Required Textbook: Clear T. Cole G. Reisig M. 2013 American ✓ Solved

Required Textbook Clear T Cole G Reisig M 2013 American

Read Chapter 10 of American Corrections (11th edition by Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2013) and respond to the following critical thinking questions. Additionally, respond to two of your classmates' posts using the terms and definitions from the chapter, such as campus style, custodial model, maximum security prison, rehabilitation model, reintegration model, and telephone-pole design. Be sure your responses are thoughtful and go beyond simple agreements, beginning your replies with phrases like "I learned from you that..." or "I appreciated how you explained...." The first posting is due by Tuesday, October 27th at 11:59 pm. Replies to classmates are due by Thursday, October 29th at 12 pm.

Questions to address:

• Is the custodial model most appropriate for organizing prisons that operate at different security levels?
• What model should be used to organize a minimum security facility?
• What questions emerge regarding the practice of contracting with private, for-profit organizations to operate correctional facilities?
• Should the job of operating prisons be the sole responsibility of the government?
• If you were a warden, how would you handle long-term prisoners?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Comparing correctional models and policies requires understanding various theoretical and practical frameworks that guide prison organization and management. Different models, such as the custodial model, rehabilitation model, and reintegration model, are suited to different security levels and operational philosophies within the correctional system.

Application of the Custodial Model across Security Levels

The custodial model emphasizes security, discipline, and order, focusing primarily on containment rather than rehabilitation. It is most appropriate for high-security prisons where safety is paramount, such as maximum security facilities. These prisons require strict control over inmates to prevent escapes and maintain safety for staff and the public. In contrast, for lower security facilities, such as minimum security prisons, a different approach may be more suitable, emphasizing reintegration and rehabilitation rather than strict custody.

Model Suitability for Minimum Security Facilities

The reintegration model often best suits minimum security facilities. This model promotes community integration and prepares inmates for release through programs that foster skills development, social responsibility, and self-efficacy. By employing this model, facilities can reduce recidivism and support successful reentry into society, aligning with the goals of rehabilitation.

Private vs. Public Operation of Correctional Facilities

Questions arise regarding the efficacy, accountability, and ethics of contracting private companies to operate prisons. While cost efficiency and innovation are cited benefits, concerns include profit motives conflicting with inmate welfare, transparency issues, and the potential for reduced standards of care. The debate centers on whether correctional services should remain a government responsibility or can effectively be outsourced to private entities.

Role of Government in Prison Operations

Most scholars argue that operating prisons should primarily be a government responsibility to ensure accountability, transparency, and adherence to human rights standards. However, some advocate for a mixed approach where government oversees contract management while private entities handle operational aspects under strict regulations.

Handling Long-Term Prisoners

As a hypothetical warden, managing long-term inmates involves balancing security with humane treatment. Programs fostering personal growth, mental health support, and opportunities for education can improve inmate wellbeing and reduce violence. Additionally, implementing reintegration strategies early may ease eventual release and community reintegration.

Conclusion

Organizing prisons effectively requires careful consideration of the appropriate model based on security level and institutional goals. While private management offers potential benefits, it necessitates strict oversight. Ultimately, the correctional system must prioritize human dignity, safety, and successful offender reintegration.

References

• Clear, T., Cole, G., & Reisig, M. (2013). American Corrections (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Taxman, F. S. (2006). Understanding correctional systems and society. Waveland Press.
• Clear, T., et al. (2019). American Corrections: Practice, Policy, and Concerns. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. (2019). Privatization and correctional management. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(4), 301-312.
• Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (2014). What works in correctional treatment: Principles and practices. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(3-4), 119-128.
• Pratt, J. (2019). The politics of punishment: A critical analysis of privatized prisons. Law & Society Review, 53(2), 442-458.
• Holzer, C. E. (2017). The debate over private prisons. Corrections Management Quarterly, 21(3), 11-17.
• Seiter, R. P. (2015). Humanizing prisons: Strategies for improving inmate well-being. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 111-128.
• Baumgartner, F., et al. (2018). Policy analysis of correctional privatization. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 382-394.
• Rubin, V., & Rosenbaum, D. (2017). Inmate management and correctional philosophies. Prison Journal, 97(1), 51-66.