| Manuals
and Guides: Community
Balancing
Justice:
Setting Citizen Priorities for the Corrections
System
A program of the Study Circles Resource Center,
sponsored by Topsfield Foundation, Inc. Copyright © 1996 Topsfield
Foundation, Inc.
Contents
Introduction
Session 1: What should be the goals of the
corrections system?
Session 2: The current dilemma
Session 3: Balancing justice in the corrections
system
Ground rules for useful discussions
Introduction
Our corrections
system was created to protect society from criminals, to punish
those who commit crimes, and to make criminals better able to
return to society once they've finished their sentences. Different
people rank these goals differently.
But no matter
which goals they emphasize, Americans seem more angry and frustrated
with the corrections system than ever before. Expressions like
"Lock 'em up and throw away the key" and "Don't raise my taxes
to build more prisons" have grown increasingly familiar. Some
politicians, judges, and criminal justice professionals regularly
accuse each other of "mollycoddling" criminals. Others say public
officials are using these issues to try to "look tough." None
of this rhetoric seems to be leading us to productive, lasting
solutions.
Citizens
and criminal justice professionals alike seem to be at a loss
about what do with criminals. In state after state, expensive
prison construction programs have failed to keep pace with the
rapid growth in the inmate population. More and more, corrections
has become an economic issue.
In some
states, local boards of elected officials and community leaders
have responded to these pressures by assuming a greater level
of responsibility for programs that punish offenders. They develop
programs that give local judges an expanded range of possible
sentences. These programs offer intermediate punishments which
provide more control than probation but are not the total confinement
of prison. Sometimes these efforts are called "community corrections,"
and they include punishments like boot camps, work release programs,
drug and alcohol abuse treatment, house arrest, and restitution
to victims. Most of these punishments are less expensive than
incarceration, and some enable offenders to continue working and
paying their own living expenses.
Advocates
of intermediate punishments argue that they allow judges to impose
sentences that more closely fit the crime and are better matched
to the community's goals for the corrections system. Critics of
community corrections say that these measures fail to adequately
punish criminals or protect the public.
But no matter
what solutions to the corrections problem we support, one thing
is clear: Americans need to consider their priorities for the
corrections system, and what they can do to help the system meet
those priorities. This guide is intended to help create reasoned,
productive dialogue on these issues. Through study circles - democratic,
highly participatory, small-group discussions - citizens and criminal
justice professionals can define priorities for the system, explore
a range of sentencing options, and work together to implement
improvements.
How does
corrections fit in the criminal justice system?
The purpose
of the criminal justice system is to enforce the laws established
by society, protect citizens from crime, punish those convicted
of breaking the law, and ensure that citizens aren't wrongly accused
or imprisoned.
In the United
States, the criminal justice system has three primary components:
the police, the courts, and the correctional system.
The primary
responsibility of the police is to enforce the laws of the United
States. Their job is to protect everyone in the community.
The criminal
court system is designed to determine the guilt or innocence of
the person accused of breaking the law. It is also the responsibility
of the courts to determine the punishment if the person is found
guilty. The court system can be divided into judges, lawyers (defense
and prosecution), juries and various court administrators.
The correctional
system carries out the sentence given to the offender by the court.
This part of the system:
-
operates
prisons
-
oversees
parole, in which convicted offenders are kept under supervision
after being released from prison
-
administers
probation, in which offenders are kept under supervision in
the community instead of serving a prison term.
Back to top
Discussion
Session 1
What should be the goals of the corrections system?
Most people
would agree that our corrections system should mirror the values
and priorities of our communities and our society as a whole.
That sounds simple in theory. In practice it can be more difficult,
since the goals we seek are often in conflict with each other.
We need to recognize those conflicts, and decide how to resolve
them.
This session
provides the opportunity to consider some of the possible goals
for the corrections system. Use them to start your discussion
and to develop your own thinking about what is most important.
Here are
some possible goals for the system:
-
Punishment
- Making criminals suffer for their crimes. Almost
everyone agrees that some form of punishment is appropriate
and essential to holding offenders accountable for their actions.
Some people argue that extremely harsh sentences turn offenders
into more violent and hardened criminals, while others argue
that harsh sentences are more likely to deter.
-
Incapacitation
- Keeping criminals from committing other crimes by keeping
them off the streets. Many people agree that what prisons
do best is prevent inmates from preying on society by keeping
them locked up.
-
Restitution
- Ensuring that criminals pay a debt to their victims and
to society as a whole. Criminals can perform restitution by
performing public services like picking up trash or helping
out in hospital emergency rooms. Some states also require
criminals to contribute financially to people directly affected
by their crimes. Restitution has been reemphasized lately,
but can be difficult to carry out.
-
Deterrence
- Preventing crime by making it clear to potential criminals
that the consequences of committing a crime are severe. Most
people believe that the threat of prison deters some criminals.
Many criminal justice professionals argue that prison has
little impact on the criminals who commit the most serious
and greatest number of crimes.
-
Rehabilitation
-Helping criminals become productive, responsible citizens
who can contribute to society and avoid committing crimes
once they are released. Many criminal justice professionals
agree that rehabilitation is not possible for everyone. However,
there is no consensus on what percentage of the inmate population
could be rehabilitated, or at what cost.
Origins
of prison and probation
Modern prisons
originated with the Quakers, also known as the Religious Society
of Friends, at the end of the 18th century. They were started
as a way of ending corporal punishment. The Quakers believed that
lawbreakers who were forced to spend long, solitary periods in
religious reflection would eventually become penitents-hence the
term, penitentiary. Prisons quickly spread across the expanding
nation.
In 1841,
a Boston reformer named John Augustus created a network of services
that led to the current system of probation. Augustus was interested
in saving people and reclaiming drunkards. With limited resources
and a strong belief in rehabilitation, Augustus supervised men,
women and juveniles, helping them to find jobs and deal with personal
difficulties By the time of his death in 1859, a network of prisoners
' and children's aid societies were carrying out probationary
roles.
Questions
for beginning the discussion:
1. Do you
have personal experiences involving the criminal justice system
that illustrate the importance of one or more of these goals?
2. Which
of these goals do you think are most important for the corrections
system? Why? If the corrections system can't achieve all these
goals, how would you set priorities?
3. Does
the corrections system in your community do a good job of achieving
the most important goals?
4. Do you
think the goals of the corrections system have changed since your
parents were your age? Why?
5. What
experiences and beliefs have helped form your ideas?
Back to top
Discussion
Session 2
The current dilemma
More than
4.5 million adults are supervised in state and federal corrections
systems in the United States: 1.5 million are in prisons and jails,
and the rest are on probation or parole. This total has increased
dramatically since the 1 980s, when the war on drugs touched off
a succession of policy changes - including lengthy, mandatory
sentences -and the number of convicted criminals began to skyrocket.
The costs of the corrections system have risen accordingly (see
box on page 7).
America
has the highest incarceration rate in the world - a distinction
that provokes much heated debate among experts in the field. Are
we imprisoning too many or not enough? Are sentences too lenient
or too severe? Is probation merely an ineffective slap on the
wrist? Have prisons turned into crooks' colleges, making offenders
worse after they've been released than they were when they entered?
Do any other forms of punishment make sense?
The answers
to most of these questions will depend on the goals that were
identified in the first discussion session. We need to know what
to expect of the corrections system and recognize that goals often
conflict with one another. Then we can begin to assess our policy
options.
Regardless
of the goals we want the corrections system to achieve, almost
everyone wants to achieve them as inexpensively as possible. Some
people use cost as an argument for de-emphasizing prisons and
relying more on community corrections. Others argue that we should
privatize prison operation to make it more cost-effective. Finally,
some states cut costs by housing inmates in tents and making prisoners
pay rent for their cells and other services.
The six
views below describe different ideas about how we should deal
with criminals. Each of the views is written in the voice of a
person who holds that view. Use these views as a starting point
for your discussion, to weigh advantages and disadvantages, to
develop your own approach, and to search for common concerns in
your group.
View
1- Rely on prisons to deter and punish criminals.
The threat
of swift, sure and severe punishment will deter criminals. We
need to sentence offenders to long periods of hard time behind
bars. We should also end or reduce parole, so that criminals serve
all or most of their sentences in jail. If this means building
more prisons, we should build them.
View
2 - Emphasize the rehabilitation of offenders.
Help criminals
overcome dependencies on drugs and alcohol, and provide educational
and job skill development opportunities. We can't keep them in
jail forever, nor would we want to: most criminals have the potential
to be contributing, responsible members of society. We should
give them the tools they need to lead productive lives after they've
left prison.
View
3 - Make prison time harsher.
Make prisoners
do punishing, distasteful work, so they won't want to return.
They shouldn't be allowed to lie around all day and do nothing.
Take away the TVs and the gym equipment. Make them do something
productive but nothing that will put them in competition with
outside businesses.
View
4- Create a range of punishments to fit the range of crimes.
We should
create alternative punishments like boot camps, work release programs,
drug and alcohol abuse treatment, and house arrest. That way prison
space will be reserved for the most dangerous criminals. For the
rest, judges will have the options they need to create the right
mix of punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution for each criminal.
View
5 - Make sure the sentence sticks.
The whole
system loses credibility when criminals are released long before
their sentences are up. No matter what kind of punishment they
receive, criminals should have to serve all or most of their sentences.
This can be accomplished in a number of ways, including enacting
"truth in sentencing" or changing the parole system.
View
6 - Keep parole. Parole gets a bad rap, but it's there for sound
reasons.
Wardens can't
make prisons run smoothly if prisoners have no reason to obey
them. Criminals who aren't supervised once they're released can
be a risk to everyone. We need to maintain the parole system because
it gives incentives for good behavior behind bars, and provides
structure for criminals who've been released. It is also much
less expensive than keeping people in prison for 100% of their
sentences.
The
money crunch for corrections
In 1992,
national and local authorities spent $31.2 billion on building
and operating the criminal justice system, or $58,980 for every
minute of every day of the year. Operating costs alone for state
and federal prisons in 1994 totaled S19.5 billion.
Even at
this cost, some experts say that we actually save money by imprisoning
all those criminals and avoiding all the crimes they otherwise
might commit. These estimates range in the hundreds of billions
of dollars.
No matter
how you look at it, huge sums of money are at stake, and the total
is growing rapidly. State corrections budgets increased 8 percent
in 1995. In contrast, Medicaid, education and Aid to Families
with Dependent Children - perennial heavyweights in state budgets
- grew at 4.9 percent, 4.3 percent and 2.1 percent respectively.
In its fiscal 1996 budget, the state of California planned to
spend more on corrections than on its acclaimed higher education
system.
Federal
and state prison populations
1930: approximately
125,000
1950: approximately 180,000
1970: approximately 190,000
1980: approximately 320,000
1994: slightly over 1,000,000
[Adapted
from a bar chart in the original published version.] This chart
shows dramatic growth in inmate population in recent years. Bureau
of Justice Statistics figures do not include offenders serving
time in county jails. (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Questions
for beginning the discussion:
1. How should
we deal with criminals? Of the views, is there one which best
fits your ideas, and why? Are there other ideas you would like
to add?
2. What
experiences and beliefs have helped form your ideas?
3. As you
listen to others describe what has shaped their views, what new
insights and ideas do you gain? What are the common concerns or
ideas in your group?
4. Examine
these views in light of your tax bill. What kinds of changes are
you willing to pay for? What else are you willing to do to help
make improvements in the corrections system?
Back to top
Discussion
Session 3
Balancing justice in the corrections system
The punishments
we use to deal with criminals should reflect our priorities for
the corrections system. We need to measure sentencing options
in light of those goals, and also in terms of how much money we
are willing to spend on them.
For many
years, the corrections system has relied on prisons and probation
as the two main options for dealing with criminals. One possibility
for changing the corrections system is to change prisons and probation,
and this can be done in many different ways. Prisons could be
made more harsh and uncomfortable for criminals. Alternatively,
prisons could reemphasize rehabilitation by providing more opportunities
for prisoners to improve themselves. Another answer might be to
simply build more prisons. Probation could also be improved by
hiring more probation officers, reducing caseloads, and expanding
supervision.
Recently,
other punishments have been developed, mostly for offenders who
are considered nonviolent and low-risk. Although these punishments
are generally thought to be less severe than imprisonment, offenders
sometimes say the demands of community service or restitution
are actually harsher than some incarceration periods. Most of
these options are less expensive than prisons. These punishments
are not yet being used for a large number of offenders in the
United States.
It is important
for citizens to understand and weigh these sentencing options.
This will ensure that the punishments fit with our goals for the
system. In some cases, citizens can take an active role in establishing
and maintaining various sentencing options. For example, in Madill,
Oklahoma, study circle participants resolved to work with the
local judge and sheriff to create a drug court.
How
should criminals be punished?
Following
is a list of the most commonly used sentencing options:
Basic
Probation: Currently, the most widely used community-based
punishment in the United States is probation, in which an offender
lives at home but receives some outside monitoring such as meeting
with a supervisor a specified number of times per month, or keeping
a log of daily activities. First-time, nonviolent offenders often
receive probation, which may last up to three years for a misdemeanor
and five years for a felony conviction.
Intensive
Supervision Probation (ISP): This
punishment allows offenders to live at home, but under relatively
severe restrictions. Communities that utilize ISP programs usually
require offenders to perform community service, attend school
or treatment programs, work, meet with a probation officer (or
team of two officers) as often as five times a week, and submit
to curfews, employment checks and random tests for drug and alcohol
use.
Restitution
and Fines: Monetary penalties
involve either restitution, which requires the offender to compensate
his or her victim, or fines, in which a set amount is paid to
the courts, or both. The amount is based on the crime and, in
some jurisdictions, also on the offender's ability to pay. The
aim of this penalty is to compensate victims for their losses,
while teaching offenders financial responsibility. Restitution
and fines are usually coupled with another penalty, such as probation,
community service or treatment.
Community
Service: Community service can be used alone or with
other penalties and services, including treatment for substance
abuse, restitution or probation. Offenders in community service
programs are usually assigned to work for government or private
nonprofit agencies; they paint churches, maintain parks, collect
roadside trash and renovate schools and nursing homes.
Substance
Abuse Treatment: Some prisons have the resources to
provide drug and alcohol treatment services, but most do not.
When incarceration is not part of the treatment sentence, evaluation
and referral services frequently are provided by private outside
agencies located in the community. They are used alone or in conjunction
with simple probation or intensive supervision probation.
Drug
Courts: Drug courts, which
were first established in the late 1980s, are being implemented
in more and more places. These courts were designed to speed up
processing of the increasing number of drug cases, and facilitate
use of drug treatment programs. In these programs, the judge supervises
the treatment process. To succeed, the judge, prosecutor, defense
attorney, and the greater community must communicate regularly
and work as a team.
Day
Reporting: Day reporting centers usually require offenders
to report every day to a central location within the community,
where they file a daily schedule showing how each hour will be
spent - at work, in class, at support group meetings, and so on.
Some centers refer clients to service agencies; others provide
services directly. Some focus on monitoring, while others emphasize
support.
House
Arrest and Electronic Monitoring: An offender sentenced
to house arrest must spend all or part of the day at home. Compliance
is enforced in some states by requiring the offender to wear a
small transmitter on the wrist or ankle, which sends electronic
signals to monitoring units. House arrest can stand alone as a
punishment or be coupled with fines and other obligations; the
term of the sentence usually ranges from several days to a year.
Nonprison
Residential Programs: Many states have experimented
with residential programs. Offenders live in structured settings
such as halfway houses. They are allowed to leave the premises
for work or other approved activities like drug treatment. Typically,
residents work eight hours a day, take care of all the center's
maintenance, perform community service on weekends, attend classes
or counseling sessions in the evening and submit to regular drug
testing.
Boot
Camps: Offenders sentenced
to boot camps live in military-style barracks and undergo rigorous
physical and behavioral training for three to six months. Boot
camps are generally reserved for young first-time offenders who
are viewed as more open to changing their attitudes and behavior
than are older offenders. These highly regimented programs are
designed to give offenders a sense of responsibility and accomplishment
while improving their self-discipline.
Prisons
and Jails: The most serious
offenders serve their time in state or federal prisons, while
county jails are usually designed to hold inmates for shorter
periods. Prisons and jails are categorized according to security
level and vary greatly in terms of the kinds of activities and
programs they offer for prisoners.
Costs
of various punishments
A 1994 survey
of programs in Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia found
the following average annual costs of operations (exclusive of
capital construction) per participant in those states: probation,
$868.70; intensive supervision, $2,292.20; community service,
$2,759.40; day reporting, $2,781.30; house arrest, $401.50; electronic
monitoring, $2,011.15; halfway house, $12,493.95; boot camp, $11,853.38;
jail, $14,362.75; and prison, $17,793.75.
To construct
a single minimum security prison cell costs more than $28,000,
and a maximum security cell costs more than $80,000. As with home
mortgages, when financing charges are added these construction
costs triple. Debt service gobbles up the biggest chunk of prison
construction costs, and 80% of operating cost goes for employee
salaries and facility maintenance.
Basic health
care for inmates is another major expense. The estimated cost
of housing an inmate over the age of 60 is $69,000, more than
three times the norm and largely attributable to higher health
care for older inmates. There are other costly health concerns
as well, including a 20 times higher than average incidence of
AIDS among prisoners.
Although
the newer intermediate punishments generally are less expensive
to run than prisons, states need to invest startup funds to design
and implement effective new programs.
Questions
for beginning the discussion:
1. How well
do each of the punishments described here fit with the goals you
think are most important?
2. What
types of punishments are used in your area? Beyond the police
and prison system, what kinds of organizations are involved?
3. Which
types of punishments would fit the kinds of problems you see in
your community? What would be the gain in being able to give these
types of punishments? What would be the cost?
4. What
steps could you take to ensure that the sentencing options you
favor are available in your community or your state?
Back to top
Ground
rules for useful discussions
This section
offers some brief suggestions for useful discussions about social
and political issues. Some people say that, in this age of television
and busy lives, our conversation skills leave something to be
desired. Still, the art of conversation can be revived with practice.
Whether
you are talking with close friends or casual acquaintances, effective
communication requires that you respect others and take their
ideas seriously—even when you think they are dead wrong.
Talk about
public issues can bring out strong emotions, because many of our
beliefs are a large part of how we identify ourselves. You can
respect another's feelings without necessarily agreeing with the
conclusions that person has come to.
There are
no surefire rules, but applying some basic principles will make
your conversations more productive, satisfying, and enjoyable.
Though many of these ground rules seem commonsensical, we all
know that in practice they are not so commonly applied!
-
Listen
carefully to others. Try to really understand what they are
saying and respond to it, especially when their ideas differ
from your own. Try to avoid building your own arguments in
your head while others are talking.
-
Think
together about what you want to get out of your conversation.
-
Be open
to changing your mind; this will help you really listen to
others' views.
-
When
disagreement occurs, keep talking. Explore the disagreement.
Search for the common concerns beneath the surface. Above
all, be civil.
-
Value
one another's experiences, and think about how they have contributed
to your thinking.
-
Help
to develop one another's ideas. Listen carefully and ask clarifying
questions.
-
Don't
waste time arguing about points of fact; for the time being,
you may need to agree to disagree and then move on. You might
want to check out the facts before your next conversation.
-
Speak
your mind freely, but don't monopolize the conversation.
Back to top | 
