Chapter 12: Discretion And Dilemmas In Corrections ✓ Solved

Chapter 12: Discretion and Dilemmas in Corrections

Chapter 12 discusses the roles and responsibilities of correctional professionals, including correctional officers and treatment professionals, and the ethical dilemmas they face. It highlights the discretionary powers that correctional officers possess, such as the ability to charge inmates with disciplinary infractions or deliver verbal reprimands. The chapter examines the relationships between correctional staff and inmates, emphasizing the complexities and potential conflicts that arise in these interactions. Additionally, it addresses the issue of use of force, noting that while overt physical force was common in the past, its incidence has decreased in modern institutions, though ethical concerns remain.

The chapter also explores the unique challenges faced by detention officers in jails compared to state prison officers, particularly concerning the transient and often unstable jail population. Treatment staff's role in the correctional system is discussed, highlighting ethical dilemmas in providing care within a punishment-oriented environment. Specific ethical issues for prison psychologists and probation officers, including informed consent and confidentiality, are examined. Finally, the chapter touches on the high rates of recidivism among released inmates and the factors contributing to burnout among probation and parole officers.

Paper For Above Instructions

Discretion in corrections plays a critical role in shaping the experiences of both correctional officers and inmates. Officers hold significant power regarding decisions that can greatly affect the lives of inmates, from disciplinary actions to the provision of treatment. This power, while necessary for maintaining order within correctional facilities, presents various ethical dilemmas that can compromise the integrity and fairness of the correctional system.

The discretion exercised by correctional officers often stems from their relationships with inmates, which can be complex and multifaceted. These relationships can lead to favoritism or bias, impacting how officers enforce rules and regulations. As highlighted in the case of David Francis, the potential for unethical behavior resulting from these relationships underscores the need for clear ethical standards and accountability within the correctional system (Rowell, 2023).

Correctional officers may inadvertently compromise their professionalism by becoming emotionally involved with inmates. This emotional engagement can result in a dichotomy where officers feel the need to befriend inmates while simultaneously being cautious of their intentions. The idea that "you can be friendly with inmates, but you can never trust them" reflects the inherent tension within correctional environments and the challenges officers face in maintaining professionalism (Rowell, 2023).

Further complicating the dynamics between correctional officers and inmates is the phenomenon of officer subculture. Many officers view inmates and society as adversaries, which can lead to a normalization of forceful behavior and a tendency to undermine the rights of inmates (Rowell, 2023). Such an environment fosters a culture where unethical practices may thrive, necessitating ongoing training and oversight to address these issues. This potentially adversarial perspective also influences how officers manage their roles, with some viewing their work through a punitive lens rather than a rehabilitative one.

Moreover, the physical force used within correctional facilities requires careful consideration. Although there have been significant changes in how force is applied compared to the past, with a notable decrease in overt physical violence, there remain ethical concerns surrounding the use of force (Rowell, 2023). Correctional officers often have to make split-second decisions that can either escalate or de-escalate a situation. Therefore, comprehensive training in conflict resolution and communication can equip officers with better tools for managing challenging interactions with inmates.

The treatment of inmates presents additional ethical challenges, particularly regarding consent and the nature of care provided. Treatment professionals, such as psychologists, often struggle with the dual responsibilities of providing support and enforcing institutional rules. This can lead to ethical dilemmas where the goals of rehabilitation conflict with the punitive nature of the correctional environment (Rowell, 2023). For instance, psychiatric professionals may find themselves acting more as agents of social control than as advocates for inmate welfare, challenging the fundamental principles of their practice.

Probation and parole officers encounter similar ethical dilemmas, as their roles entail balancing the need for community safety with the necessity of supporting individuals in rehabilitation. As the chapter notes, the high rates of recidivism among released inmates, especially among certain demographics, reflect systemic issues that require attention (Rowell, 2023). The challenges faced by probation officers, including high caseloads and limited resources, further exacerbate these dilemmas. Officers may feel pressured to prioritize efficiency over thoroughness, potentially leading to unintended negative outcomes for the individuals they oversee.

As the correctional system evolves, it is imperative to consider the implications of discretion, the relationships officers cultivate with inmates, and the ethical principles that should guide their interactions. Creating an environment that fosters accountability, emphasizes ethical training, and supports the professional development of correctional staff is crucial for ensuring a fair and effective correctional system.

References

• Rowell, C. (2023). Chapter 12: Discretion and Dilemmas in Corrections.
• Haney, C. (2006). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 10-12.
• Reiter, K. (2016). The Impact of Solitary Confinement on Prisoners’ Health: A Longitudinal Study. Health Affairs, 35(10), 1734-1740.
• Smith, R. (2019). Racial Disparities in Incarceration and Community Corrections. Journal of Criminal Justice, 56, 9-15.
• Rosenberg, M. (2018). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation Programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 599-626.
• Braithwaite, J. (2003). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press.
• Fletcher, D. R. (2020). The Correctional Officer’s Perspective: A Study of Discretion in the Prison System. Criminal Justice Review, 45(2), 90-103.
• Peters, R., & Wall, L. (2017). Ethical Issues in Correctional Psychology: Field Theory and Practice. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 50, 19-29.
• Wright, D. (2020). The Role of Correctional Officers in Inmate Management: A Study on Ethics and Discretion. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 29-38.
• Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry Trends in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics.