philosophy of corrections Essay Example

philosophy of corrections Essay Corrections are simply to correct the life of the defendant. Such as they chose a bad choice in the life, if the court decides theyre guilty of it they place them in a correction facility Jail/Prison thinking it will help change their life around to a more moderate, average person not being a danger to anyone or anything. Crime and penalty had gone side-by-side beforehand America was even born and the dominions were even established. One thing recognized is that even though regulations were not well instituted or documented in pen there were laws, regulations, public regulation and punishments gave down by the residents of the rea for committing deeds that went opposing the beliefs of the colonist. Punishments should vary reliant on state, state, metropolis, or dominion reliant on the communitys beliefs, faith, and state of basis generally of European descent. Punishments might scope from whippings to be locale to demise by hanging. Supplementary areas favored the stocks patio above bloodshed and leaned extra in the direction of area humiliation in were the individual who committed the offense was tarred and feathered. From here the convicted should be made to be the giggling stock of the area to discern the individual who disregarded the towns eliefs. Even though lashing and hanging sounded harsh, they were meant to control the individual and deed as a restraint to others who endangered to pursue in the convicted footsteps. We will write a custom essay sample on philosophy of corrections specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on philosophy of corrections specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on philosophy of corrections specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Supplementary punishments might contain banishments from the town or span, the guillotine for committing slaughter or treason, bastinado beating the souls of the feet normally those of Asian descent, birching is beating an individual in the back alongside birch twigs. In nearly all dominions branding of the person or the people face, destroying the wheel whereas the person arms and legs hould be tied on the wheel and the executioner should break his or her legs and arms, cangue, crank and countless extra punishments should pursue and be utilized to control those who disregarded the town or areas beliefs or public law. The target of sentencing has modified melodramatically above the years. Convict sentencing across the 1700s was harsher, and encompassed the use of corporal penalty, meaning each penalty that involves infliction of pain on the human body (Foster, 2006). In the American dominions, the demise penalty came to be obtainable, but was scarcely grasped out. It was utilized for an expansive collection of offenses from slaughter to select pocketing. There were a collection of demise penalties and these were hanging, blazed at the stake, drawn and quartered, demise alongside dissection and hanging in chains. The target of the demise penalty is a combination of retribution and deterrence as there is an eye for an eye agent, and additionally, the fact that it was completed in area locations was to deter others from committing crimes. A little of the most weighty offenders were hung adjacent the locale of their offense as a class to residents of that area. The target of this sentencing was to raise the horror and dishonor of the death penalty and so deter others from committing offenses that would lead to such a punishment. The use of the demise penalty in the 1700s counseled the main aims of sentencing in the 1700s was retribution and methods in that the demise penalty was grasped out additionally evoke that there are a little restraint and denunciation aims in the sentences. Though, in present periods, these aims are additionally present but in less seeming methods in the form of punishments such as long words of imprisonment and tagging. Similarly, in the 700s fines were utilized as a penalty, displaying that there was additionally a reparative aim. The rising use of imprisonment in the 1700s might additionally perhaps display a rehabilitative target of sentencing. In todays area, there are disparate sights on the kind of penalty given for example; a shoplifter will not be disciplined by being lashed alongside chains; though the aims of sentencing seeming in the punishments given in the 1700s are yet concerning today. The finished aims of sentencing have not truly modified, but instead the punishments imitating these aims have. As one can discern the prisoner as well as he ability adjustments to change alongside society, as the change occur the prisoners inside change and vanquish them. This is how it has been and how it always will be. In the early history of corrections a Codified penalty for offenders was industrialized in the main periods of human history, one of the first recognized composed codes that enumerated disparate kinds of offenses and punishments was the Program of Hammurabi in 1750 B. C. The Code of Hammurabi was tearing into servings to cover disparate kinds of offenses and encompassed descriptions of the punishments to be imposed to offenders. The Harsh Program was industrialized in classical Greece in the seventh century B. C. E. This program delineated lawful procedures and punishments for offenders, such as stoning to demise or public mistreatment as dying. Across the Roman Empire, Ruler Justinian in 534 C. E. amassed a program, which should contain the basis for all present European law. In Rome, offenders were normally tortured, assisted as slaves or in the regal galleys. In most of Europe, forms of lawful sanctions that are acquainted nowadays did not appear till the commencing of the Middle Ages, in the 1200s. Before that time, European believed replies to offense as a confidential matter, alongside vengeance a obligation to be grasped out by the person wronged or by a relations member. Wrongs were avenged in accordance alongside the Lex Talionis, or law of retaliation. In the middle periods, the European worldly regulation was coordinated according to the outdated system. Death, torture and corporal penalty were spread practices at this time. Across the middle periods, the Church, as the dominant communal association maintained its own arrangement of ecclesiastical punishments that made a great encounter on area as a whole. Exceptionally across the Inquisition of the 1300s and 1400s, the church zealously disciplined those that disregarded its laws. At this period, it provided refuge from worldly prosecution to people who might claim benefit of clergy. In period, benefit of clergy was spread to all literate people. Five punishments were public in Europe beforehand the 1770s: Galley slavery, imprisonment, transportation, corporal penalty and death. Galley slavery was utilized as the periods of classical Greece and the Roman Empire and was not properly abolished in Europe till the mid-1770s (Ives, 1970). Prior to the 1800s, imprisonment was utilized for the short-term custody of offenders awaiting examination or those industrialized the early house of corrections in Europe in 1553. Houses of corrections were a blend amid workhouse and poorhouse in whereas inmates were harshly disciplined and compelled to work (Clear et al. , 2006; Allen Simonsen, 2001). Transportation was additionally a public exercise in European states as they hold dominions all above the world. For instance, Australia was industrialized as a British penal dominion as well as Tasmania and supplementary locations. The American dominions were one more point of destination for British convicts (Spierenburg, 1995). Later the American Revolution, England had to halt transporting prisoners to America. As British prisons came to be overcrowded, a colossal number of convicts were assigned to deserted ships†hulks†placed on the stream Thames (Allen Simonsen, 2001). As area penalty was believed a good restraint for offenders, corporal penalty and demise were extremely spread in European countries. As such, torture, mutilation and demise were extremely prominent in Great Britain from the ixteenth to the eighteenth century. With the Enlightenment, a change in penal believed transpired in Europe. In 1764, Cesare Beccaria wrote An Essay on Offenses and Punishments, in that he supported for a profound reformation of penology believed, administration of fairness and punishment. Beccaria (1764) clashed that punishments ought to fit the offense and ought to be precise, quick and severe. In supplement, Beccaria (1764) trusted that regulations should be composed and legal prudence ought to be limited. Jeremy Bentham was one of the managing reformers for British convict law. Bentham supported for a arrangement of graduated punishments to make a system were penalty and offense were equal. Instituted on his believed that humans are hedonistic, the aim of humans is to maximize pleasure as minimizing pain; Bentham trusted that punishments were the best restraint for crime. Bentham was not in favor of the demise penalty but did like the believed of incarceration and area humiliation. John Howard is recognized as one of the main proponents of prison improvements on the past of penology. Howard voyaged extensively all above Europe to examine Jails and prisons. In 1777, he described his indings and his counseled improvements in his State of Prisons. Howard (1777) supported for safeguard and sanitary abilities, inspection and a reformatory regime. As America was a British dominion, settlers lived below the British laws. At this period, punishments were cruel and relied deeply on corporal punishment and demise as incarceration was not an spread exercise. In 1682, Pennsylvania adopted The Outstanding LaW promulgated by English Quaker William Penn. The Outstanding Regulation was quite humane and emphasized on hard labor as extra competent penalty than death. As such, merely premeditated slaughter was ndictable by demise The Outstanding Regulation was in power till it was substituted by the Anglican Program in 1718; an extremely punitive code. The Anglican Program tabulated disparate corporal punishments (e. . mutilation and branding) and thirteen capital offenses Later the American Revolution, the thoughts of the Enlightment obtained momentum. With the thoughts of Beccaria and Bentham and the Statement of Independence, a new penal arrangement was industrialized As such, reformers clashed that Americans had to move away from barbarism and punitive measures of penalty and embrace a extra rational and hum anistic way to ome to be very prominent in Philadelphia as hey industrialized the Area for the Alleviating the Miseries of Area Prisoners in 1787 below the association of Benjamin Rush. The Philadelphia Walnut Road Jail was crafted to imitate the Quaker believed of penitentiary -a locale whereas prisoners might imitate on their offenses and become penitent and therefore experience reformation. Inmates were categorized by their offenses; Weighty offenders were allocated in solitary imprisonment without labor, as supplementary offenders worked across the date Jointly in silence and were confined separately at night. Later the Walnut Road Jail came to be extremely overcrowded, two new prisons were crafted in Pittsburg and Philadelphia, that marked the progress of a penitentiary arrangement established in confinement. In distinct imprisonment, prisoners were grasped in isolation alongside all hobbies grasped in their cells. The Pennsylvania arrangement of distinct imprisonment came into attack due to harsh punishments and prisoners paining mental breakdowns due to isolation. The New York Penitentiary at Auburn was established on the congregate system. Below this arrangement, inmates worked in workshops across the date and hey were retained a portion across the evening time. Elam Lynds, the warden at Auburn, instituted a law of control that included the lockstep and wearing stripped uniforms. Lynds additionally utilized the contract labor arrangement, in that inmates worked for free for confidential employers who endowed raw materials utilized to make products in the penitentiary. By the mid-1800s reformers had come to be disenchanted alongside the penitentiary model. Neither the Pennsylvania arrangement nor the Auburn system attained the anticipated aim of rehabilitation and deterrence. Thus, penitentiaries came to be quickly overcrowded, understaffed, nd brutality was much extended. In 1865, The New York Prison Association provided Enoch Wines and Theodore Dwight the task of surveying prisons nationwide. Wines and Dwight discovered that reformation was not the main aim of countless prisons and that corporal penalty was an spread exercise In 1870, Wines and supplementary penal specialists led an encounter in Cincinnati. From this encounter, a statement of principles was developed. Amid these principles were the demand to use a association of prisoners, indeterminate sentencing and reformation. The ultimate aim of these reformers was the reformation of inmates. The Early reformatory was crafted in Elmira, New York. Zebulon Brockway was appointed superintendent. Brockway was a large advocate of diagnosis and treatment. He emphasized education and training to delight inmates, who were interviewed to comprehend the reasons of their deviance In supplement, Brockway utilized a mark arrangement of association, indeterminate sentencing and parole. Brockway receded in 1900 (Rothman, 1995). The thoughts of Wines, Brockway and supplementary penal reformers considerably contributed to the progress of present American corrections by introducing thoughts uch as inmate association, rehabilitative plans, sentencing, parole and educational plans The early two decades of the twentieth century embodied a drastic change on the communal landscape of America. Industrialization, urbanization and technological and logical advancement revolutionized the American society. At this period, the progressives†upper-class philanthropists†believed that they might resolve most communal setbacks derived from quick urbanization in big rehabilitated across individualized treatment The progressives were deeply affected by the positivist school of criminology Positivists trusted that convict deeds is not a roduct of free will; it is product of biological characteristics, psychological and a little sociological conditions. As such, convicts can be treated (See Lombroso, 1876). The progressives wanted to (1) enhance the conditions of living of little spans whereas criminality was prominent, and (2) reinstate offenders. The progressives pursued governmental deed to enhance the living conditions of the poor as a method to battle crime. Their strategies encompassed larger area health, area housing and education. By the 1920s, the progressives were prosperous on requesting probation, indeterminate sentencing, parole and Juvenile courts. Even though these strategies were counseled at the 1870 Cincinnati encounter, the progressives were instrumental on requesting them across the United States. The medical model of corrections was based on the belief that criminal behavior is caused by social, psychological, or biological deficiencies that require treatment. Based on the progressive movement, the medical model was implemented in the 1930s. One of the main proponents of the medical model was Howard Hill who designed the Norfolk State Prison in Massachusetts in 1927. Gill staffed his prison with educators, psychologists and ocial workers to provide individualized treatment to inmates. In 1929, Congress authorized the new Federal Bureau of Prisons under the leadership of Stanford Bates, to develop institutions with treatment as the main goal. Bates was a strong advocate of the medical model. The 1950s is known as the era of treatment in American Corrections. Punishment was perceived as an obsolete way to deal with offenders and treatment took a central role in penology. To this extent, prison became mental health institutions were inmates were continuously tested for their readiness to reenter society. After World War II, psychiatry was used as a tool to rehabilitate offenders. As such, group counseling, behavior modification techniques, psychotherapy and individual counseling were common ways to treat inmates. Marylands Patuxent Institution was one of the best examples of a prison built according to the principles of the medical model. During the 1960s and 1970s, the American society experienced many changes due in part to the civil rights movement, the war on poverty and the Warren Court. Contrary to the medical model, the community corrections model advocated for the reintegration of the offender into society. Proponents of the community model proposed that psychological treatment should be substituted for vocational and educational programs that helped inmates to become successful citizens. Due to rising crime rates, in the mid-1970s, critics of the rehabilitation model attacked indeterminate sentencing and parole urging release not to be linked to treatment. Proponents of increased crime control called for longer sentences particularly for habitual and violent offenders. Robert Martinson surveyed 231 treatment plans in the United States and, in 1974, he published a report shouted What works? Inquiries and Answers on Prison Reform. In his report, Martinson finished that, except for insufficient plans, rehabilitation did not have each affirmative result on recidivism. The Martinson report was utilized by officials to apply a get tough philosophy on penology. As such, in the 1980s and 1990s, the new crime ideal supported for the use of incarceration and severe supervisions well as (and yet are) at that time. References Foster, B. (2006). Corrections: The Fundamentals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Whyte, A. , Baker, J. (2000, May 8). Prison Labor on the Rise in U. S.. Retrieved from http://www. wsws. org Visher, C. A. 1987. Incapacitation and Crime Control: Does a Lock Em Up Strategy Reduce Crime? Justice Quarterly 4:413-543. Foster, B. (2006). Corrections:The Fundamentals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Lambert, T, A brief history of punishment. , NJ: Stukin, Stacie. Violated Vibe Monthly January 2004: 100-104. Kosof, Anna. Prison Life: The Crisis Today. New York: Franklin Watts, A Division of Grolier Publishing, 1995. Prison, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2003. Available. http:// encarta. msn. com. copyrighted 1997-2003. http://www. drtomoconnor. com/ 1050/10501ect01 . htm Adler, F. , Mueller, G. O. , Laufer. W. S. (2006). Criminal Justice An introduction 4th Ed Ezorsky, G. (1977). Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment Mays, G. L. Winfree, L. (2009). Essentials of corrections. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Schmalleger, F. Smykla, 1. 0. (2011). Corrections in the 21st century. New York, N. Y. McGraw Hill Seigel, L. J. Bartollas, C. (2011). Corrections Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth David K. Haasenritter, Military Correctional System: An Overview, Corrections Today, 65, No. 7 (December 2003), 58-61. J. W. Roberts, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Its Mission, Its History, and Its Partnership with Probation and Pretrial Services, Federal Probation, 1, No. (March 1997), 53-57. Paul W. Keve, Prisons and the American Conscience: A History of U. S. Federal Corrections (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991). The American Prison: From the Beginning A Pictorial History, (College Park, MD: The American Correctional Association, 1983). Normal Morris and David J. Rothman, Editors, The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995). Richard P. Setter, Correctional Administration: Integrating Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002). Federal Bureau of Prisons, Legal Resource Guide to the Federal Bureau of Prisons 2003 (Washington, DC: US Dept. Justice, 2003). Joseph Summerill, Reforming Prison Contracting: An Examination of Federal Private Prison Contracts, Corrections Today, 64, No. 7 (December 2002), 100-103. David K. (December 2003), 58-61. Gregory J. Stroebel and John l. Hawthorne Ill, Marine Corps Corrections Similar But Not Identical to Civilian Corrections, Corrections Today, 65, No. 7 (December 2003), 62-64. Michele D. Buisch, High-Level Security Inmates, Corrections Compendium, 28, No. 9 (September 2003), 9-28.