and requirements of prisoners. Thus, the prisoners are deprived of the issues of timely and professional healthcare, food and accommodation. Overcrowding also diminishes the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs, which also include educational activities and the recreation. Moreover, the problem of overcrowding endangers and violates the basic rites of those who are imprisoned. These rights entail the right for the standards of living and the right for all the conditions for preserving physical and mental health. The fact is that, these rights are guaranteed by Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 11 and 12 of the International Convent on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Taking into account the problem of overcrowding and the basic requirements of imprisoning, it should be stated that the lives of all the prisoners are also regulated with internal rules. Thus, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment (rules 9-22) grant the following: accommodation, health care, proper ventilation, floor space, bedding, personal hygiene and comfortable room temperatures. There is no necessity to emphasize why overcrowding undermines these requirements. (Mainprize, 2002)

Reduce Overcrowding

First of all it should be stated that the plans for reducing the overcrowding are elaborated all over the world. However, the majority of these plans are not performed due t numerous reasons. Originally, any plan on these issues is required to provide an adequate solution of the problem of overcrowding, and, it is considered, that the issues that should be touched upon should be the following:

The imprisonment facility population should be decreased by the level consistent with facility so that the violent offenders can serve out their full sentences.
Juveniles and non-violent misdemeanor criminals should subjected to rehabilitation.
Additional financial obligations should not be imposed on taxpayers. Originally, all the expenses should be carried out by the criminals themselves.
Supervision of probation should be increased.
Private companies should be utilized, and there should not be a sole reliance on the government-run parole and probation system. The private sector appearance bond system is a well proven workable model.
Finally, and most importantly, there should be assurances that under the program’s operation there would be no increase in recidivism. The solution must be capable of demonstrating in the early stages of implementation that no adverse impact upon community safety occurs.

Alternatives

History of Probation

To begin with it is necessary to point out that the history of probation and the first mentioning of such kind of imprisonment may be traced back to English criminal Law for the period of Middle Ages. As the severe punishment were imposed on everyone (adults and children, men and women) for any minor offense, such sentences as branding, flogging, mutilation and execution were common for menial crimes. There existed up to 200 crimes, which presupposed the capital punishment. Thus, the issues of probation were regarded. The names, which are closely linked with the introduction of probation, are Matthew Davenport Hill ‑ 18th century English barrister and judge, and John Augustus, a 19th Century Boston boot-maker. Matthew Davenport Hill was a young professional. He often witnessed the sentencing of some minor offenders, and supposed that their sentencing could be restricted to a one day arrest under strict supervision by their parents or some other guardian. Gottfredson and McConville (2001) describes the fact that when he eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar practice for individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of them.

Boot Camps

As for the boot camps, it should be stated that the first boot camps appeared in the US states of Georgia and Oklahoma in 1983. The main aim of these camps was to maximize the possible deterrence, decrease the levels of overcrowding, decrease the expenses of the correctional system and decrease the levels of recidivism. The fact is that, boot camps are regarded as the middle link between the prisons and the probation, as they are less restrictive than prisons, but severer than probations. (Simon, 2002)

It is necessary to mention that in Florida the boot camps are prohibited since June 2006, as 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson died while in a boot camp, thus, the governor adopted the legislation project, which forbade the boot camps in Florida. Later, this death became the matter of lots of speculations, and it is claimed that Anderson was killed by a supervisor for not continuing physical exercise. Thus, the boot camps were forbidden in some other states.

Electronic Monitoring

Taking into account the issues of electronic monitoring, it should be emphasized that only countries with favorable economic position can afford the installation and proper management of these systems. It is stated that originally it was found to add to the safety level of the prisons, and, the prisoners are claimed to pay at least $70 per week for the monitoring equipment could be properly managed and supported. Offenders, if they are monitored, feel this, and aim not to behave badly: seeing others – friends and family – doing the things they couldn’t, and they experienced temptation as a result. If the monitoring system is adjusted, the bracelet effect may be observed, when the criminals feel themselves uncomfortable because of being observed. This affects their choices of clothing, and originates the feelings of stigma and shame. (Paterson, 2007)

Effects of boot camps

Previously to discussing the effects of the boot camps, it is necessary to mention that the participation in these camps in some countries is totally voluntary. This decision was adopted in order to avoid any possible challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to which the treatment of prisoners in the boot camps may be regarded as the violation of the youth’s right to not be subject to cruel punishment and to ensure security of person.

In most States, where the boot camp projects were originated, the main aim of these camps was to introduce the non-violent treatment for the juveniles, whose guilt was minor. Originally, it was not possible to trade or shorten a jail sentence with a significantly shorter boot camp program, consequently, the effects of the boot camps was not less than the effect of a prison. Originally, the infant mind of juveniles could be seriously violated by the jail conditions, and the less severe punishment was introduced. The fact is that, the boot camps often have the time limits of 90 to 180 days and they are restricted to juveniles up to the age of 17, and the female offenders are forbidden to be placed in the boot camps. It is stated that the judges do not directly possess the authority to send a youth to a boot camp. They may impose a sentence of protected or open custody. (Gottfredson, 2001)

Still, it is necessary to emphasize that there are no special research findings which point out the advantages of boot camps in perspective of any of the initial intentions. It is stated that the recidivism rates among prison inmates and those, who were imprisoned in boot camps are the same, however, the effects of the boot camps are seriously disputed. Some surveys emphasize lower rates of re-offense; the others claim there are no differences in these rates.

Effects of electronic monitoring

According to Dobson (2007) only five factors (criteria) are defined for the understanding of the dimensions or severity of punishment. Originally, it is performed by the means of incarceration.

Deprivation of autonomy admits how the vast body of regulations and rules to which one is subject that take away individual control.
Deprivation of goods and services admits the loss of capability to earn money and buy what one wishes.
Deprivation of liberty generally means the restriction of prisoners’ movement , and presupposes the fact that they are separated from people, and lose their civil rights.
Deprivation of sexual relations. The prisoners are separated from sexual partners.
Deprivation of security signifies the fact that the prisoners often live at the mercy of other predatory prisoners (and sometimes prison staff)

Originally, electronic monitoring is aimed to restrict all the possible movements of the prisoners, thus, it adds to the listed criteria of the deprivation of freedoms. Consequently, the effect of electronic monitoring only disproves the lives of the criminals. Campbell (2002) compared pains of imprisonment and the ‘pains of electronic monitoring’, by administering a questionnaire to 29 offenders (in USA). Most preferred electronic monitoring house arrest to imprisonment finding the pain to be onerous, but not as bad as prison.

Success Rates

First of all it is necessary to mention that the success rates of all the alternatives of imprisonment are not essentially researched. The real results and the charts are represented in the works by different authors and researchers, nevertheless, some precise numbers are available, and they will be regarded in this chapter. Thus, it is stated that there are about 55% of prisoners who are subjected to parole. Originally, close to 80% of released complete the probation period successfully. (Braune, 2002)

As for the boot camps, it is often emphasized that nearly 62% of the imprisoned were accused in crimes after being released, and then returned to jails. As for the electronic monitoring as is (without imprisonment), it is stated that it is more an experimental project and is not widely used, consequently, there is no precise and accurate data on this matter.

As for the monitoring in prisons and boot camps Beattie (2004) emphasizes that youth is ready to participate in these programs on a voluntary basis, and must go through a thorough interview and assessment process to ensure they are intellectually, physically, and mentally capable of completing the program. Adults are mainly subjected to electronic monitoring in prisons without prior agreement, and their behavior and all the movements are properly observed. The effectiveness of these systems is the highest, ass it helped to decrease the escape rates up to 90%.

Conclusion

Finally, it is necessary to mention that the development of prisons through the history may be regarded as the great contribution to the criminal law system. Originally, the development of imprisonment as the part of punishment, or the punishment itself is often regarded as the peak of humanity in the criminal law.

The alternatives of imprisonment, such as the boot camps or electronic monitoring, are not so widely spread all over the world, and in the countries where these systems are implemented are in the phase of experiment. The fact is that the success rates of all the alternatives can not emphasize their effectiveness, thus, traditional imprisonment stays the most effective tool of imposing sanctions and restricting the personal freedoms of the prisoner.

References

Beattie, Peter M. “Conscription versus Penal Servitude: Army Reform’s Influence on the Brazilian State’s Management of Social Control, 1870-1930.” Journal of Social History 32.4 (2004): 847
Benda, Brent B. “Testing the Problem Syndrome among Young Males in Boot Camp: Use of Theoretical Elaboration with Reciprocal Relationships.” Social Work Research 23.1 (2003): 28.
Braune, Joan. “Children in the American Gulag.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 10.2 (2002): 81.
Campbell, John Edward, and Matt Carlson. “Panopticon.com: Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46.4 (2002): 586
Dobson, Jerome E., and Peter F. Fisher. “The Panopticon’s Changing Geography.” The Geographical Review 97.3 (2007): 307
“Electronic Monitoring of Criminals.” The Futurist 2001: 55
Fyfe, Janet. Books behind Bars: The Role of Books, Reading, and Libraries in British Prison Reform, 1701-1911. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.
Gibbs, John C., Granville Bud Potter, Ann-Marie Dibiase, and Renee Devlin. “The EQUIP Program: Helping Youth to See-Really See-The Other Person Youth Who Present Anti-Social Behavior Need Powerful Interventions That Strengthen Empathy, Counter Negative Peer Influence, and Challenge Thinking Errors.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 17.2 (2008): 35
Gottfredson, Stephen D., and Sean McConville, eds. America’s Correctional Crisis: Prison Populations and Public Policy. New York: Greenwood Press, 2001.
Mainprize, Stephen. “Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: Assessing Cost Effectiveness and the Potential for Widening the Net of Social Control.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 34.2 (2002): 161-180
Mitchell, Martin, and Herman J. Mccall. “The Montcalm Outdoor Challenge Program.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 16.1 (2007): 22
Papy, Joseph E. “Electronic Monitoring Poses Myriad Challenges for Correctional Agencies.” Corrections Today 2002: 132
Paterson, Craig. “Commercial Crime Control and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in England and Wales.” Social Justice 34.3-4 (2007): 98
Simon, Jonathan. “They Died with Their Boots On: The Boot Camp and the Limits of Modern Penality.” Social Justice 22.2 (2002): 25
White, Ahmed A. “Rule of Law and the Limits of Sovereignty: The Private Prison in Jurisprudential Perspective.” American Criminal Law Review 38.1 (2003): 111

Click Here To Order Now!