THE CURRENT CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS: THE FAILURE OF IMPRISONMENT

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2: AN IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS

Chapter 2 will look at the development of penological ideas leading up to the present situation, concentrating in particular on reasons why the current crisis in corrections should not only be seen in terms of high crime rates and overcrowded prisons, but lies much deeper in what can be described as a bankruptcy of ideas and options. As will be shown throughout this study, the interplay between the ideologies of the classical and positivistic schools largely ties at the heart of the matter, since it is evident that people entertain different, almost « polar, »opinions about the concept of justice.Justice in a retributive sense is an important aspect of penology, and perhaps the greatest lesson to be learnt from this history of punishment is that justice without equal adjudication amounts to injustice. It is therefore advisable that the author adds to this discussion of the development of punishment a brief account of what he understands under the concepts « retribution » and « justice. » Three topics are dealt with in this chapter:
1. A summary of the most important historical facts, and how the current situation originated.
2. A brief discussion of retribution and justice.
3. An interpretation of the history of punishment from a retributive viewpoint.
The history of punishment, as such, is treated under the following three captions:
1. Theoretical underpinnings: the classical and positivistic schools;
2. the development of the prison (the penitentiary, the origin of parole, the reformatory, and the medical modet; and
3. the situation today.
It should be noticed that the stages discussed here do not attempt to provide an account of the whole correctional picture, but portray only some of the most significant moments in the history of penal thought that have a direct bearing on the present situation.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PENOLOGICAL IDEAS

Theoretical underpinnings: two schools of thought

 The classical school

The modem era in penology began with the classical school in the eighteenth century. According to Welch, the Era of Enlightenment (or of « reason ») emerged during the mideighteenth century in Europe (1996:48). Under the influence of scientists such as Isaac Newton, who presented a systematic synopsis of the laws of physics, intellectuals started to investigate social and scientific phenomena in a methodological and objective way. Intellectuals such as Voltaire and Montesquieu also criticised the orthodox religious viewpoints of their day and focused instead on the power of reason, humanitarianism,utilitarianism and secularism in interpreting and analysing the world (Ibid., p.49).The Marquis de Beccaria (1738-1794), who can be seen as the central figure of the classicai school of criminology, was strongly influenced by the writings of Montesquieu and Voltaire.especially with regard to their notions on utilitarianism and deterrence (Welch 1996:49). In his famous treatise « Essay on Crimes and Punishments, » Beccaria condemned the penal practices of his day, including practices such as the unfettered exercise of discretion by judicial officers, capital punishment, the use of torture to obtain confessions, the debtor’s prison, reinterpretation of laws by judges, and the excessive punishment of minor offenders. Concerning judicial discretion, Beccaria’s intentions are obvious in the following excerpt from his essay « On Crimes and Punishments » (Beccaria 1986:11 [1764]):Nothing is more dangerous than the common axiom that one must consult the spirit of the law … Everybody has his own point of view, and everybody has a different one at different times. The spirit of the law, then, would be dependent on the good and bad logic of a judge, on a sound or unhealthy digestion, on the violence of his passions, on the infirmities he suffers, on his relation with the victim … Thus we see the fate of a citizen change several times in going from one court to another, and we see that the lives of poor wretches are at the mercy of false reasonings or the momentary churning of a judge’s humors.
In this strong condemnation of judicial discretion, Beccaria does not call on judges to interpret laws. Their task is limited to determining guilt and to apply punishment as prescribed by the law. Following Voltaire’s and Montesquieu’s views on utilitarianism, Beccaria held that the only motives for punishing offenders should be to ensure the survival of society and deter people from committing crime. He was critical, however, of arbitrary and unnecessarily harsh punishment to attain the purpose of deterrence, and suggested instead that punishment should be quick, certain, and commensurate with the crime. Beccaria gave much prominence to the fact that punishments should be carefully graded to correspond with the gravity of offences, in other words, that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime.Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the other main figure in this school, elaborated on the concept of free will and proposed the doctrine of « felicific calculus, » by which he meant that people are normally rational beings, who would only engage in acts of crime after careful consideration of all the relevant pros (pleasures) and cons (pain) involved (Conklin 1992:433). These ideas are based on an indeterministic view of responsibility 1, according to which man has a free will to choose between right and wrong and can therefore be held accountable for his actions.

CHAPTER1:BACKGROUND
1.11NTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION 
1.2.1 Choice of the research topic
1.2.2 Metatheoretical assumptions
1.2.3 Research goal
1.2.4 Restrictions on the field of study
1.2.5 Presuppositions
1.3 TERMINOLOGY 
1.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY 
1.5 DIVISION OF CHAPTERS 
CHAPTER 2: AN IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS
2.1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PENOLOGICAL IDEAS 
2.1.1 Theoretical underpinnings: two schools of thought.
2. 1 .1 . 1 The classical school
2.1.1.2 The positivistic school
2.1.2 The development of the prison
2.1.2.1 The first prisons: the Penitentiary
2.1.2.2 The origin of parole: Maconochie’s reforms and the Irish Marks System
2.1.2.4 The Medical Model.
2.1.3 Recent trends in penological thought
2.1.3.1 The decline of institutional rehabilitation
2.1.3.2 The resurgence of classicism: The justice model and the neeutilitarian punishment model
2. 1. 3. 2. 1 The justice model
2.1.3.2.2 The neo-ut11itarian punishment model
2. 1.3.2.3 The effects of the neo-classical school
2.1.3.3 Re-affirmation of the rehabilitation ideal
2.1.3.4 Restorative justice
2.2 JUSTICE AND RETRIBUTION 
2.2.1 What is retribution?
2.2.2 Necessity for the central role of retribution in justice
2.2.3 Translating just deserts into just sentences
2.3 SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
2.3.1 The classical and positivistic schools
2.3.2 The development of the prison
2.3.3 Recent developments on the terrain of corrections
2.4 CONCLUSIONS 
CHAPTER 3: THE CURRENT CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS: THE FAILURE OF IMPRISONMENT
3.1 THE CURRENT CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS 
3.2 EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THE CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS 
3.2.1 General sentencing trends
3.2.2 Public opinions
3.2.3 Political factors
3.3 THE FAILURE OF IMPRISONMENT AS A SENTENCING OPTION 
3.3.1 The failure of imprisonment in terms of its intended consequences
3.3.1.1 Failure to rehabilitate
3.3.1.2 Failure to curb recidivism
3.3.1.3 Failure to deter would-be offenders from committing crime
3.3.1.4 Failure to protect the community
3.3.2 Failure of imprisonment in terms of its unintended consequences
3.3.2.1 The impact of incarceration on the families and children of prisoners
3.3.2.2 The destructive and brutalizing effects of imprisonment
3.3.2.3 Destruction of future prospects
3.3.2.41nmate sexual assault and the dangers of HIV infection
3.3.2.5 The uneven application of imprisonment on the poor and disadvantaged
3.4 CONCLUSIONS 
CHAPTER 4: PROBATION
4.1 DESCRIPTION
4.1.1 What is probation?
4.1.2 Origin
4.2 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS: THE REINTEGRATION MODEL 
4.2.1 Rationale
4.2.1.1 The commubity
4.2.1.2 The offender.
4.3 PROBATION AS A SENTENCING OPTION
4.3.1 The court use of probation
4.3.2 The sentencing decision
4.3.2.1 The type of crime
4.3.2.2 The suitability of probation as a sentence
4.3.2.3 The type of offender
4.3.2.4 The safety of the community
4.3.2.5 Employment and a fixed address
4.3.2.6 The availability of community resources
4.3.2. 7 The Willingness of the offender
4.3. 3 Intensity of application
4.3.3.1 The routine application of probation
4.3.3.2 Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP)
4.41NTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROBATION
4.4.1 The need for ISP
4.4.2 Description of ISP systems
4.4.2.1 Target populations for ISP
4.4.2.2 The intensity of supervision
4.4.2.3 Conditions
4.4. 2.3.1 House arrest and electronic monitoring
4.4.2.3.2 Drug and alcohol monitoring
4.4.2.3.3 Community service
4.4. 2.3.4 Attendance of treatment programs.
4.4.2.3.5 Probation fees
4.4.2.3.6 Restitution
4.4.3 The effectiveness of ISP
4.4.3.1 Cost-effectiveness
4.4.3.2 Its effect on keeping offenders out of prison
4.4.3.3 Curbing recidivism
4.5 EVALUATION OF ISP
4.5.1 What does these figures mean in terms of effectiveness?
4.5.1.1 In terms of the real meaning of these failures
4.5.1.2 In terms of the ways in which it can be seen as effective
4.5.1.3 In terms of the failure of imprisonment
4.5. 1.4 rn terms of its application
4.5.1.5 In terms of its limitations
4.6 CONCLUSIONS 
CHAPTER 5: MERGING THEORY AND PRACTICE: FOUR MODELS OF PROBATION
5.1 REHABILITATION MODEL
5.1.1 Description
5.1.2 Sketch
5.1.3 Explanation
5.1.4 Evaluation
5.2 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL
5.2. 1 Description
5.2.2 Sketch
5.2.3 Explanation
5.2.4 Evaluation
5.3 RISK-CONTROL MODEL 
5.3.1 Description
5.3.2 Sketch
5.3.3 Explanation
5.3.4 Evaluation
5.4 STRUCTURED MODEL
5.4.1 Description
5.4.2 Sketch
5.4.3 Explanation
5.4.4 Evaluation
5.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.5.1 Evaluation of different models
5.5.1.1 The rehabilitation model
5.5.1.2 The restorative justice model
5.5.1.3 The risk-control model..
5.5.1.4 The structured model
5.5.2 Conclusions
CHAPTER 6: THE SOUTH AFRICAN SITUATION
6.1 THE CORRECnONAL SCENE IN SOUTH AFRICA 
6.1. 1 Description
6.1.2 The crisis in South African corrections
6.1.3 External factors shaping South African corrections
6.1.3.1 Political factors
6.1.3.2 Economic factors
6.1.3.3 Public opinions
6.1.3.4 Sentencing trends
6.2 THE SITU A nON REGARDING PROBA nON 
6.2.1 The introduction of probation
6.2.2 A description of probation in South Africa
6.2.3 The underutilization of probation
6.2.3.1 What is meant by the under-utilization of probation in South Africa?
6.2.3.2 A problem of perceptions
6.2.3.3 A problem of application
6.3 CONCLUSIONS 
CHAPTER 7: DRAWING THE STRANDS TOGETHER
1.1 THE CRISIS IN CORRECTIONS 
7.2 WHAT IS REQUIRED OF A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT? 
7.2.1 Structural requirements of alternatives to imprisonment
7.2.2 Utilitarian requirements of alternatives to imprisonment
7.2.2.1 Specific deterrence
7.2.2.2 General deterrence
7 2.2.4 lncapacitation
7 .2.3 Justice
7.3 PROBATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO IMPRISONMENT 
7.4 THE LIMITATIONS OF PROBATION 
7 .4. 1 The kind of offender who can be placed on probation
7.4.2 Public opinions
7.5 PUTTING WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNT INTO PRACTICEELEMENTS OF A MORE JUST PROBATION SYSTEM 
7.5.1 Probation in terms of a justice stance
7.5.2 Community safety
7.5.3 Rehabilitation
7 .5.4 Cost-effectiveness
7.5.51n terms of public opinions
CHAPTER 8: SUGGESTIONS IN TERMS OF A QUANTITATIVE DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR PROBATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
8.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES 
8.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE 
8.3 SOME 1M PLICA TIONS OF THIS MODEL 
8.4 END NOTE 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A QUANTIFIED DECISION-MAKING APPROACH TO PROBATION IN SOUTH AFRICA

Related Posts