FREE ESSAY ON THE RIGHTS OF PUNISHMENT

THE RIGHTS OF PUNISHMENT

Wake Up Call
Is this a hellish nightmare that I have to awaken from? 
Caged and confined, thinking and pondering, 
I wonder what human is this 
that he should be subjected to imprisonment 
that neither improves nor corrects his soul? 
Is there no compassion for restoring a man 
to contribute to this nation? 
Or does the dark side of humanity 
see offenders of the law as utter undesirables 
unworthy of aid and therapy? 
Society, I have been tried and sentenced. 
Serving time for violating the law is not supposed to be a picnic. 
But demoralizing and dehumanizing a man 
to the dust of the ground does not correct behavior 
that got him incarcerated in the first place. 
This only fuels the fire,
a fire which, if not handled properly,
will in time burn everything in its path.
Now who is the real criminal? 
Cell 52514
Block 2-229
Crescent City Penitentiary 
Everyday, the American prison system becomes more crowded and over-burdened. Prison bed
space cannot keep up with the prison population. While presidents and governors call for
a "tough stance" on crime, the infrastructure is inadequate to contain all offenders.
However, even if there were enough room to fit every individual that commits a criminal
act, would this be the best move for the community and the offender? Placing an
individual into a prison removes them from the general population, thus making the
society they live in safer. But, separating individuals in a community does indirectly
injure the community as a whole. These individuals obviously are no longer contributing
to the local economy, but on a basic level, their absence places a hole into a community.
Offenders have been shaped by the values and practices of their community. So, even
though an individual may have acted in a way that is unacceptable to their community,
that person is still the product of his community. Therefore, communities must hold some
of the burden for making people into who they are.
So, prisons must do more then just contain offenders. A responsible society must make the
effort to rehabilitate these individuals and make strides to re-connect them with the
community. As Bill McKibben says, "Isn't it time to focus harder on substantive problems,
such as how do we build a society that doesn't destroy the planet by its greed, and
doesn't ignore the weak and the poor (McKibben, p. 720)." Much attention has been given
to issues of big business versus the environment. People can sympathize with this cause.
Though it may not be as glamorous, it is just as important that society's addresses the
needs of the less fortunate. Even though criminals who commit the most heinous crimes
receive the majority of public attention, most offenders are not intrinsically evil or
irreversible. Often they are weak individuals who may not have received the best
upbringing or have instilled in them a set of values incompatible with the community.
McKibben feels that it is important not to ignore these unfortunate individuals, and give
them an opportunity to re-engage with society in a mutually acceptable way.
Therefore, prisons need to train offenders to exist with the rest of society. In the
book, C-Unit, the authors suggest that prisons fulfill a certain role.
The modern prison is asked to perform three tasks: (1) to make explicit in action that
the community will not tolerate certain destructive behaviors; (2) to protect the
community, for at least temporary periods of time; and (3) to prepare such persons to be
responsible members of the community when they are released from prison. (Studt,
Messinger and Thomas, p. 3)
By containing prisoners within the confines of a jail, they are removed from the
community at large, thus protecting the community. In addition, by making this prison
stay punishment, inmates, for the most part, realize that they acted in a way that was
unacceptable. Preparing individuals for re-integration into society is where the role of
a prison becomes complex.
A prison stay is unlikely to reform any criminal if it only means that they are separated
from the community and there is no drive to change. The first change that needs to be
addressed is on the value system of an inmate. Without this, it is only superficial to
urge an offender to conform to the role of a responsible citizen.. The offender must be
made to realize that the act they committed was unacceptable. Further, they need to
understand why it was not legal within society and comprehend why it was wrong. The
authors of the C-Unit think that offenders need to learn what it means to hold a moral
role within society. They say; 
Specifically we consider that a moral relationship is characterized by ascription of
dignity to individuals, respect and concern for the rights and welfare of others in
pursuing individual interests and reliance on positive social controls rather than on
force or manipulation to regulate interaction. (Studt, Messinger and Thomas, p.5)
Offenders have to acquire the ability to relate to others in the community. They need to
have concern for more than their personal desires and must learn to act in a way that
does not infringe on the lives of other individuals. Specifically, offenders must develop
compassion and tolerance towards others in their community. 
McKibben would agree that in order to be a responsible member of society, an individual
would have to consider the needs of the community. He states, "by accepting the idea that
we should never limit desire or choose from the options our material and spiritual
liberations give us, we ignore similarly pressing facts about our larger community
(McKibben, p. 721)." Offenders need to learn that their actions have a direct impact on
the community and that they cannot pursue their selfish wants inconsiderately. They need
to live within the same set of limits as everyone else. If an offender is able to
perceive these limits, they are better able to re-connect with the community
This change in an offender's perception of values cannot be facilitated by force. The
C-Unit authors talk of change through "positive social controls," rather than coercion.
Such an important change in individual's fundamental value system must be taken
voluntarily, otherwise the risk of rejection increases. In his essay, The Idea of
"Community": A Critique, Dennis Wrong examines the difference between "conformity based
on shared values" and straight "conformism (Wrong, p. 79)." Wrong believes that a person
will naturally conform to an ideal if that person shares the same values as other of the
ideal. Conformism is different in that it requires no agreement on values. It is
conformity driven solely by the want to conform. The risk involved is that if offenders
conform to the role society has laid out for them, they may not have accepted society's
values. It is important, for lasting change to occur, that this conformity, back into an
accepted member of the community, also include agreement on values. If the values of an
offender remain in conflict with those of society and the offender is just practicing
conformism, there is less of a chance that the offender will be successfully
re-integrated with society.
Even if an offender's value set changes, they will still have difficulty returning to
society because they often lack the social skills necessary to exist with others. They
may also lack the ability to trouble shoot their own problems in a way that does not
include an illegal act. In order to rehabilitate individuals, it is required that they
develop the proper set of skills to help them lead a respectable life. In his essay,
Probation and Cognitive Skills, Frederick Chavaria says that; 
Nearly every notable (successful) program shared one common characteristic: some
technique had an impact on the offender's thinking. Effective programs not only targeted
the offender's environment, behavioral responses and skill development, they also sought
to increase the offender's reasoning skills, problem solving abilities and expand
offenders empathy toward others. (Chavaria, p.57) 
Not only must a program address the values and compassion of an inmate, but it must also
give the inmates a set of tools that will allow them to be successful. When inmates leave
the confines of prison, they need to have some vocational skill that will allow them to
gain useful and satisfying employment. Many of the skills offenders need, however, are
more "soft" and not based on a specific job function, but are universal. Offenders need
to be taught how to handle the difficult times they will run into beyond prison walls in
a way that is acceptable to the community. If an offender does not have these tools,
often they will relapse into their old ways in order to combat a problem. Having the
skills to deal with individuals and problems increases the likelihood that an offender
will have a smooth transition back into the community.
Many programs attempt to induce these important changes in offender's behavior. All of
these programs accept that some criminals' acts are too abominable or an inmate is so
hardened to the prison system that they are beyond change. First, these programs must
focus their energy on offenders who can be rehabilitated and who have committed crimes
that are not overly nefarious. Once an offender population is defined and a program is
put in place, it must be objectively determined whether a program is successful. In order
to evaluate effectively a program's ability to make changes to an offender's life and
break the criminal cycle, appropriate measures need to be examined. A successful program
would primarily reduce the chances that an offender would commit a crime. A reduction in
recidivism would indicate that the reformed offenders had acclimated back into the
community in an acceptable way. Changes in lifestyle, though difficult to measure,
including an increase in education or the ability to hold a quality job, would also
indicate that a program is achieving its goals. Programs that claim to fulfill these
measures include, shock incarnation, prison boot camps and the extended use of the parole
system. (University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice)
Both shock incarcerations (SI's) and boot camps take place while offenders are still
serving their custodial term. SI's place new offenders into a very intensive prison
sentence that is harsher than the standard sentence for a particular crime, but for a
shorter period. For instance, an offender might normally receive fivehundred hours of
community service or the option of entering an SI that would require a jail term that
amounted to less time served than the community service program. The offender is
segregated from the regular population, but is still subjected to the realities of
prison. The Criminal Disposition Commission's Alternatives to Incarceration Committee
found this imperative for the success of SI's. They say, "Shock programs are purported to
give felons sufficient experience with prison to deter them from crimes without risking
"Prisonization" and its accompanying effects (Coyle, p. 3)." By segregating the prison
population and keeping the SI members isolated, offenders are less likely to become
hardened. When offenders are subjected to the long-term reality of prison, they can
develop a rejection of society called "prisonization." It is very difficult to
re-integrate an offender after they have become hardened to the penal system. Segregation
from the main prison population also means that offenders do not have as great of an
opportunity to develop a network of criminals. Such sentences work by giving a new
offender a startling view into penitentiary life without the effects of prisonization.
Boot camps are similar to SI's in that member offenders are isolated from the rest of the
population. The difference is that boot camps require that members perform strenuous,
difficult labor. Often, an offender who accepts a boot camp sentence receives a shorter
term, but by accepting this term, they are agreeing to work. Boot camps are effective
because they give inmates skills while receiving punishment. In his article, Boot Camps
as a Viable Alternative, Jeffrey Collins says that these programs, "assist offenders in
developing self-esteem, self-discipline and a positive work ethic with value based
principles (Collins, p.1)" Self esteem and discipline along with a positive work ethic
are tools an offender can directly apply to their lives outside of prison. The concept of
"value based principles" suggests that boot camps attempt to enlighten offenders to what
acceptable values are. Since these programs are involving the offender in a voluntary
work environment, it is hoped that these values will be absorbed by the individual. 
Both of these programs outperform a standard prison sentence in terms of recidivism, but
the effect is only marginal. When an offender leaves the supervision of these programs,
they often revert to old habits. Success of these programs increases dramatically when
coupled with services that support the reintegration of an offender back into the
community. The parole system is one such program and is often under utilized by the
judicial system. In her article, Federal probation and pretrial services - a cost-
effective and successful community connection system, Loren Buddress claims that
probation and pre-trial services can have a large impact on breaking the criminal cycle.
She states;
The federal pre-trial services system offers a solution to the dilemma facing lawmakers
and public officials. The system has years of proven, unique success with those it
supervises; it achieves this success at one-tenth the cost of incarcerating an offender;
it fulfills its mission to protect the public by effectively using correctional resources
to reduce offender recidivism. (Buddress, p.5)
Such programs are much less expensive than prisons and using them more often would
provide an outlet to prison overcrowding while offering marked success in reducing
recidivism. In addition, since these programs offer individual supervision, they provide
the kind of social support that the authors of the C-Unit feel is so important. 
These types of programs address the symptoms of criminal behavior. They are concerned
with reducing prison population and changing the outward behavior of offenders. However,
are such programs helpful in initiating a permanent and irreversible change in offenders?
Dennis Wrong reminds us that conformism is a concept that occurs when values are shared.
This means that if offenders honestly believe in the same values as the rest of the
community, they will naturally conform to the acceptable behaviors of the community.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to address directly an offender's value system. These
programs, at best, confront the results of the value system. Wrong would say that these
programs are forcing the offenders to conform without directly influencing the underlying
values. Because their fundamental values are unchanged, a change in behavior would not be
involuntary and natural. Individuals do not readily accept this forced conformity. 
Compounding the problem is the status an offender is labeled with in the community.
Employers are reluctant to hire them and their neighbors are usually suspicious of them.
Their community is not freely accepting them back. The more abhorrent the criminal act
leads to a stronger stigma attached to the offender. Infact, in the case of crimes of
extreme violence or those of a sexual nature, communities will strongly reject the
reintegration of offenders. Wrong believes that it is this status issue that is pitting
offenders against their respective communities. He says, "the compulsive quest for status
weakens community by pitting people against one another as competitors while at the same
time encouraging frantic conformity to the shifting group fashions that set the terms on
which status is granted (Wrong, p. 76)." Individuals in communities are so driven by
their need for status that it becomes pathological. The community itself becomes sick as
individuals vie for a higher rank. It is unfortunate that the weak suffer the most from
this because others, trying to achieve, trample them. Criminal offenders usually enter
this "rat race" near the bottom of the ladder. It is therefore of little surprise that an
offender usually cannot compete against this strong drive for status. When conventional
methods of obtaining status fail, an individual is likely to consider criminal or quick
fix behaviors. 
In addition, Wrong is talking about how the standard to conform to is continually in
flux. Since true conformation occurs when individuals agree to an accepted set of
underlying values and the standard to conform to is constantly changing, it is near
impossible secure these standard values. Most individuals in a community are only
conforming outwardly to the accepted standard because their underlying value system is
much more stable than the dynamic view of status. Overall, this creates a difficult
situation for an offender who is trying to re-connect with society. It is much like
trying to merge on a super-highway, at eighty miles an hour, in rush hour, on a tricycle.
Something usually gets crushed.
Just because a situation seems impossible does not mean a community is not responsible to
make at least an attempt, which many programs do admirably. The State of New Jersey has
implemented versions of these programs with a good degree of success. New Jersey uses a
blend of programs in an attempt to maximize their benefits. Boot camps and SI's along
with prison simulation's such as Scared Straight, try to awaken would be offenders to the
realities of prison. New Jersey's Criminal Disposition Commission has determined that
these programs have a definite rehabilitative effect. They claim, that it is critical for
an offender's success that they are enrolled voluntarily for at least six months and they
must take advantage of the treatment services offered. If an offender follows these
steps, the program can act as a "catalyst for pro-social change and the development of
positive attitudes (Coyle, p.7)." These programs can promote change in an offender. They
do not claim to cause a change in the base values of an individual, but they can act as a
"catalyst" for this change. They attempt to provide the environment to let an individual
voluntarily evolve into an acceptable member of society. The treatment services offered
act as a road map for individuals to get back into a productive community role. They
cannot change an individual on their own, but the hope is that if an offender is enrolled
in these programs for long enough and if they have a willingness to participate in them,
some lasting change should be made. The benefit of these programs alone is minimal,
however.
Once an offender leaves one of these custodial programs, New Jersey offers an intensive
supervision program (ISP) that does have a strong correlation with reduction in
recidivism rates. These ISP programs are of a greater degree of supervision than the
standard parole and helps offenders acclimate back into community life. One study showed
a reduction in recidivism rate of 20% for offenders who have completed ISP programs. They
state, "ISP's had an indirect impact on recidivism through its direct impact on offender
change, offering strong support for crime control through treatment (Fulton, p. 6)."
Here, the criminal cycle is broken through strong support on an individual basis. The
focus of these programs is to guide an offender, on a case by case basis, back into the
community. 
Though not a panacea for all cases, New Jersey has taken strong measures to integrate
their criminal rehabilitation program with the needs of the community and the offender.
Prisons are no longer just for punishment and containment. It is critical for the health
of a community that the penitentiary system focuses on the permanent rehabilitation of
their offender population. By using a variety of the programs listed before, offenders
are offered the chance to change and the possibility of leading a respectable life in
their community. Unfortunately, the social system is not set up to make this change easy.
It requires a lot of attention and support to guide an offender back to a straight
lifestyle. The cost of supporting these programs is high, but not as high as the cost of
incarcerating a criminal for similar crimes repeatedly. The end results of these programs
are far more exciting than the results of pure incarceration. By trying to rehabilitate
an offender, a community is ingesting a remedy to the aches and pains of crimes while
unknowingly strengthening the community as a whole. When offenders are rehabilitated,
they contribute to the health of a community. They can set the example for future
generations, through their experiences, of how crime does not pay. 
Bibliography
Buddress, Loren A.N. "Federal Probation and Pretrial Services- a cost-effective and
successful community connections system." Federal Probation 61 (1 April 1997): 5-12.
Chavaria, Fredrick R. "Probation and Cognitive Skills." Federal Probation 61 (1 June
1997): 57-60.
Collins, Jeffrey G. "Boot Camp is a Viable Alternative." Michigan Chronicle 28 March
1995: PG.
Criminal Disposition Commission Alternatives to Incarceration Committee. Boot Camp
Prison. Coyle, Edward. New Jersey: SI Newhouse Center for Law and Justice, March 1990.
Duncantell, Douglas. Wake Up Call. C-52514 B2-229, P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA
95531.
Harley, Debra A. Vocational Rehabilitation Services for an Offender Population." Journal
of Rehabilitation 62 (15 April 1996): 45-9.
McKibben, Bill. "TV, Freedom, and the Loss of Community." Colombo, Cullen and Lisle, ed.
Rereading America. Boston: Bedford Books, 1995: 712-23.
Studt, Messinger and Wilson. C-Unit. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968.
University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice. The State of ISP: Research and
Policy Implications. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
1997.
Wrong, Dennis. Skeptical Sociology. New York: Columbia University Publications, 1976:
71-80.