Running head: CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE

Criminals Correctional Facilities and Discipline

Student’s Name
University affiliation
Course name
Professor’s name
Date
 2
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
Criminals Correctional Facilities and Discipline
Correction facilities are used to forcibly confine criminals and denying them several

varieties of freedom under state authority punishing them for the crimes they have committed.

The evolution started from the colonial period at the 1600s to 1790s to crime control model in

1970s to 2000 (Custers, 2013). William Pen came to Philadelphia in the year 1682 and

succeeded by making Pennsylvania adopt the great law that emphasized introduction of hard

labor in correction houses to punish inmates for the crimes they had committed.

The colonial period

In this period, majority of Americans lived under practices and laws that were transferred

from England following by adaptations to the local conditions. The puritans punished the

religious violation laws in a rigorous manner. Pennsylvania, in the year 1682 adopted the ‘”great

law” based on humane Quackery principles emphasizing on hard labor in correction facilities as

a form of punishment for crimes commuted. Punishments like death, fines, death penalty and

banishment from the society were the norm (Severson, n.d.).

Penitentiary arrival

The advent of the institution was intended to separate and isolate prisoners from their

society and any person around them giving them an environment they could focus on their

former evil ways, repent so that they can undergo reformation procedures. A patriot, physician

and a singer of independence declaration by the name Benjamin Rush advocated for penitentiary

to replace corporal and capital punishment (Custers, 2013). The principles were, therefore, to

isolate inmates from societal influences such as temptations, liquor, and people, silencing and

penance contemplation and going back to the society a renewed beings.

 3
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
South and west prisons development

Custers (2013) affirms that economic hardship and war caused negotiations between the

state and the private business for care and labor of inmates in Kentucky and the penal plantations

under the state grew crops for sale in the market and feeding the prisoners. To the west, the

penology was less affected by east ideologies, and before the statehood, prisoners were held

either in federal military prisons or territorial confinements. Lease system ended among the

western states from union such as California, Oregon, and Wyoming.

Reformatory movement

The campaign led to the dissolution of product and oppressed penitentiary conditions

causing the change in inmates. The indeterminate sentences were fixed, and the classification of

offenders was related to their institution and character behavior.

Progressive era

Reform age set the American political tone ad political actions. New urban society ills

were condemned and science used to find a solution towards crime. It gave room for

urbanization, industrialization, and advancement in science (Severson, n.d.). People developed

faith and trust in the government to curb social challenges such as crime and slums.

Progressives

The stage marked active politics among the upper-class reformers and development of

social consciousness in the early 1900s (Severson, n.d.). Big industries and businesses and urban

society emerged in the 20th century and under excess attacks. There was science believes and

people had faith that the state could manage political and social problems on the rise. Treatments
 4
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
were advocated depending on the requirements by the offenders bringing positivism. According

to the article by Severson (n.d.), the progressive reforms improved the general economic and

social conditions, and the offender was rehabilitated. Indeterminate sentencing, probation,

development of juvenile courts and parole were established.

Medical model

The correction model maintained that social, biological and psychological differences

were among the causes of criminal behaviors requiring medical treatment. Genuine medication

effort was conducted to treat, rehabilitate criminals through scientific classifications. Several

institutions and programs such as sociopath laws, psychology, and sickness crimes were

established. The community corrections model posted the CJS goal that aimed at integrating the

criminals to the community ("Community-Based Correctional Facility (CBCF)," n.d.). They

maintained that prisons are artificial environment, place to frustrate crime and therefore should

be avoided. The model also focused on criminal’s society adjustment at different treatment

methods like psychological mode.

Crime control model

The design view was less optimistic, ambitious and forgiving towards a man and CJS

ability to change that person. Therefore, it was better to contain crime through strict supervision

and incarceration. Some of the causative factors included treatment disillusionment, concern by

the public over increased crimes in the ‘60s and broad discretion disrupt under the parole and

correctional authorities (Custers, 2013).

 5
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
Traditional punishment goals

The four traditional goals of punishment include deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation,

and incapacitation. They all reflect criminal punishment features (Banner, 2014).

Deterrence

Deterrence acts as a tool preventing other people from repeating similar crimes, and

therefore the judge sentence put much emphasis on denunciation, public, and deterrence

protection. The judge, therefore, imposes sentence making it clear for any other person that if

they happen to commit that crime, the similar thing will happen to them and the purpose of first

sentencing in cases such as vigilant justice requires general deterrence (Banner, 2014).

Rehabilitation

Restoration goal reforms the crime offender with a punishment imposed by a jury

believing that the criminal can undergo rehabilitation program impacting his or her lives through

real motives. The rehabilitation program aims at creating shelter for runaways to spend their time

in the confinement regardless of the kind of crime committed (Phillips, 2015). This is conducted

through proper evaluation of the intake screener, and the punishment acts as an opportunity

turning the offender’s life around for social outcomes.

Retribution

Sentencing judge imposes the sentence intentionally as a way of payback or revenge to

the society offering the victim a closure. Once the offender receives notice, he or she faces the

attorney and the punishment imposed as imprisonment, fine or probation (Phillips, 2015). The
 6
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
result is that the offender spends some time behind bars because penalties aren’t sought for the

sake of the prisoner lacking retribution for sinners.

Incapacitation

According to Oswald (n.d.), incapacitation goal prevents the criminal from committing

offenses in the future through incarceration. The result is reduced reoccurrence likelihood of a

crime, and the jail provides a resultant unpleasant factor.

Contradiction or complement

The aim of incarceration is addressing deterrence, retribution and incapacitation but not

importance towards rehabilitation unless the program is conducted within the jail or prison. The

article by Orth (2013) states that incarceration and probation can be combined by the judge into

one sentence element like rehabilitation program and incarceration where the program is

supervised by the probation service aiming at provision of a final punishment having an optimum

answer generally to the importance of the penalty. This form of punishment combination,

therefore, addresses the four general penalty purposes where a single element couldn’t be enough

to achieve the set goal. At this point, the punishment goals complement each other, but there is,

so estuations contradiction comes in play (Orth, 2013). At this stage, the judge denies the

punishment once the punishment elements don’t reflect a minor difference between the set

viewpoint based on the general discipline goal and an example is the capital penalty.

Its purpose is incapacitation preventing the criminal from committing further offenses

due to retributive factors in several legal systems. There exist no rehabilitation aspects in capital

penalty resulting from lack of intention providing a solution for rehabilitating a criminal but the

probation focus restoration as its main point leaving room on whether the two can be combined
 7
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
(Banner, 2014). Furthermore, capital penalty incapacitates the criminal from being rehabilitated

or under rehabilitation contradicting both the probation and money penalty forcing the court in

selecting one of the two without combination to avoid contradiction.

Further punishment

There still exist another reason to punish such as restoration that makes the victim and

offender come together as one through fine, community service and restitution. The aim is

“wedding out” hardcore criminals through community-based and public agencies aiming at

motivating human services and programs restoration. Victims are paid in installments (Phillips,

2015). The reason is not above the other four traditional goals, but the best thing about it is that it

tries to bring offender back to the community showing them that they still have time to chance to

change and mingle with the rest of the community.

 8
CRIMINALS CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND DISCIPLINE
References

Banner, S. (2014). Book review: The contradictions of American capital punishment.

Punishment & Society, 6(4), 450-452. doi:10.1177/146247450400600413

Community-Based Correctional Facility (CBCF). (n.d.). The Concise Dictionary of Crime

and Justice. doi:10.4135/9781452229300.n411

Custers, P. (2013). Military Keynesianism today: an innovative discourse. Race & Class,

51(4), 79-94. doi:10.1177/0306396810363049

Orth, U. (2013). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 173-

186. doi:10.1023/a:1022547213760

Oswald, M. Ε. (n.d.). Justification and Goals of Punishment and the Attribution of

Responsibility in Judges. Psychology and Law. doi:10.1515/9783110879773.424

Phillips, S. (2015). Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment. Law & Society

Review, 43(4), 807-838. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00389.x

Severson, M. (n.d.). Social Policy and the Correctional System. The Handbook of Social

Policy, 463-484. doi:10.4135/9781452204024.n28