From:  Vernon Fox and Jeanne Stinchcomb.  Introduction to Corrections.  4 ed.  Chapter 1  Pp. 30-36

 

 CLOSE‑UP ON CORRECTIONS

 

Why There's No Room in Our Prisons

 

Over the past decade, at least 50% of all new criminal justice expenditures were directed toward drug law enforcement. Because of aggressive federal policy, all jurisdictions now spend a much higher proportion of their criminal justice budgets on enforcing drug laws. Local and state law enforcement officials complain that federal assistance places too great an emphasis on drug crimes. Local departments thus find themselves restructuring priorities based on federal aid requirements.

That means less money, time and resources devoted to investigating homicides, rapes, domestic abuse, child molestation, etc. Government programs reevaluate their priorities to keep pace with social change. Within the context of criminal justice expenditures, reevaluation has led to huge increases in anti‑drug spending. These increases do not occur in a vacuum, but rather, come at the expense of other justice program....

The result of such [a] policy emphasis has not been greater public safety. Take the case of Florida, for example. While [former] drug czar Bob Martinez was Governor there, the state embarked upon the largest prison expansion in Florida's history. At the same time, however, Martinez pressed for increased drug law enforcement and the enactment of mandatory minimums for drug offenders. The result was as unfortunate as it was predictable. New drug offend­ers serving mandatory minimums outpaced prison construction, and the state was forced to put many violent felons on early release.

At the beginning of Martinez's tenure as Governor, violent felons served an average of 52% of their sentences. When he left office, the average time served had plummeted to 30%. It is clear that the public's safety was not well served by locking up record numbers of drug offenders. . . .

The time has come to tell the bureaucrats in Washington that they can't have everything. They can’t lock up record numbers of' nonviolent drug offenders and then tell us there is no room in the prisons. . . .

 

CONFLICTING CORRECTIONAL GOALS

 

Systemwide planning through a criminal justice policy impact assessment would better coordinate the efforts of police, courts, and corrections. But it is not a panacea for resolving their differences. To function effectively, a "system" requires goals upon which all components mutually agree.

Even within criminal justice agencies themselves, goals can be contradicto­ry. Some police administrators, for example, place greater emphasis on crime prevention and community relations; others focus on "by‑the‑book" enforce­ment and criminal apprehension. Some judges stress holding offenders fully accountable for their crimes; others are more likely to consider extenuating cir­cumstances. Some correctional officials see their mission as incapacitation; others believe that corrections has a responsibility to promote behavioral change. In tact, within the correctional system itself, there are a wide variety of opinions about what constitutes "success": "The Correctional Officers think it is no escapes. The Teachers think it is a GED or an educated person. The Social Workers think it is a rehabilitated person. The Administrators think it is someone who has successfully done their time.”

Although these are admittedly broad generalizations based on narrow occupational perspectives, they do illustrate the conflicting views reflected by differing community sentiments. In that regard it must be acknowledged that criminal justice decision makers do not function in isolation. They are responsible to elected officials, who, in turn, are responsible to the public.

 

The Public's Role in Policymaking

 

Public attitudes about crime, criminals, and what should be done about both change over time. We will see in Chapter 4 how demands for harsh physi­cal punishments for relatively minor misdeeds were replaced as a more humani­tarian society called for more moderate punishments. These changes are reflect­ed in the laws that are passed and the governing authorities who are elected.

Elected officials carry out the mandate of the public through the adminis­trators they appoint. For example, politicians elected on a strong law‑and‑order platform are likely to express public opinion in the appointment of police chiefs and correctional administrators who share their philosophy. (In fact, the office of sheriff‑responsible for both law enforcement and the jail‑represents a direct expression of public attitudes, since it is typically an elected position.) If the pub­lic is dissatisfied with the outcome, the next election may find incumbents facing strong opposition from politicians with a different perspective. Thus, our demo­cratic system of government assures that the opinions of the majority will be influential in the establishment of public policies. The difficulty for the criminal justice system is continuing to operate efficiently in the midst of such political and policy changes.

 

Changing Public Policies

 

In the past several decades, criminal justice agencies have been required to adjust to dramatic shifts in public policies concerning crime and criminals. The public has changed its thinking about what causes people to commit crime, what types of sentences offenders should receive, and what corrections should be accomplishing. Such changes are reflected in what has come to be known as the medical model and the justice model of criminal justice policymaking.

Before exploring these policy models in greater detail, however, it is impor­tant to note that they do not necessarily represent clearly defined, distinct phases or an overnight transition from one to the other. Rather, each emerged gradually over time, and in fact, the "medical" and "justice" labels attached to them were coined in retrospect. It is only through the analysis of hindsight that their philoso­phies and resulting practices appear to be so unique and even contradictory today. Nor was the shift from the medical model to the justice model an immediate poli­cy change that occurred through mutual agreement on a specified date. Rather, it was an evolutionary change driven by prevailing social opinion as expressed in the political arena and ultimately reflected in public policy. Nor are the concepts of these approaches completely mutually exclusive. As we will see much later (Chapter 15), elements of both can be combined operationally into an integrated justice/ treatment model. But first, let us review the ingredients of each.

 

The Medical Model. When you are ill, you see a doctor. You trust the doctor to diagnose your problem and prescribe medication to cure your illness. You do not expect the doctor to punish you for being sick. Similarly, the medical model of crimi­nal justice, prevalent from the 1930s through the mid‑1970s, views offenders as engaging in crime because of forces beyond their control. The forces shaping crim­inal behavior might be psychological (e.g., mental illness), sociological (e.g., dis­ruptive family environment), economic (e.g., unemployment), or even physiologi­cal (e.g., improper diet). The point is that offenders are not held strictly account­able for their actions, any snore than a patient suffering from an illness would be.

Because much of the burden for crime causation is placed on society in this line of reasoning, it is society that the medical model holds responsible for "diag­nosing" the offender's "illness" and prescribing a "cure." In essence, the medical model views society as owing the offender "some sort of compensation." In corrections, this philosophy translated into accountability for changing clients into law‑abiding citizens and successfully returning them to the community­ - that is, rehabilitating and reintegrating.

It is not surprising that the medical model emerged in the 1930s, when exciting advances in psychology, psychiatry, and social work were demonstrat­ing the potential for successful treatment of personal and social problems. It was also during this era that a worldwide economic depression changed the outlook of many who had previously believed that success and stability were solely the products of one's own initiative. The principles of the medical model clearly expressed public opinion at the time.

If offenders were to be effectively treated according; to the medical model, it was essential that sentencing reflect their individual needs. Yet, social and psy­chological sciences are somewhat imprecise, making it difficult to determine how long a client would require treatment before being "cured." The object of sentencing under this model was therefore to "determine the conditions most conducive to rehabilitation,” which translated into indeterminate sentences.

Under indeterminate sentencing; practices, convicted offenders receive flex­ible term, which can range anywhere between one year (or less) and life. Indeterminate sentencing was designed to enable a specific treatment plan to be prepared in which the offender participated for an indefinite period of time until rehabilitated. When correctional officials, in conjunction with treatment personnel, determined that rehabilitation had occurred, the inmate was released on parole.

But while the medical model was so named because of its resemblance to the medical profession, it did not apply quite so precisely to corrections. Criminals convicted of the same offenses ended up serving widely differing lengths of time in correctional institutions, creating sentencing disparities.

Some inmates learned to manipulate the system to their advantage, essen­tially faking behavioral changes. Others were able to adjust their behavior while confined, but unable to cope with freedom‑reverted to criminal activities (i.e., recidivated) upon release. Nor did the taxpayers provide the full array of resources needed to adequately address the wide‑ranging needs of correctional clientele, even assuming that their needs could be accurately identified.

Corrections may have been faced with an impossible mandate. But few took this into consideration as escalating crime rates, more conservative public attitudes, and high rates of recidivism created "get‑tough‑on‑crime" demands by the inid‑1970s. Perhaps the most devastating blow to the medical model came with the 1974 "Martinson report," which has often been cited to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of various forms of treatment programs: "Although the report merely confirmed the reality which correctional workers had been facing for years‑namely, that some approaches work with some offenders under certain conditions and that nothing works with all offenders under all conditions‑it had profound political and policy effects on corrections."

Combined with other social forces that were challenging the assumptions of the medical model, the Martinson report was interpreted as evidence that the model was not working. As public confidence eroded in the ability of corrections to truly "rehabilitate," so too did faith in the principles of the medical model.

 

The Justice Model.             By the mid‑1970s society had become increasingly frustrat­ed with the system's inability to deal effectively with crime. No longer were peo­ple as eager to "excuse" criminal behavior as the product of forces outside the offender's control. A renewed emphasis on personal responsibility emerged, which eventually became known as the justice (or crime control) model, since its focus was on controlling crime and seeing justice served.

Under this new philosophy, people are viewed as capable of making ratio­nal choices‑of deciding through their own free will whether or not to engage in crime. It therefore stands to reason that if one freely elects to commit a crime, punishment should follow to deter other potential criminals, achieve justice, and hold the person accountable for his or her actions.

Unlike the indeterminate sentencing practices of the medical model, deter­minate sentences of "flat" or "fixed" length are called for in the justice model. Under this line of reasoning, "sanctions should be clear, explicit, and highly pre­dictable." The theory is that in this way, criminals know what punishment will be imposed for their actions, similar crimes will receive similar sentences, and projected release dates will not be subject to manipulation. With sentences that are proportional to the seriousness of the crime, the justice model maintains that offenders receive their "just desserts," society obtains retribution for their criminal acts, and the community is protected during the period of their incarceration. Since this model is not based on the goal of rehabilitation, the length of the sen­tence is not determined by treatment effectiveness. Punishment is seen as being for the "good of society; treatment for the good of the offender."

The justice model incorporates treatment only on a voluntary basis, in keeping with the belief that changing one's behavior cannot be forced, but rather, requires voluntary consent. As with the commission of crime, it holds that one must freely elect whether or not to seek personal change. Under the medical model, involvement in treatment was virtually required to become eligi­ble for parole. However, the justice model would not penalize inmates who do not choose to participate in treatment, and in fact, advocates the abolishment of parole discretion to assure more uniformity in sentencing.

In contrast to the rehabilitation and reintegration goals of corrections under the medical model, the mission of corrections changed to a greater emphasis on incapacitation under the justice model. In more recent years, this approach has concentrated on selectively incapacitating those identified as a danger to the com­munity because of the seriousness of their crimes and potential for recidivism. With mandatory treatment no longer required, the justice model defines the role of corrections as "legally and humanely" controlling the offender (either through community supervision or incarceration) and providing "voluntary treatment services." In theory, corrections is therefore not accountable for changing behavior, but only for safe and secure control during the period 111 which the offender is under correctional supervision. (See Figure 1.10 for a summary of the differences between the medical model and the justice model.)

 

Implications for Corrections

 

As every correctional official knows all too well, theory does not necessarily reflect reality. While a conservative society enthusiastically embraced the puni­tive sentencing, free will, and just desserts principles of the justice model, correc­tions has not escaped "blame" for the failures of its clients. When ex‑offenders recidivate, the public still wants to know why corrections is not doing its job, while many correctional employees wonder just what that job is supposed to be.

 

Medical Model      Justice Model

 

                          Crime is a                          Forces in society                          The free will of

                          result of . . .                          over which the                          the offender. who

                                                    offender has little                          elects to engage in

                                                    or no control                          crime over law‑abiding

                                                                              alternatives

 

                          Crime is best                          Changing the                          The deterrent effect

                          prevented by . . .                          motivations                          of swift and certain

                                                    which shape                          punishment

                                                    one's behavior

 

                          Sentencing                          Cure the offender                          Punish the offender,

                          should be                          through treatment,                          protect society, and hold

                          designed to . . .                          rehabilitation, and                          criminals accountable

                                                    reintegration into                          for their behavior

                                                    the community                          through incarceration

 

                          The length of                          Indeterminate                          Determinate

                          sentence should be . . .                          (flexible)                          (fixed)

 

                   Inmates should                                Through parole,                                Through mandatory

                                be released                                when they are                                 release, after they

from confinement . . .      rehabilitated      have served their

            full term

 

Figure 1.10 Comparison of the medical model and the justice model.

 

Undoubtedly, there remains a "lack of agreement on the purpose of correc­tional agencies in our society."'' Should corrections completely abandon the rehabilitative ideal, not concern itself with reintegration, and simply incapacitate or supervise offenders during the length of their sentence? Despite the advent of the justice model, in practice, corrections is still expected to, as the word itself implies, "correct": "The police are directed to arrest law breakers; prosecutors are expected to charge, try and convict offenders; and judges are empowered to punish those offenders. Correctional agencies, on the other hand, are usually expressly charged with the crime prevention function."

Whether implicitly or explicitly responsible for crime prevention, correc­tions often becomes the scapegoat when the crimes of ex‑offenders are not pre­vented. Public policies notwithstanding, it is corrections which remains account­able for its former clients. The fact that this situation is not officially recognized and endorsed by society only makes the mission of corrections all the more diffi­cult and ambiguous. It is like telling a football coach to win games, then restrict­ing the game plan and the equipment (not to mention draft choices)! Corrections was never well equipped to fulfill its rehabilitative function, and when that function became submerged with the justice model, it created a situation of account­ability without authority. Although corrections remains inherently "responsible" for its clients, it has neither the scope of authority nor sufficiency of resources to fulfill that responsibility successfully.

If there is such goal conflict within one component of the criminal justice system, it is not surprising that there is little agreement on what the system over­all requires to enhance its effectiveness. However, there appears to be at least one priority on which officials throughout the system appear to agree.

As more offenders were sentenced to longer periods of incarceration under the justice model during the 1980s, prison and jail capacities were strained to the limit. In 1989, correctional institutions in 36 of the 50 states were under court order." Most of these orders related to reducing prison populations or improv­ing conditions of confinement related to overcrowding. Although construction of new institutions was at an all‑time high in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the availability of new beds has not kept pace with demand‑a situation that has not gone unnoticed throughout the criminal justice system.

By the mid‑1980s, in a survey of over 2000 state criminal justice administra­tors (representing corrections, police, prosecutors, public defenders, courts, and probation/ parole), five of the six groups gave overcrowding in correctional institutions top priority. Crowded institutions were mentioned more often than any other topic when these officials throughout the criminal justice system were asked to identify the most pressing problem facing their state. Nor have condi­tions improved since then. In a follow‑up study conducted in 1992, institutional crowding‑along with related staff and funding shortages‑continued to rank as the key problems facing corrections in the immediate future.

Thus, even if there is lack of agreement about what corrections should be accomplishing, there is some consensus among criminal justice colleagues that corrections can no longer attempt to absorb public policy changes without at least additional physical resources. How many new institutions are needed? How much will it cost the public? No one can answer these questions precisely, and correctional administrators themselves might well prefer other alternatives.  But lacking such alternatives, construction will continue. As a society, we may not agree on what to do with offenders once they get there, but we are apparent­ly committed to making sure that there is somewhere for them to go. For as long; as there is crime, there will be a need for corrections.