WK 1 An Introduction To Crime and Criminology - (Part 4 Responding To Crime)

Chapter 17 Corrections
Learning outcomes
LO 17.1 Identify the components of the corrections system and
how they fit into the larger criminal justice system.
LO 17.2 Describe the trends in the use of custodial and
community correctional sanctions.
LO 17.3 Identify the goals of the corrections system and critically
evaluate the effectiveness of various correctional sanctions in
meeting these goals.
LO 17.4 Describe the elements of effective correctional practices.
Lacey Schaefer and John

Copyright © 2019. Pearson Education Australia. All rights reserved.
Rynne
The corrections system is the third element within the larger
criminal justice system, managing offenders who have been
processed through the criminal justice funnel. After offenders
Hayes, H., & Prenzler, T. (2019). An introduction to crime and criminology. Pearson Education Australia.
Created from griffith on 2023-07-17 06:50:49.
have been apprehended by the police and convicted and
sentenced by the courts, the corrections system is
responsible for administering that sentence. As the name
suggests, one goal of the corrections system is to ‘correct’
individuals in an effort to mitigate future offences. However,
correctional sanctions are also designed to ‘punish’ these
same individuals, in part to discourage reoffending, but also to
satisfy victims’ and the public’s desire for justice. These goals
of correction and punishment sometimes conflict and can lead
to practices that are ineffective and unjust. This conflict has
been exacerbated by the explosion in correctional populations
in the past few decades. Fortunately, research has begun to
uncover principles that should guide correctional practices.
This chapter provides an overview of different elements of the
corrections system, including a discussion of the effectiveness
of various sanctions and interventions in meeting the
principles of punishment.
The pendulum of penological
principles
Operating at an annual budget of more than $3 billion, the Australian
corrections system manages more than 100 000 offenders on any
given day (see below). How should these individuals be managed?
Penology is the component of criminology that examines
philosophies of punishment and how that punishment should be
administered. These philosophies, sometimes called penological
principles, are theories that identify what the goal of the corrections
system should be, and what kinds of policies and practices should
be used to reach that goal (Cullen & Jonson 2012). These
penological principles are important, as they provide a justification
for the government to inflict punishment on individuals, but also
provide a blueprint for how the corrections system should be shaped.
There are four dominant penological principles that guide

correctional practices (see also Chapters 14 and 15 ):
1. Retribution, sometimes called ‘just deserts’, is an effort to

punish offenders in order to ‘rebalance the scales of justice’.
This principle is the only non-utilitarian of the four, as
punishment is inflicted for no other purpose than to match the
offence with a proportionate reaction (whereas utilitarian
punishments seek to prevent crime in some way).
2. Deterrence implies that punishment is a noxious experience
so that a prospective offender will choose not to commit
crime. This includes specific deterrence, in which an individual
will decide not to reoffend following a punishment; and
general deterrence, in which a person decides not to commit
an offence out of fear of punishment that he or she has
observed being inflicted on someone else.
3. Incapacitation works to immobilise the offender in some way
so as to prevent a further offence. Selective incapacitation
occurs when corrections authorities attempt to identify
individuals at high risk of reoffending and place
incapacitations on them only (see Case study 17.1 for an
example), while collective incapacitation is aimed at a larger
group of offenders believed to be at high risk.
4. Rehabilitation aims to change the factors within an individual
that led him or her to commit the crime in the first place. The
corrections system administers a number of therapeutic
programs and liaises with a large number of social services to
provide prisoners, probationers and parolees with the
supports necessary to desist.
Each of these principles has strengths and weaknesses, and may be

more or less effective depending on what the correctional sanction is

designed to address (Cullen & Jonson 2012; MacKenzie 2006).
There are other goals and philosophies used by the corrections
system and, although they shape correctional decision-making, they
are not referred to as frequently. They include restorative justice,
communitarianism, managerialism, Indigenous justice and
therapeutic jurisprudence. Many penologists describe how any of the
above principles of punishment can wax and wane across time
(Allen, Latessa & Ponder 2013); they act like a pendulum, with
correctional policies and practices becoming more or less
conservative or progressive at different periods and in different
places, often in response to the local sociopolitical climate.
Related to penological principles are corresponding sentencing

practices (see also Chapter 16 on the criminal courts).
Determinate sentences occur when the sanction or intervention
ordered by the court (such as a period of imprisonment) has a
definitive end date; no matter how the offender behaves or
misbehaves in prison, the sentence expiry remains in place. Some
policy-makers advocate for these sentence determinations to be
made without consideration of the individual offence or offender
circumstances, to ensure that like cases are treated equally. This
notion has led to the development of sentencing guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentencing, which are efforts to reduce the
discrepancies seen in the administration of punishment.
Indeterminate sentences are used when the end date of the
sanction or intervention is dependent upon the individual’s progress.
For example, a sex offender may be sentenced to 5–25 years in
prison—the sentence expires any time within this window when the
individual can demonstrate that he or she is no longer a risk to the
community.
Case study 17.1
Selective incapacitation
In the 2002 film Minority Report, Tom Cruise’s character
works in the police ‘PreCrime Unit’ to apprehend people
before they commit an intended offence. This use of
foreknowledge or precognition is a lofty goal in the criminal
justice system, and there are many sentencing strategies that
aim to selectively incapacitate offenders who are believed to
be at a high risk of committing future crimes.
The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

(the DPSOA) is one example of selective incapacitation in
Australia. Under this legislation, corrective services can
detain a sex offender in custody even after the person’s
original prison sentence has expired if an assessment reveals
that he or she poses ‘a serious danger to the community’. A
notable illustration of this legislation in action occurred in the
case of Robert Fardon. In 1989, Fardon was sentenced to 14
years in prison for rape; after serving the entire sentence, the
Queensland government opposed his release, using the
DPSOA to orchestrate his continued detention (Hogg 2014).
While some believe that dangerous offenders should be kept

in prison in order to prevent a further offence, this stance is
not without criticism. At a minimum, one of the difficulties in
using selective incapacitation as a punishment philosophy is
that assessing future risk is a complex task that is not often
reliable.
A brief history of corrections
The history of correctional practices is equally fascinating and
barbaric, and is made even more interesting for Australian readers
given the nation’s early experiences of penal colonisation (Hughes
1986). In the centuries prior to this, correctional sanctions
emphasised the sanction rather than the correction. Before the Age
of Enlightenment in the 18th century, punishments were capricious
and severe, with practices such as banishment, public executions,
corporal punishment and judicial torture being commonplace.
Humanitarians of the time argued for penal reform, with philosophers
such as Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–
1832) arguing that punishment should be only so severe as to
discourage further offending. Moving forward, rather than being used
as a holding place while the offender awaited their much more
severe punishment, the prison was transformed into a punishment
into and of itself. Beginning in the mid-1700s the prison as an
institution underwent great change, being converted into ‘houses of
correction’ and ‘reformatories’ that were influenced by religious
movements of the time. Indeed, the term penitentiary is derived from
the word ‘penance’, symbolising the belief that wayward behaviour

could be corrected through repenting to god.
Yet with this introduction of the prison as punishment, however,

quickly came issues of overcrowding. Between 1596 and 1776 Great
Britain deported many of its prisoners to the United States, the
practice ending with the American Revolution. From 1788 until 1868,
the British government then sent around 160 000 convicts to
Australia (Kercher 2003). This process of transportation
involved banishing convicted offenders from Great Britain to
Australia, sending them on overcrowded sailing ships to penal
colonies. The convict settlements were often dangerous and
disorderly, with the penal officers embracing harsh practices similar
to the torturous punishments of centuries past.
Word of these brutal practices was reported back to authorities in

England and several penal reformers were sent to Australia to
improve the devolving situation in the convict settlements. In 1840,
Alexander Maconochie travelled to Norfolk Island and developed a
set of principles to guide the treatment of the prisoners there.
Maconochie advocated for a system of punishment that was not as
vindictive, arguing that the goal should be to reform the prisoners.
He developed a ‘mark system’ whereby prisoners progressed
through stages of tasks, earning marks (which could be exchanged
for privileges) for good work; once prisoners earned enough marks,
they could buy their freedom (Hughes 1986). These early Australian
developments in how to structure imprisonment, treat convicts and
encourage long-lasting behavioural change still guide many
contemporary correctional practices around the world (Schaefer,

Cullen & Eck 2016).
Custodial corrections
When most people think of the corrections system, prison is the first
thing that comes to mind. Prison is a popular example of custodial
corrections , whereby the offender is sentenced to a period of
stay in a secure setting (other examples include jails, forensic mental
health or substance abuse treatment units, controlled housing in the
community for high-risk offenders and some halfway houses).
Australia has 114 custodial facilities, including 88 government-
operated prisons, 10 privately operated prisons, four transitional
centres and 12 court cell complexes. The majority of these facilities
are currently operating above capacity (Productivity Commission
2018, Table 8A.13).
Although imprisonment is not the most commonly used correctional

sanction, we are relying on custodial sentences more than ever
before, leading some scholars to suggest that we have entered an
era of mass imprisonment and are ‘addicted to incarceration’ (Pratt
2009, p. xiii). Australia, like other countries in the western world, has
seen an explosion in its prison population (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2018a). Figure 17.1 highlights this trend. In the

December quarter of 2017, the average daily number of prisoners
was 41 110, at an average daily cost per prisoner of $391 (Morgan
2018, p. 40). This is more than double the number of prisoners just
20 years prior (18 089 prisoners in 1997), 3.5 times higher than 30
years ago (11 486 prisoners in 1987) and nearly five times higher
than 40 years ago (8718 prisoners in 1977) (<www.abs.gov.au/
ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0>).
Figure 17.1 Number of prisoners in Australia, 2000–17

Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia, cat. no. 4517.0, multiple
years.
How can we account for such staggering growth? There are many
reasons for these large increases, including population growth, rates
of reoffending and an increased reliance on the use of prison for
purposes of remand (which occurs when an individual is held in
custody prior to being convicted and/or sentenced). A common-
sense hypothesis is that use of prisons has increased following
changes in the level of crime: either we rely on prison more because
there is more crime, or there is less crime because we have put
more offenders in prison. These hypotheses relate to the
incapacitation effect , which attempts to estimate the amount of
crime that is prevented by placing offenders in custody. Many
scientifically rigorous studies have concluded that the crime rate and
the imprisonment rate are largely unrelated (Durlauf & Nagin 2011)
and that prison may actually lead to more rather than less crime
(Nagin, Cullen & Jonson 2009) (see below).
Although general population growth is partly responsible for the

exponential increase in the number of prisoners, Figure 17.2
demonstrates that the rate of imprisonment in Australia is also at an
all-time high. In 2017 the imprisonment rate was 216 prisoners per
100 000 adults, representing a nearly 28% increase from the rate of
169 in 2007. The largest contributor to the raw number of prisoners
is New South Wales (with 13 133 prisoners in December 2017),
accounting for 32% of Australia’s prisoners, followed by Queensland
(21%) and Victoria (17%). In examining the number of prisoners
relative to the general population of a given state or territory, the
Northern Territory has the highest imprisonment rate (886 per 100
000 adults), followed by Western Australia (335 per 100 000 adults)
(<www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0>).
Figure 17.2 Imprisonment rate, Australia, 2000–17

Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia, cat. no. 4517.0, multiple
years.
The United States is typically cited as having the highest
imprisonment rate in the world (a nationwide average of 716 persons
in custody per 100 000 adults), but this rate is surpassed by that of
Northern Territory. One of the drivers of these remarkably high
figures is the rate of imprisonment among Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples: in Western Australia their rate of
imprisonment is a staggering 4066 per 100 000 population and in the
Northern Territory it is 2748 per 100 000 population. These figures
highlight the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians in prison, a complex consequence of multiple
factors including institutional bias (Cunneen 2006).
The experience of imprisonment

The majority of prisoners in Australia are placed in custody following
violent offences, including acts intended to cause injury (22.7%),
sexual assault and related offences (11.6%), robbery and related
offences (7.5%), and homicide and related offences (7.5%;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018b). Other common but less
serious offences include illicit drug offences (14.9%) and unlawful
entry with intent (10.4%). Across all offences and all offenders, the
average prison sentence is 3.7 years, while the median sentence is

1.8 years. These figures vary according to the offence, with the
longest average sentences being served for homicide (14.7 years)
and the shortest for traffic offences (0.7 years). As seen in Figure
17.3 , roughly half of the 28 199 sentenced prisoners in the
December quarter of 2017 could expect to serve less than two years.
Figure 17.3 Number of prisoners by expected sentence length in
Australia
Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia, cat. no. 4517.0.
Looking at the data presented in Figure 17.3 , we can see that the
majority of prisoners will be released back into the community at
some point. This process is referred to as re-entry , and many
programs have been developed to help prepare prisoners for their
return home and to assist in their reintegration following release
(Ndrecka, Listwan & Latessa 2017). Studies demonstrate that ex-
prisoners encounter a large number of barriers that inhibit their
successful re-entry into communities, such as unstable
accommodation, unemployment, relationship difficulties and family
disruption, and mental and physical health adjustments (Solomon et
al. 2006). Some scholars have suggested that ex-convicts wear a
‘scarlet letter’ of incarceration, whereby their criminal record and
experience of imprisonment lead to stigmatisation and limited
opportunities (Kurlychek, Brame & Bushway 2006).
These issues are exacerbated by the unfortunate reality that, in

many cases, prison may actually increase the risk of reoffending.
Thus, not only does imprisonment diminish future life chances, in
some cases the experience of prison can actually serve to harden
criminality. Early research showed that when an individual enters the
‘society of captives’, they must deal with the ‘pains of imprisonment’
such as the deprivation of liberty, goods and services, autonomy and
security (Sykes 1958, p. 64).
More recently, studies show that inmates may be subjected to a

process of prisonisation , which occurs when an individual
internalises an informal inmate code, becoming accustomed to a
prison lifestyle and embodying criminal values (Walters 2003). In
this way, prison is like a ‘school of crime’ in which the individual
associates with other criminals, severs their bonds with society and
grows to resent the law and the actors who uphold it. Prisonisation is
thought to be one of the reasons why, all else being equal, people
who go to prison are more likely to commit another crime than
people who do not, and why longer and harsher custodial sentences
are linked with greater rates of reoffending (Cullen, Jonson &
Nagin 2011; Shlosberg, Ho & Mandery 2018). Accordingly, prison
should be reserved for the most serious and chronic offenders, and
to the extent possible should be used as a last resort.
Community corrections
The massive growth in custodial correctional populations has had
spill-over effects in the amount and characteristics of offenders being
supervised by corrections authorities in the community. Community
corrections include a large number of non-custodial sentences
that vary according to the goal (e.g. supervision, treatment,
reparation), level of intensity, and timing. Some community
corrections options are used as alternatives to incarceration; these
front-end orders include probation orders, fine option orders,
community service orders, intensive supervision orders and home
detention orders. Other community corrections sentences are used
following a custodial placement; these back-end orders include
parole, work release programs, offender registries, and community
notifications.
The most common community corrections sentence is a probation

order. Probation is a period of supervision in the community that
is given in lieu of incarceration. The offender is required to follow
several rules in order to maintain his or her freedom—failure to do so
may result in a custodial placement. The second most frequently

used community corrections sentence is a parole order. Parole is
a period of supervision in the community that is given after a period
of incarceration. Parole orders likewise contain a number of
supervision conditions that must be abided by for the offender to
avoid a return to custody. Parole can be court-ordered, whereby the
offender serves a period of time in a custodial centre with a known
release date and a predetermined length of supervision (e.g. a
sentence of three years in prison and two years of parole). Parole
can also be board-ordered, whereby the offender must apply for
conditional release after a minimum period of imprisonment (e.g. a
prison sentence of five years with eligibility for parole after three
years; once parole has been granted, the individual serves the
remainder of the prison sentence under supervision in the
community). With both probation and parole orders, there are many
standard supervision conditions that apply to most offenders, such
as abstinence from drugs, disassociating with known criminals and
following the instructions of any corrections officer. Special
conditions can also be applied to individual offenders, such as a
curfew, movement restrictions or treatment requirements.
In the December quarter of 2017, there were 69 155 offenders on

community corrections orders in Australia, more than twice the
number of sentenced offenders in custody (28 199) (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2018b). Nationwide, the average cost of
community corrections orders is $18 per day (Morgan 2018). As
seen in Figure 17.4 , the bulk of these orders include probation
(41 236; 60%), parole (15 787; 23%) and community service (11 095;
16%). These numbers have slowly but steadily risen over time. The
number of community corrections orders has increased by 28% in
the past decade (with 53 823 offenders in 2007). Queensland has
the largest number of offenders on probation (11 814) and parole
(6605), while New South Wales accounts for the largest proportion of
community service orders (3144), and Victoria has the greatest
number of fine option orders (1837). Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples account for 20.9% of all community corrections
orders Australia-wide (as high as 76.4% in the Northern Territory and
as low as 7.0% in Victoria), again highlighting the disproportionate
rate at which Indigenous Australians are subjected to formal
correctional sanctions (given that they represent less than 3% of the
general population).
Figure 17.4 People on community corrections orders, Australia,

2000–17
Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Corrective Services, Australia, cat. no. 4512.0,
multiple years.
The rate of community corrections in Australia (i.e. the number of

orders per 100 000 adults) has declined since their heyday in the
early 2000s (see Figure 17.5 ). The rate of community corrections
was 361 in 2017, compared with a rate of 394 in 2000. In addition to
the standard community supervision orders of probation and parole,
the 1990s saw the introduction of a large number of intermediate
sanctions , which are correctional practices that fall somewhere
on the continuum of punishment between probation/parole and
prison. Some of these are stand-alone sanctions, while others are
‘add-ons’ to standard probation and parole orders. Common
intermediate sanctions include electronic monitoring, home
detention, day reporting, halfway houses, shock incarceration,
intensive supervision and boot camps.
Figure 17.5 Community corrections rate in Australia, 2000–17

Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Corrective Services, Australia, cat. no. 4512.0,
multiple years, <www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517>.
While some have welcomed the increase in the number of

corrections sentencing options, critics have voiced concerns that
they result in net-widening , are cost-ineffective and are

associated with high proportions of revocation (Phelps 2013; Tonry
& Lynch 1996). Although one justification for community-based
sanctions is decarceration (the belief that the rate of
imprisonment will lower with the greater range of sentencing options
available), most jurisdictions across the world have seen increases
in custodial correctional populations and more individuals brought
into the community corrections system who might otherwise not have
been (net-widening) (Worrall & Hoy 2005). This may be one of the
contributors to the slow decline in the overall rate of community
corrections orders in Australia since the year 2000, although this has
recently started to rise again.
Correctional staff
Staff working in the corrections system have great responsibility. Not
only are they charged with protecting community safety, they also
have a substantial amount of discretion over offenders. Case study
17.2 provides an example of such discretionary decision-making.
The choices made by corrections officers impact offenders’ wellbeing
and personal circumstances, and can ultimately control offenders’
freedoms. Corrections officers are prone to various forms of role
demands (Hepburn & Albonetti 1980), which include several
stressors associated with the job (Lambert et al. 2005). Common
experiences include role conflict (when the staff member has to meet
contradictory goals, such as punishment and treatment), role
ambiguity (when the staff member has insufficient information about
how to perform his or her job), role underload or role overload (when
the staff member has too few or too many demands) and role
constriction (when the staff member cannot exercise as much
authority as desired).
Corrections staff often have to separate their personal values from

the job that they perform, and must divorce their feelings about an
offence from their interactions with the offender. Custodial
corrections officers face additional stressors due to the harsh nature
of the prison environment (Lambert et al. 2005). The level of
possible dangerousness in custodial settings can often lead to an ‘us
versus them’ mentality and may produce authoritarian attitudes in
prison staff. While most contemporary custodial centres implement
strategies to reduce the institutional socialisation of officers that
would result in untoward behaviour from staff towards inmates,
occasional abuses of power do occur. Community corrections
officers are susceptible to stress and burnout given their work with
high caseloads of involuntary correctional clients, limited resources
and public pressure to keep communities safe. Probation and parole
officers can struggle with their role orientation: because they are
required to balance a number of competing objectives (such as
surveillance and social work), officers are constantly making choices
about how best to work with each client.
Case study 17.2
Discretion in corrections
Correctional staff have substantial discretion: their decisions
directly impact the lives of correctional clients, in addition to
indirectly influencing offenders’ families and communities. For
example, community corrections officers must sometimes
make the difficult decision to suspend an offender’s order and

have him or her returned to custody. This is not a decision
that is made lightly; however, the consequences of failing to
act on a suspected risk of reoffending can be just as serious
as imprisoning someone.
Imagine the hypothetical case of a 35-year-old male on
parole. He has served 18 months in prison for assault
occasioning grievous bodily harm and has been on parole for
12 months. He has been compliant with his order until just
recently. He has missed his last two parole appointments, has
stopped visiting his counsellor and has been reported by
police to be hanging out with a bad crowd. When he came to
his meeting today with you, his parole officer, he was agitated
and combative. You decided to give him a drug test, which
gave a positive result for cannabis use. How would you
respond? How might other officers react? What kinds of
considerations are relevant in your decision of how to
proceed? What other information would you need to make
this decision?
This hypothetical scenario is an example of the types of

decisions that community corrections staff are faced with. In
the above situation, the parole officer would not have a
mandate to suspend the order, although this may be an
option; thus, the officer would be required to provide an
assessment of risk, justifying why the individual should be
allowed to remain in the community under supervision despite
recent events, or providing evidence to support the decision
to return the individual to custody.
Correctional clients
The correctional population, like the general population, includes
people with a variety of demographic characteristics and
backgrounds. Still, it is instructive to consider what the ‘typical’
correctional client looks like in order to gain a snapshot of the people
with whom the corrections system regularly works. As with other
criminal justice processes, males constitute the majority of persons
in the corrections system, accounting for 91.8% of the custodial
corrections population and 80.3% of the community corrections
population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018b). Although
females account for a small overall proportion of the prisoner
population, their numbers have grown substantially over the past few
decades. The prison population is young, with two-thirds of prisoners
under the age of 40 years. The median age across all prisoners is
34.5 years, and the age distribution for male and female prisoners is
approximately the same (see Figure 17.6 ). There is greater
variation in age by offence type, with the median age of prisoners
ranging from 29.9 years for robbery to 44.9 years for sex offences.
The majority of prisoners are Australian-born (81%), followed by
prisoners from New Zealand (3%), Vietnam (2%) and the United
Kingdom (2%).
Figure 17.6 Age distribution of Australian prisoners
Source: © Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia, cat. no. 4517.0.
Prisoners have disproportionately high rates of physical and mental
illness (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2015). One-
quarter of prison entrants have a chronic health condition (such as
diabetes or cancer), 30% have a disability and 43% take a
prescribed medication. Nearly 25% have a history of self-harm and
roughly 50% have a diagnosed mental illness. Although 33% of
prisoners report significant psychological distress, 41% of those
released from prison report an improvement in their mental health
while in custody (primarily due to access to mental health services).
Substance abuse is also more common in the prison population than
in the general population, with 39% of prisoners reporting unsafe
drinking levels in the year prior to imprisonment and 67% of prison
entrants reporting illicit drug use in the preceding 12 months.
The social backgrounds of prisoners generally paint a picture of

disadvantage (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2015).
Approximately 25% of prisoners were homeless in the month prior to
entering prison, and around 33% expect to be homeless following
their release. Nearly half of those entering prison were unemployed
in the preceding month, and two-thirds had not studied in school past
Year 10 (with only 16% of prison entrants having completed Year
12). Almost 46% have children who depend on them for care, and
most (79%) report having had contact with family or friends in the
preceding four weeks.
‘Nothing works’
Following centuries of retributive sentences, rehabilitation gained
favour as the guiding correctional philosophy for the first half of the
20th century. After a period of reign, these rehabilitative efforts
began to receive a lot of public disapproval, as conservatives
believed that the corrections system was too soft on hardened
criminals, and progressives believed that the indeterminate
sentencing and levels of discretion in the corrections system were
leading to unjust and discriminatory practices. At the same time,
Robert Martinson published an influential report that communicated
the findings from an evaluation of 231 correctional interventions,
which concluded: ‘With few and isolated exceptions, the
rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no
appreciable effect on recidivism’ (1974, p. 25). Although Martinson’s
research methods were later criticised as being flawed (Cullen &
Jonson 2012), this study propelled the idea that ‘nothing works’ into
most criminal justice discussions, and the public and practitioners
alike began to believe that offender treatment was indeed a failed
enterprise.
While we have come a long way from the ‘nothing works’ mantra,
this same criticism about unwavering recidivism rates is not
uncommon in current times (Cullen & Jonson 2012; Knaus 2017).
Recidivism loosely refers to reoffending that occurs after some
correctional sanction. One of the difficulties in estimating the true
recidivism rate of those released from some form of custody relates
to conceptual ambiguity and measurement hurdles. Should a re-
arrest be counted as recidivism? Or must that offence result in a new
conviction or a new correctional sanction? Must the relapse be for a
criminal offence or do technical violations of supervision conditions
count as a new offence? What about reoffending that does not make
its way to the attention of police? How long after the correctional
sanction does an offence have to be committed before it is no longer
classified as a new offence (recidivism)? Does the new offence have
to be for the same kind of crime as the original offence for it to be
recidivism? These questions highlight the challenges of measuring
recidivism in criminological research. There is no right way to
measure recidivism; the most important point is that informed
consumers of criminal justice data should carefully consider the
specific measurements used when evaluating recidivism figures.
Setting these issues aside, Australian research indicates that

approximately two-thirds of prisoners have previously been
imprisoned, nearly one-quarter will be reconvicted within three
months of release from prison and approximately half of police
detainees have been arrested within the preceding year (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2018a; Payne 2007; Productivity
Commission 2018). Nationwide, approximately one-fifth of those

being supervised by corrective services incur another correctional
order within two years of release (Sofronoff 2016). These rates
have remained fairly steady across time. The recidivism rate (here
defined as the percentage of prisoners who have served a custodial
sentence before the current sentence; Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2018a) is higher for Indigenous (76.3%) than for non-
Indigenous persons (49.0%). Collectively across all sentenced
prisoners, recidivism is highest for unlawful entry with intent offences
(77.6%), theft and related offences (74.4%), and robbery and related
offences (71.5%). The lowest reimprisonment rate is for sexual
assault and related offences (29.1%)—despite popular belief, sex
offenders have one of the lowest incidences of reconviction following
a correctional sanction (Lievore 2004).
The recidivism rate, coupled with the ‘nothing works’ narrative,

introduced a wave of correctional policies and practices that were
designed to ‘get tough on crime’. Many of these programs (such as
boot camps, intensive supervision and shock incarceration) were
touted as the answer to high recidivism rates and quickly gained
sociopolitical support around the world from the 1980s through to the
early 2000s. Yet the research evidence evaluating these programs
has been conclusive in documenting their ineffectiveness. Studies
show that punishment-oriented correctional practices do not work
and can actually lead to increased reoffending (Andrews & Bonta
2010; MacKenzie 2006). The last few decades of correctional
practices backfiring have shown very clearly that, ‘for offenders who
are already in the correctional system, there is just not much
evidence that trying to punish them makes them less criminogenic’

(Cullen & Jonson 2012, p. 89). Conversely, correctional practices
can reduce recidivism compared with doing nothing, but they work
best when they are aimed towards treatment (Wan et al. 2014).
What works?
Fortunately, in spite of the sustained attacks on correctional
practices, many programs continued and penology scholars
evaluated their impact. Through this process, several findings
emerged showing that, under the right conditions, correctional
practices can be quite influential in reducing recidivism; the question
is thus not whether correctional practices work, but what works,
under what conditions and with whom? As the evidence about these
ideal conditions (sometimes called moderating effects) began to
accumulate, they formed what are now referred to as the principles
of effective correctional intervention (Andrews & Bonta 2010;
Cullen & Jonson 2012). These principles stipulate how the
corrections system can best operate in order to improve offender
outcomes (Cullen & Gendreau 2000). While there are more than a
dozen principles, three are particularly important.
First, the risk principle states that the intensity of the intervention
should be equal to the risk of reoffending for each individual; that is,
low-risk offenders should receive minimal intervention, while high-
risk offenders should receive maximal intervention. Practically, this

may mean that low-risk offenders would meet with their probation
officer once per month, while high-risk offenders would report once
per week. Furthermore, it may mean that only high-risk offenders
would be legally required to attend a treatment program. In order to
appropriately classify and treat each offender, practitioners must
gauge the level of criminogenic risk (i.e. the likelihood of that
person committing another crime) using a validated assessment
instrument. These risk assessments must measure ‘dynamic risks’
(things that can be changed, such as criminal attitudes) rather than
only ‘static risks’ (things that cannot be changed, such as race).
Additionally, risk assessments must be standardised and actuarial,
meaning that risk is measured through statistical methods rather
than through clinical judgement (Latessa & Lovins 2010).
Second, the need principle requires that in order to reduce

reoffending, correctional interventions must work to change those
factors that are causing offending in the first place, known as
criminogenic needs . The most pivotal criminogenic needs, those
that must be altered to reduce reoffending risk, include antisocial
cognitions, antisocial personality patterns and antisocial associates.
Each offender’s needs must be assessed, with correctional
interventions geared towards the results of his or her assessment.
For example, only offenders who abuse substances should be
required to engage in alcohol and drug treatment. Hundreds of
studies have consistently shown that correctional interventions that
do not address true criminogenic needs do not reduce recidivism
(Cullen & Gilbert 2013).
Third, the responsivity principle indicates that correctional

interventions should be delivered in a way such that offenders will
respond. Responsivity considerations are those factors that may
help or hinder the individual’s response to correctional practices.
General responsivity includes treatment modalities, with studies
showing that cognitive-behavioural interventions are most effective.
Specific responsivity includes factors that are unique to each
individual offender; common factors include learning styles, intellect,
culture and gender. For example, it does not make sense to put an
offender through a self-paced self-help program if he or she cannot
read the program workbook, and it does not make sense to require
an offender to attend a treatment program three nights a week
across town when he or she does not have transport and has
primary carer responsibilities. The most effective practitioners alter
their communication style and corrections strategies depending on
who they are working with at that moment, as different offenders will
be responsive to different things.
Taken together, these three principles form the RNR (risk-need-

responsivity) model of evidence-based best practice in corrections.
While correctional practices are varied (e.g. some are designed for
use in custodial facilities while others are geared for community
settings, and some programs are developed specifically for sex
offenders or female offenders or some other special category), most
of the effective programs currently available adhere to these RNR
principles. Popular examples include EPICS (Effective Practices in
Community Supervision), STARR (Staff Training Aimed at Reducing
Re-Arrest) and STICS (Strategic Training Initiative Community

Supervision) (Toronjo & Taxman 2018). Research shows that
offender interventions that incorporate these best practices can
achieve recidivism reductions of up to 60% (Gendreau et al. 2000)
and are geared towards providing corrections staff with the tools
needed to change offender behaviour (Gleicher, Manchak & Cullen
2013).
These effects are strengthened even further when corrections staff

use core correctional practices , which include tactics such as
effective use of authority, prosocial modelling and reinforcement,
teaching offenders problem-solving skills, utilising community
resources and building quality officer–offender relationships
(Dowden & Andrews 2004). Australian corrections agencies use a
large number of treatment programs that embody many of the above
principles, focusing on relapse risks for violent and sex offenders,
and on enhancing motivation and cognitive skills for general
offenders (Heseltine, Sarre & Day 2011). Heseltine and colleagues
propose that ‘it is likely that they will have a positive impact on
recidivism rates’ (p. 5), although they urge that more evaluations are
necessary.
Conclusion
The corrections system is responsible for administering the
sentences delivered by the courts. The aims of the
corrections system have become increasingly important in
recent years, as growing correctional populations have led to
questions of what is most effective in working with offenders
and preventing reoffending. After the poorly designed and
implemented rehabilitation programs introduced in the 20th
century, followed by a generation of failed ‘tough-on-crime’
initiatives, research has uncovered the principles of effective
correctional intervention. The next era of correctional
practices will be focused on translating the scientific evidence
discovered in criminology and penology research into usable
solutions for policy-makers and practitioners working with
correctional clients.
Key terms
back-end orders
community corrections
core correctional practices
criminogenic risk
criminogenic need
custodial corrections
decarceration
determinate sentences
front-end orders
incapacitation effect
indeterminate sentences
intermediate sanctions
net-widening
parole
penology
principles of effective correctional intervention
prisonisation
probation
recidivism
re-entry
responsivity
role demands
transportation
utilitarian
Questions
1. Describe the penological principles. What correctional
practices embody each of these principles? How do these
principles conflict? Is it possible for a correctional sanction or
intervention to meet more than one principle at a time?
Looking at the case of Robert Fardon (see Case study
17.1 ), what are the risks and rewards of using selective
incapacitation?
2. Describe the trends in the number of people currently under
custodial or community correctional orders. How might we
account for these trends?
3. Is prison effective? What kinds of indicators might be used to
answer this question? How might the answer change through
the lens of a different penological principle?
4. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of
community correctional orders? How might community
correctional practices be improved?
5. What are some of the challenges faced by correctional staff?
How might staff be trained or supported to reduce some of
these demands and stressors? Looking at the example

provided in Case study 17.2 , what are some of the
prospects and pitfalls of giving correctional staff discretion in
their decision-making?
6. What does the ‘typical’ correctional client look like? What
insights does this provide into the prevention of crime and
recidivism?
7. What kinds of correctional practices do not reduce recidivism?
8. What elements should a correctional intervention have to
effectively prevent reoffending?
Recommended readings
Cullen & Jonson (2012), Correctional Theory: Context and
Consequences, provides a comprehensive review of the theories
that guide correctional practices.
Gideon & Sung (2011), Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation,

Reentry, and Reintegration, is an edited volume that includes
chapters detailing how offenders progress through the
corrections system from sentencing through to release.
MacKenzie (2006), What Works in Corrections: Reducing the

Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents, is an
authoritative guide on the most (in)effective practices within the
corrections system.
McNeill, Raynor & Trotter (2010), Offender Supervision: New

Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, is an edited volume
that includes chapters from leading researchers in penology.
Websites
Australian Bureau of Statistics: <www.abs.gov.au>
Australian Institute of Criminology: <www.aic.gov.au>
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence: <www.gmuace.org>
International Corrections and Prisons Association: <www.icpa.ca>
World Prison Brief: <www.prisonstudies.org>


WK 1 An Introduction To Crime and Criminology - (Part 4 Responding To Crime)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WK 1 An Introduction To Crime and Criminology - (Part 4 Responding To Crime)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 17 Corrections

Lacey Schaefer and John

There are four dominant penological principles that guide

1. Retribution, sometimes called ‘just deserts’, is an effort to

Each of these principles has strengths and weaknesses, and may be

more or less effective depending on what the correctional sanction is

Related to penological principles are corresponding sentencing

The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld)

While some believe that dangerous offenders should be kept

the word ‘penance’, symbolising the belief that wayward behaviour

Yet with this introduction of the prison as punishment, however,

Word of these brutal practices was reported back to authorities in

contemporary correctional practices around the world (Schaefer,

Although imprisonment is not the most commonly used correctional

Statistics, 2018a). Figure 17.1 highlights this trend. In the

Figure 17.1 Number of prisoners in Australia, 2000–17

Although general population growth is partly responsible for the

Figure 17.2 Imprisonment rate, Australia, 2000–17

The experience of imprisonment

average prison sentence is 3.7 years, while the median sentence is

These issues are exacerbated by the unfortunate reality that, in

security (Sykes 1958, p. 64).

More recently, studies show that inmates may be subjected to a

The most common community corrections sentence is a probation

may result in a custodial placement. The second most frequently

In the December quarter of 2017, there were 69 155 offenders on

Figure 17.4 People on community corrections orders, Australia,

The rate of community corrections in Australia (i.e. the number of

Figure 17.5 Community corrections rate in Australia, 2000–17

multiple years, <www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517>.

While some have welcomed the increase in the number of

they result in net-widening , are cost-ineffective and are

Corrections staff often have to separate their personal values from

Case study 17.2

make the difficult decision to suspend an offender’s order and

This hypothetical scenario is an example of the types of

to return the individual to custody.

Figure 17.6 Age distribution of Australian prisoners

The social backgrounds of prisoners generally paint a picture of

Setting these issues aside, Australian research indicates that

Commission 2018). Nationwide, approximately one-fifth of those

The recidivism rate, coupled with the ‘nothing works’ narrative,

evidence that trying to punish them makes them less criminogenic’

risk offenders should receive maximal intervention. Practically, this

Second, the need principle requires that in order to reduce

Third, the responsivity principle indicates that correctional

Taken together, these three principles form the RNR (risk-need-

Re-Arrest) and STICS (Strategic Training Initiative Community

These effects are strengthened even further when corrections staff

core correctional practices

principles of effective correctional intervention

these demands and stressors? Looking at the example

Gideon & Sung (2011), Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation,

MacKenzie (2006), What Works in Corrections: Reducing the

McNeill, Raynor & Trotter (2010), Offender Supervision: New

that includes chapters from leading researchers in penology.

Australian Institute of Criminology: <www.aic.gov.au>

Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence: <www.gmuace.org>

International Corrections and Prisons Association: <www.icpa.ca>

World Prison Brief: <www.prisonstudies.org>

You might also like