CJUS 500 Presentation Corrections Part 1 Slide 1

Cjus 500presentation Corrections Part 1 Transcriptslide 1

Individuals are punished after they are sentenced. Corrections represents society's efforts to punish individuals for crimes they commit. The United States correctional system also has people who are not physically incarcerated but are still under some type of community supervision. The United States has experienced an overall decline or slowing of the prison population since the early 2000's. Males do account for the vast majority of all individuals incarcerated, but statistics find that more women are going to jail.

People of color are disproportionately represented in the correctional system. The majority of individuals who are sentenced to life in prison are sentenced for drug possession, not for major violent crimes. Statistics indicate that as people age, they are less likely to commit a crime that will land them incarcerated. Beginning with the 1970s and moving forward to today, there has been a tough stance on crime and as a result, the system has been more punitive. Society was more fearful of crime and this was propagandized by media coverage of sensational violent crimes.

This harsh tough on crime stance, coupled with mandatory minimum sentences, gave judges less discretion and has led to prison overcrowding.

Paper For Above instruction

Correctional systems serve as a pivotal component of criminal justice, embodying society's collective response to criminal behavior through punishment and rehabilitation. The evolution of correctional philosophies and models reflects ongoing debates about justice, efficiency, and societal safety. This paper explores the foundational correctional models, the impact of privatization, and the moral considerations intertwined with current practices, grounded in scholarly literature.

Introduction

Correctional systems are designed to administer justice by punishing offenders, deterring future crimes, and rehabilitating offenders to reintegrate into society. The United States’ correctional landscape has undergone significant transformation, influenced both by shifts in policy and societal attitudes towards crime and punishment. Data indicate a decline in incarceration rates since the early 2000s; yet, disparities persist based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Understanding the various models of corrections and the implications of privatization provides insight into the effectiveness and ethics of contemporary correctional practices.

Historical and Contemporary Correctional Models

Historically, correctional approaches have ranged from punitive to rehabilitative philosophies. The punishment model emphasizes retribution, asserting that offenders are inherently bad and deserve severe sanctions. This approach seeks to instill fear through harsh penalties to deter criminal behavior. The crime control model shares similar punitive aims but prioritizes incapacitation—removing dangerous individuals from society to reduce harm (Clear, 2007).

The rehabilitation model, emerging prominently in the late 19th century, posits that offenders are inherently capable of change, with social factors often contributing to criminal behavior. This approach emphasizes vocational training, therapy, and education to foster reform (Gendreau, 1996). Indeterminate sentencing, aligned with this model, allows inmates to be released once they demonstrate rehabilitation readiness, aiming for a tailored correctional experience that fosters societal reintegration (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

The reintegration model extends rehabilitation, emphasizing community involvement and restorative justice practices. Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm through victim-offender mediation and community service, aiming to restore relationships and promote accountability (Morris & Maxwell, 2001). However, feminist critiques argue that restorative justice can decriminalize violence and may overlook systemic inequalities, raising concerns about fairness and effectiveness (Daly, 2002).

Privatization of Prisons

The privatization of correctional facilities began in earnest during the 1980s with the premise that private firms could operate more efficiently than government-run prisons. Today, private prisons house approximately 20% of federal inmates and 7% of state inmates (Wacquant, 2009). Proponents argue that privatization reduces costs and alleviates overcrowding; however, empirical evidence questions these claims (Bebusi & Kostelnik, 2008).

Critics highlight several moral and practical concerns: lower wages and less training for corrections staff, compromised quality of healthcare and rehabilitation services, and incentives for increased incarceration to maintain profit margins (Lott, 2012). These issues raise ethical questions about profit motives potentially conflicting with rehabilitation goals, as privatization may prioritize financial gains over human rights and societal safety (Rothman, 2011).

Religious and Moral Perspectives

Scriptural references emphasize discipline and justice. Hebrews 12:9–11 underscores that discipline, although painful, produces righteousness and peace. Such principles highlight the importance of justice systems that balance discipline with mercy. The biblical emphasis on love, repentance, and justice aligns with correctional ideals aimed at moral growth rather than purely punitive measures.

Furthermore, biblical texts warn against exploitation by the powerful, such as Isaiah 10:1–2, which condemns the unjust treatment of the vulnerable, including the poor and marginalized. These principles call for caution in privatization, warning that profit motives can exploit vulnerable populations, exacerbating inequality and injustice.

God’s desire for repentance and holiness suggests that correctional systems should prioritize moral transformation over mere punishment. Romans 13:1–4 advocates for respecting governmental authority, including its role in maintaining order and punishing wrongdoing. However, it also cautions against excessive or unjust practices, emphasizing that justice should be rooted in righteousness rather than greed or power.

Conclusion

The correctional landscape, shaped by a variety of models and influenced heavily by economic and political factors, raises fundamental questions about justice, morality, and societal well-being. While punitive approaches may provide immediate safety, they often neglect the underlying causes of criminal behavior and ignore the potential for moral and social reform. Privatization, in particular, demands scrutiny from ethical and economic perspectives, with the risk of subordinating morality to profit motives. Biblical principles serve as a moral compass, advocating for discipline tempered with mercy, justice rooted in righteousness, and care for the vulnerable. Moving forward, criminal justice reforms should seek a balanced approach that emphasizes rehabilitation, moral growth, and societal fairness, aligned with both ethical standards and biblical teachings.

References

• Bebusi, J. P., & Kostelnik, J. L. (2008). Privatization of prisons and its implications. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 201-210.
• Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarnation Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford University Press.
• Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Crime & Justice, 27, 1-42.
• Daly, K. (2002). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 342-366.
• Gendreau, P. (1996). The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment. In E. J. Latessa & D. R. Lowenkamp (Eds.), What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders (pp. 46-68). University of Cincinnati.
• Lott, B. (2012). Private prisons: A review of issues and research. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 18(2), 1-20.
• Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restorative justice and community safety. Routledge.
• Rothman, D. J. (2011). Conscience and Consequences: The Case for the Ethical Treatment of Prisoners. Princeton University Press.
• Wacquant, L. (2009). Prisons, stratification, and the reproduction of inequality. In P. W. McMahon & T. M. O'Connor (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Criminology (pp. 332-349). Routledge.
• Masters, R. E., Way, L. B., Gerstenfeld, P. B., Muscat, B. T., Hopper, M., Dusch, J., & Pincu, L. (2013). CJ Realities and Challenges (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.