Full Semester: CJC 204
Full Semester: CJC 204 CJC 204
Popular in Corrections
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
STT 1600 - 02
verified elite notetaker
General Psychology 1100
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Criminal Justice and Criminology
This 15 page Bundle was uploaded by Meg Mikulski on Tuesday September 27, 2016. The Bundle belongs to CJC 204 at Loyola University Chicago taught by Dr. David Olson in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Corrections in Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola University Chicago.
Reviews for Full Semester: CJC 204
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/27/16
CJC 204: Corrections Exam 1 **Look at PowerPoints** I . Systems Framework a. Goal of the criminal justice system i. To prevent and reduce crime b. Components of the justice system i. Policing ii. Courts iii. Corrections c. Corrections i. Probation ii. Parole iii. Jail iv. Prison II . Total Adult Correctional Population a. 1 out of 33 adults under correctional supervision b. 1 out of 100 adults in prison i. Factors (chart): increase in prison population 1. War on drugs 2. Harsh sentencing* 3. Admissions* 4. Length of stay* 5. Recidivism 6. Poverty 7. Aging inmate population 8. More arrests 9. Increase in crime* ii. Increase in 1970 1. Decrease in government: judges, parole boards 2. Treatment/rehabilitation – “nothing works” 3. Get tough on crime iii. Decrease in 1940 & 1970 1. More young men going to war III . Society’s and Government’s Response to Crime a. What is a “crime”? What is a “serious crime”? i. Public assumptions do not equal law ii. Misdemeanor vs. felony iii. Against person > property iv. Weapon involved v. Children, teacher, legal profession, elderly… > other vi. Hate crimes vii. Classes/grouping of felonies b. When imposing a sentence, what do we seek to achieve? What are the goals of “corrections”? i. Retribution – eye for an eye 1. Goal: punishment ii. Restorative justice – restore balance between offender and victim 1. Goal: balance iii. Deterrence – social and individual; weighing costs vs. benefits 1. Goal: change/recognize behaviors iv. Incapacitation – degrees of incapacitation; can’t commit crime 1. Goal: no opportunity for crime c. Who decides the sentence? i. Politics 1. Judges 2. Prosecutors 3. Criminal (plea bargains) 4. Civilians: elected officials IV. Theories of Criminality a. Classical School of Criminology i. Focuses on the offense, not the offender ii. Weighs pros and cons iii. Certainty, swiftness, severity iv. Based on deterrence b. Positivist School of Criminology i. Biological theories ii. Other factors beyond rational reasoning iii. Environment, socialization iv. Influenced thinking through experiences/others v. Able to rehabilitate c. Critical (Marxist) School of Criminology i. People are criminals based on social class ii. People in power decide law to control the lower class iii. Reduce threat to power d. Combination i. Parts of each school help explain criminals and crime e. For each: i. Assumptions ii. Principals iii. Implications for correctional policy and practice V . Early Themes in Corrections a. Private wrongs and retaliation as response to crime b. Use of physical punishment as opposed to prison – primal instinct c. Criminals losing citizenship and banishment i. England: US and Australia ii. Now: restriction, limitations d. Criminals had status of slave to the state i. Free labor or modest compensation e. Branding and embarrassment i. Technology as a way of branding ii. Embarrassment: pink jumpsuit, chain gang, perp walk f. Influential people i. Beccaria: classical school ii. Bentham: utilitarian, classical, layout of prisons iii. Howard: appalled at treatment, conditions of prisons VI . General Themes Evident in History of Corrections a. Operational purpose/philosophy is reflected in physical design i. Prisons rarely close, stuck with those ideas b. How corrections is viewed by society often influenced by factors not directly related to crime, prisons or inmates i. Auburn: prisons could not use tax payers money: make profit ii. Economic policy, not correctional policies c. Reoccurring cycles of correctional “reforms” are evident throughout history i. Everything has an original purpose ii. Complete isolation super max: penitence punish d. Prison designs, practices, and policies varied/vary regionally in US i. Based on industry VII . Auburn vs. Eastern State Penitentiary a. Eastern State Penitentiary i. Inmates never left cells, larger, access to outside ii. No interaction iii. Given crafts iv. Strong religious influence: given bible b. Auburn: most effective i. Slept in cells only, smaller cells ii. Work with others, not able to talk iii. Generate money, conjugate labor iv. No religious influence VIII. Mid to Late 1800 a. Probation: progressive b. Evidence based practices i. Researchers found it to be effective c. John Augustus – early/first probation “officer” d. Parole: almost every state used it i. Parole board ii. Increase prison population: abandonment of parole in the 70s e. Lombroso: father of positivism f. Elmira Reformatory i. Aim to reform ii. Brockway: first minister at Elmira iii. “college campus” feel/look iv. Program and services v. Grade system (A, B, C): level of privileges vi. Motivate change: treat the psyche vii. Inmates wore different uniforms viii. Provided school “classes”/programs ix. Overcrowding, overuse x. Holistic xi. Formally classified/assess inmates IX. Early 1900s a. Increase migration b. Perceptual crime increase c. Policing became more organized and formal d. Federal started to increases in 1920s – probation i. Small role, but still increased e. Immigrants: social tension f. HawesCooper Act of 1929 i. Banned prison goods sold in public: prison industry ii. Federal iii. Used to protect working class because of the Great Depression g. Prisoners built prisons h. Bentham: Panopticon (Stateville) i. 4 levels ii. 248 cells (2 per cell) iii. Tower in center can watch everyone (500) iv. Horrible operation: not effective with current day thinking X. 1930s through 1960s a. World wars focus b. Decreased of crime fighting wars c. Government abuses/decrease public trust i. Vietnam ii. Civil rights: race riots, school desegregation d. Miranda rights/Warren Courts* i. Watergate ii. Treatment of mentally ill: deinstitutionalized e. Increase response to crime control XI . 1970s on… a. Question effectiveness of treatment i. “nothing works” (Martinson) b. Supermax: evolved to punishment c. 1979 – mid 1980s i. Admissions: war on drugs, all crime increased d. 1990s i. Longer stays: sentencing & policy change XII . Prison Austerity: Applegate a. Principle of “least eligibility”; view of the goals of prison vs. amenities i. Purpose of prison influences the amount of amenities b. Have to be given access to: law libraries XIII. Determinant vs. Indeterminate a. Determinant: one sentence (25 years) – judge decides b. Indeterminate: range of time (25 – life) – parole board decides i. Good conduct credit (depends on state) ii. Parole board (only indeterminate) iii. Daytoday good conduct: cut sentence in half c. Example: i. Indeterminate: 10 – 50 [5 – 25] ii. Determinant: 25 [12.5] XIV . TruthinSentencing a. Illinois i. 85% of sentence for specific violent crimes (rape, attempted murder) ii. Murder: 100% b. Other states i. 85% no matter what, but change rage of sentence ii. Modify TIS so it didn’t matter (6 sentenced 5 served) c. Indeterminate i. Serve 85% of minimum XV . Sentencing Changes and Legal Rights of Inmates a. Legal issues in corrections i. Why do we care? ii. What does the public think? iii. What do judges/jurors think? iv. What is the purpose of prison? b. Inmate Rights i. 4 Amendment: unreasonable search and seizure 1. No protection for inmates 2. Ensures order and security of the prison ii. Cruel and unusual punishment th. Medical and mental health programs iii. 14 Amendment: Due Process 1. No full range of protection; no legal counsel XVI . Incapacitation a. Does it work? Is it effective? Is it efficient? i. Only goal that is satisfied: effective; efficient, but costly ii. Only thing prisons control b. Is it the easiest choice? i. Yes = rarely criticized, no cost, no more responsibility of offender ii. Ineffective in the long run c. Who to incapacitate? i. Violent crimes: rape, murder ii. Habitual criminals iii. Selective incapacitation: do not have policies; discretion d. How long to incapacitate? i. Offense vs. Offender ii. Age and amount of time iii. Health XVII. Deterrence a. Swift, certain, severe b. Individual vs. general deterrence c. Deterrence may be one factor among many others d. Actual vs. perceptual deterrence XVIII. Probations: Sentences in IL a. Ineligible for probations: i. First degree murder ii. Attempted first degree murder iii. Class X felonies iv. Others… XIX . Orientations of Officers a. Parental: help develop prosocial skills; rehabilitative b. Punitive: enforce court orders and catch violations c. Welfare: provide access to services; address needs d. Passive: don’t really care; just get the job done Exam: Multiple choice Short answer (“list these things”) 1 or 2 essays few sentences Readings: Main issues Questions PowerPoint blanks Mikulski 1 Margaret Mikulski CJC 204 – Olson Final Exam 11 December 2015 Crime and Punishment: A look at the Correctional System There has always been a theme of punishment that has existed throughout the history of the correctional system. Law and corrections has its roots all the way back to Babylonian times in the code of Hammurabi, lex talionis (an eye for an eye). In ancient times, the use of physical punishment was more favored than the use of prisons and the idea that a criminal is a slave to the state. Many forms of the physical pain that was endured by the criminals has since disappeared, however, the correctional system has just shifted to seek new ways of punishment. There are several factors that limit and/or facilitate a prisons’ ability to effectively achieve the goals that the public perceive corrections to have (punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation). Inmates primarily limit a prisons’ ability to succeed in the goals of corrections just by the fact that many prisons are not holding the ideal number of occupants. Most prisons today are overpopulated which means they are operating at a higher percent than what they were built for. The ideal running capacity for a prison is around eighty percent. This allows the inmates to move cells if an emergency occurred. Just the number of inmates inhibits the prisons’ ability to effectively achieve the goals. Another way inmates may affect prison and its successfulness, is the fact there are several specialized groups within prisons. The specialized groups include the mentally ill, elderly, women, sex offenders, and those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. These groups of people require special care that prisons may not be able to provide; also with specialized care, it becomes more costly for the prison to house these types of inmates. For example, if an inmate is severely mentally ill and cannot get the treatment he/she needs, it could be more harmful to the person or the staff to neglect that inmate’s needs. In Mikulski 2 turn, it does not achieve any of the goals corrections is trying to achieve and it becomes even more costly. Inmates play a large factor in how a facility may or may not accomplish its goals because prison is essentially their home and every inmate acts differently to their situation. The prison staff is also another limiting factor to the operation of prisons, but it can also help make a prison become more effective. A large problem that the staff poses in the functioning of prisons is the fact the staff do not represent the prison populations. Many inmates are minorities who have little education and grew up in poorer areas. Juxtaposing, the staff are usually white males who have had education. The racial barrier can limit a prison to be a well functioning facility. Another issues that usually is not talked about is the victimization between staff and inmates. The rate of prison victimization is very under counted. From reports, the sexual victimization rate of staff on inmate is overall 2.8 percent; which is about 0.7 percent higher than inmate on inmate victimization. The high rate of staff on inmate sexual victimizations is a very large problem in establishing a functioning facility. The way to create a high functioning prison is to build a good rapport between the staff and inmates. There needs to be a bit of leeway the staff gives to the inmates to establish a good relationship. If there is a strong relationship between staff and inmates, it makes it a bit easier for everyone who works or lives in this environment. For example, if a correctional officer who does not write up an inmate for walking on the grass, that inmate and officer may have a better “working” relationship and that inmate will follow other rules. However, if a correctional officer writes up an inmate for every violation, that inmate will start to make that officer’s job much harder and the officer will in turn make that inmate’s life much more difficult too. How well the facility is run depends on the staffinmate relationship. Mikulski 3 The physical design of the prisons limit their ability to effectively accomplish the goals of correction today. Many of the prisons that still used were built in the late 1800s or early 1900s. That poses a design problem because the functions and goals of corrections back then are not the same as modern day goals of corrections. The characteristics of prisons vary greatly as well. For example, early prisons were built with one of two goals in mind, either punishment or penitence. Prisons that followed a more punitive structure (Auburn Prison), created small cells for their inmates, with limited interactions with others. Although, inmates were able to interact with each other, they were not allowed to communicate. On the other hand, prisons that were built with penitence inmind (Eastern State Penitentiary) had larger cells for their inmates, but the inmates were not allowed to leave or talk with anyone but a priest. There was a heavy religious influence that was placed into the prison because the idea was that criminals will be able to learn from crime through penitence. Another structural problem that many prisons have to deal work with today is the physical location. In history, prisons supplied goods for the community, so they were placed in areas where the main industry would be beneficial to the surrounding towns. This essential means now that many prisons are located in rural areas and not by main city centers. Policies and laws regarding sentencing and inmate rights ultimately control how prisons are run. Currently, prisons sentences imposed have decreased slightly overtime, the length of the sentences have increased. Back in the 1970s there was a new focus on sentencing policies in the United States. There was an increase use of mandatory sentencing and a new emphasis on offender accountability. These would impact prisons trying to achieve their goals because they have to follow what different laws and policies require. There have also been several changes in policies that deal with inmate rights. There were many reforms from the mid1960s until the late 1980s. Initially there was a “hands off” policy where inmate’s rights were never looked at. Then Mikulski 4 in the 1970s it shifted to be a “hands on” approach and the courts began to recognize and address rights and there were many civil rights changes during this time. It later shifted back to impose rights that were not in favor of the inmates and imposed a “balance test” (between the inmates and correction system); this was also the time the “get tough on crime” ideology was imposed. Although, in 2003 PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) was enacted. This was the first law aimed to help inmates and protect them against prison rape. Since policies on sentencing laws and laws about inmate rights continuously change, it prevents prisons to effectively and successfully achieve the goals of corrections. The public also plays a role in affecting how prisons operate. Most of the general public want to see criminals punished with the harshest sentence. They focus on punishment and retribution. Generally, the public wants the offender to “pay” for the crime they commit. The jobs that are in charge of running prisons are elected positions – they are elected by the general public. Since these are elected positions, they are heavily involved with politics and the opinions of the public which can be detrimental to the correction system. Another way the public influences the operations of prisons is by parole boards. Parole boards are citizens who are elected to that position who ultimately decide who gets released and who does not. Parole boards can either help or hurt a prison achieve their goals. It can be a negative for prisons because they can ultimately keep people in there longer, which would maintain the overcrowding problem. On the other hand they have the power to release people which can help with overcrowding on a small scale. Prisons are very good at achieving some of the goals of corrections, but it also fails at achieving others. Prisons are effective when it comes to incapacitating people. They are places where people are physically removed and locked away from a community and therefore, can no Mikulski 5 longer commit crimes out in the public. Prisons are also very effective in punishment. Again, these institutions are made to take away people’s individual freedoms and the harsh environment can be punishment enough. Therefore, when just considering these two historical goals of corrections, prison are onehundred percent effective. The goal of deterrence is difficult to say whether prisons are effective in accomplishing this. Deterrence seems to be a more individual view point rather than the community as a whole. Not everyone who goes to prison get deterred. There are some people who value their freedom and the idea of even getting arrested is deterrent enough; but on the flipside, there are people who view going to prison as a normal occurrence in their community and sometimes think of prisons as a safer, more stable way to live than their current situations. The last, more current, goal of corrections is the idea of rehabilitation. The goal of rehabilitation is the weakest when looked at success. The idea behind rehabilitation is when an offender becomes rehabilitated through different treatment programs during their time in prison, there is less chance of recidivism when they are released. There are certain groups that are a priority in receiving treatment: young people, short sentences, and those who have the greatest risk/need factor. Regarding recidivism, statistically, it has been found that half of those released from prison will return within a three year time period. By looking at that statistic, it can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. It all depends how recidivism is defined. Recidivism could be as simple as if someone gets arrested again or it could be if that person is returned to prison. There is a lot of grey area when it comes to measuring recidivism, however, if the idea of rehabilitation is to reduce recidivism then it seems that prisons do not do a very good job at achieving the goal of rehabilitation. When looking at all four goals of corrections (punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation), prisons are not able to simultaneously accomplish all of them, at least how Mikulski 6 prisons are set up today. However, in a perfect world, they may be able to effectively accomplish all of these goals. The goals of punishment and incapacitation are fulfilled simultaneously already. However, to factor in the other goals there would need to be more funding by the state to provide prisons with good quality treatment programs and find a way to create laws that act as a more deterrent effect in the public’s eye. To successfully deter people, the cost of going to prison needs to greatly outweigh the benefit of the crime that could lead to being locked up. However, we do not live in a perfect society where all of these goals can be simultaneously effective. The goals of punishment and incapacitation greatly over shadow the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation within the correctional system. There are many challenges to providing rehabilitative programming to inmates.. Rehabilitation within prisons yield such low success rates because of so many factors that are accounted for, such as cost, how the program is implemented, quality of the programs, and even the willingness of the inmates to complete treatment. To have rehabilitative services in prison is very costly, especially if a prison does it the “right way”. To keep a person locked up, it already costs about $24,000 and many prisons cannot afford a good and effective program. Although costly in the short term, it has been shown that in the long run, good treatment programs could end up being more cost effective. Another problem with administrating treatment within prisons is the fact that many of the programs are universal rather than specific to certain people. No everyone has the same needs or problems that can be solved by the same general basic treatment. Therefore, “treatment” is not really any form of treatment. For example, if everyone who is involved in a drug treatment and all they have to do is watch videos telling them the effect of drugs and how bad they are, that is not doing anyone good and is certainly not going to rehabilitate the offenders. Along with how treatment is administrated, it has been found that Mikulski 7 having a program that is on a small scale is the most effective. However, the problem with having a program on a small scale, not many people can participate in it. Large treatment groups yield bad quality, where as having a small amount of people yields a good quality program. Another factor that is key in having an effective program is building a good rapport with the inmates. A lot of the time, other inmates deliver the treatment because there is already higher trust in that individual rather than if a correction officer delivered the treatment sessions. Even if a prison has programs, it is all on the inmate whether they want to participate in treatment. The only way it will have any effect is if the inmate is willing to do it for themselves and they want to actively change. The ideology behind the effectiveness used to be that “nothing works” but since then it has shifted to the idea that “specific programs work for specific offenders”. Effective treatment can be hard to achieve. It requires to be evidence based programming, targets highrisk offenders, targets multiple criminogenic needs, there needs to be a good rapport between the staff and client, there needs to be intensive treatment, and finally aftercare in the community. Lack of resources is a big challenge in the deliverance of treatment. There are other challenges prisons face when delivering treatment within their facilities. Prisons lack the necessary resources that many of the programs need for its treatment to work. The location of the prison and qualifications of the staff can also become a challenge. Many prisons have been built in rural areas and away from large community making it difficult for qualified staff to get there. Also the staff is usually not a good representation of the community they are trying to help; which creates a barrier between the inmates and the staff. Along with staff problems, many of the staff members that take on these jobs are unqualified and will not administer good programs. Part of this problem is the fact that those who have completed higher education do not want to take these Mikulski 8 jobs. Another factor that would be a challenge is just the environment itself. Prisons do not provide the most ideal conditions and environment to distribute treatment. The lack of privacy would prevent those who actually need and want treatment to not be able to express their thoughts and feelings without the risk of being victimized by other inmates so therefore many do not receive the intensive treatment they need. It has been found that treatment can work, but only under certain conditions it is effective. There is a great irony when looking at the groups of people who benefit the most from treatment programs. Whites, women, and nonviolent offenders are the least likely groups of people to recidivate after receiving treatment. The irony that exists is the fact that these groups make up the minority of the prison population. Therefore, effective treatment only affects a small percentage of those who are in prisons. Overall, the correctional system is very good at achieving some of the goals prisons were made for, but lack in others. There is, however, a larger movement towards rehabilitating offenders and a big push for treatment programs while incarcerated. Although this is a good initial movement, it can take several decades for new policies and laws to be implemented. There is also a discussion looking to try to fix the overcrowding problem, which is beneficial to the operation of facilities. The goals of corrections will never be able to simultaneously work just because the goals themselves are contradictory. Policies and laws can help alleviate problems, but it will never be a perfect system.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'