Introduction
For an executive in the corrections division, there are several concerns, goals, and functions in corrections to consider. Ethnic understanding and mixture consciousness are vital principles to cultivate to influence successful administration in government and private establishments and sustain organizational values that support diversity. This paper will deliberate on the purposes of ancient government and modern public correctional organizations’ objectives and criminal integrity matters for rectifications officers and imprisoned individuals’ legal privileges applicable to sentence, therapy, handling, and regulation. Furthermore, it will assess and center on the effects of confinement and public lawfulness problems for one state and reserved prisons, social diversity, and sensitivity responsiveness in reformatories. Finally, it will appraise two techniques of substitute punishing, such as parole and halfway house programs.
Ancient and Contemporary Systems
The criminal justice system comprises various agencies, such as corrections, law enforcement, and courts. The organization’s objectives include: directing justice to offenders, defending the citizens from illegal activities, and presenting imprisoned persons’ tools in correctional facilities to oblige their punishments in confidence that unlawful actions will not repeat (Cengage et al., 2018). Despite having similar functions, the modern and historical corrective structures are distinct in various ways.
The historical sentences were utilized by governments between the 17th to 18th eras, comprising assets retribution, executions, exclusion, and physical mistreatment. For instance, a standard punishment was a mixture of levies and lashings (Cengage et al., 2018). Such punishment aimed to prevent the criminal, not other community members, by reforming the deviant. Imprisonment was employed on people as a restraining room for punishment. Incarceration only was used only as a method of reprimand for a person with intense crimes (Cengage et al., 2018). Therefore, ancient functions’ aim during the period of corrections was retribution and hindrance from criminal activities.
Conversely, there are six principal goals in current prison organizations: justice, prevention, prostration, therapy, recovery, and reestablishment. Justice refers to the administration of a sentence, while prevention outlines that the offender’s punishment is to deter the person and community from committing unlawful actions (Cengage et al., 2018). Similarly, prostration is intended to seclude an individual from society to prevent further crime. Therapy focuses on distinguishing destructive behavior and promoting good behavior and decision-making. Recuperation presents criminals with skills, capabilities, and treatment initiatives to become productive community members (Cengage et al., 2018). Finally, reestablishment involves partnering with society to help offenders take personal responsibility and society shift from criminal acts. However, incarceration is a common strategy used for both the ancient and current situations since it helps achieve the incapacitation and deterrence objectives of correctional institutions.
Punishment, Supervision, Treatment, and Rehabilitation
Punishment in the criminal justice system depends on incarcerated persons or introduced into mandatory programs as a penalty for the crime. The punishment laws and regulations functions in corrections usually impact prisons, communities, and imprisoned individuals. Policies have been evaluated to address the balance of criminals’ constitutional privileges in prisons and jails regarding the sentence (Cengage et al., 2018). Therefore, the lawful rights of lawbreakers should be well-adjusted with criminal integrity aims and purposes by stakeholders.
Conversely, in the ancient corrections structures, the staff is responsible for sustaining the safety, control, cleanliness, and organization of the correctional establishments constituting punishment issues and their realization. Lawsuit administrators, trial captains, and liberation generals have tasks to oversee the criminals and ensure the conditions and guidelines on judgments are followed as the wrongdoers finalize their punishment in the community. Regarding treatment, corrections officers are encouraged to promote healthy behavioral initiatives, psychological services, counseling, and treatment for criminals. Successful rehabilitation approaches should enhance the prisoners’ problem-resolution, communication, and innovative capabilities (Cengage et al., 2018). The strategies are expected to empower inmates with education and business skills and interact within society peacefully.
The support of rehabilitation in correctional facilities and during supervision by officers aims at encouraging good behavior and lifestyle among inmates upon release. Correctional personnel can achieve such milestones by incorporating treatment and rehabilitation strategies while dealing with the offenders. Therefore, treatment during supervision can constitute counseling, psychological care, vocational services, and alcohol programs (Cengage et al., 2018). The objective of therapy, sentence, rehabilitation, and supervision should be sustained by officers within the facilities to enhance society’s integration and maintain nontoxic and protected surroundings.
Social Integrity Concerns in Public and Reserved Facilities
Psychological well-being is a societal integrity concern that affects a significant populace of inmates in public and private correctional facilities. Persons with psychological issues face various problems, such as societal stigmas and discrimination. The healthcare problem impacts social integrity within the structure since most criminals are expected to return to their communities at the end of their sentence (Cengage et al., 2018). However, the government correctional institutions can manage the challenge by preparing and equipping to accommodate and offer care to imprisoned individuals who need mental treatment. Other disabilities developed initially, during, or after their jail terms. The move will help the social justice system ensure every prisoner will acquire complete integration into the community.
Conversely, reserved prisons manage mental health concerns by selecting individuals they prefer to accommodate. For instance, on several occasions, the private facilities usually house minimum and medium-security adult male inmates. Furthermore, they do not accommodate prisoners awaiting execution and typically hold female prisoners (Cengage et al., 2018). Consequently, the institutions’ resources to offer psychological care are more effective and lower, resulting in significant quality and improved social integrity ethos in the organization.
Ethnic Diversity and Sensitivity
Most stakeholders are apprehensive about cultural competence and how it can be enhanced and encouraged. In some cases, the embraced values in penitentiary surroundings include prejudice, prejudgments, ferocity, and other persons’ chauvinism (Cengage et al., 2018). Although criminals have committed unlawful acts, some are more heinous than their fellows, but they should be treated with dignity and respect as normal humans. Numerous government organizations, comprising the Division of Rectifications, have a cultural range of aims and purposes. For instance, the Florida Division of Corrections assortment programs respect individuals’ differences, treating each other with courtesy, consideration, and dignity (Cengage et al., 2018). The policy aids in promoting reduced violence within the institutions and gaining ethnic disparity. Moreover, systems within America should distinguish ethnic understanding and mixture creativities to encourage optimistic revolution in the prisons to acknowledge them from different origins, to reduce ferocity within every facility.
Alternative Sentencing
Overcrowding in correctional facilities in the United States has caused various concerns, such as safety, increased ferocity, poor health conditions, and the potential increase in psychological disorders for prison officers and inmates. Consequently, policymakers have introduced alternative punishment objectives to reintegrate the criminals into the community in various ways, including parole and a halfway house program to avoid jail time. The halfway house program entails supervision of wrongdoers in regulated environments while promoting employment, vocational rehabilitation, and drug and alcohol treatments (Cengage et al., 2018). The alternative form of sentence intends to slowly reestablish lawbreakers into the community and change their negative behavior to positive and law-abiding. Several community initiatives are purposed to encourage previously incarcerated individuals to take personal responsibility and accountability for their decisions in the community’s lives.
Similarly, parole refers to a conditional monitored release of an inmate into society after a prison term. The form of alternative sentencing aligns parolees to specific guidelines and is expected to report to a liberate general. Liberation officers are accountable for trailing the growth, endorsing initiatives, and determining the lawbreaker’s handling level (Cengage et al., 2018). However, the offenders are required to present clean drug and alcohol tests, stick to curfew rules, and at times be placed on electronic monitoring. Therefore, wrongdoers who are ready for change can employ parole as an opening to develop healthy livelihoods and become prolific citizens.
Effectiveness of Private and Government Facilities
Public correctional institutions are government-supervised and managed by state administrations, whereas private and business individuals run the private facilities to generate income. The corrective managers in both reserved and communal systems have various objectives, comprising society, inmates, and employees (Cengage et al., 2018). The directors of both facilities further have the responsibility of sustaining the safety, cleanliness, control, and productive operations of jails. However, the primary distinction between the two sectors is in funding. The public institutions receive finances from tax dollars, while private businesses and their profits back to private organizations (Cengage et al., 2018). However, both sectors have faced similar challenges regarding social integrity concerns, such as psychological disorders, lack of skills, and employment opportunities for criminals.
In conclusion, stakeholders in the corrections department should ensure their policies’ objectives include retribution, restoration, deterrence, reintegration, and rehabilitation within the institutions. Stakeholders should address social justice concerns present in the system by equipping and preparing the facilities to handle the psychological health problems and improve the organizations’ general healthcare program. Ethnic diversity and sensitivity should be frequently investigated to encourage positive change in the correctional facilities, thus driving respect for persons. Moreover, unconventional punishing should be considered to grant criminals the chance for rehabilitation instead of imprisonment if they satisfy worthiness requirements.
Reference
Cengage, L., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American corrections. Cengage learning.