Chapter 14 The United States Constitution and Its Relevance to Correctional Management
| Jurisdiction | United States |
Chapter 14 The United States Constitution and Its Relevance to Correctional Management
"The autonomy of corrections has diminished over the years. Wardens are no longer omnipotent administrators. Correctional staff are more professional and sophisticated. This has been necessary in order to survive. Wardens and correctional administrators are more policy oriented today than in the 1970s"
— Reginald Wilkinson, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (as cited in Riveland, 1999, p. 171)
Jacobs (1980) supports that notion by arguing that many of the correctional improvements that are apparent today are a direct result of prisoner litigation. The shift that Wilkinson describes, from autonomy to policy-driven professionalism, did not occur overnight, and it owes a lot to prisoner litigation and the due process movement led by federal courts. Litigation woke the correctional giant from its slumber and drove years of long-needed changes in correctional practices and management. Although such litigation provoked many internal and external reactions from all over the social and legal spectrum, it has forced citizens, lawyers, politicians, and judges to examine the conditions of confinement, how offenders are punished, and how the conditions of punishment reflect social beliefs in civil rights. Above all, prisoners' litigation has forced correctional administrators, who initially opposed and resented such involvement by the courts (Riveland, 1999), to reevaluate their profession and practices. Administrators were legally obliged to adopt court orders to improve conditions of confinement, and by that, promote safer institutions (Crouch & Marquart, 1990; Riveland, 1999). As a result, prisoners are now safer, enjoy better services, and tend to have more of their needs addressed during their period of incarceration (Barkel, 1986; Crouch & Marquart, 1990; Feeley & Hanson, 1986).
Today's prisons are cleaner and have better air, medical treatment, educational and other treatment programs, as well as risk and needs classification system that provide correctional officials with the ability to perform a more accurate intake and correspondingly deliver adequate treatment. These could not have happened without prisoners' litigation that challenged the status quo of the traditional correctional system and practice. Of course, not all problems have been solved and further reforms are needed. Just as previous reforms were made, new reforms will most likely be won by future litigation and court orders. Litigation has made correctional practices more effective and more efficient, which has benefited inmates, and also strengthened prisons and their administration, increasing their legitimacy by providing them with more adequate legal tools that have shaped current and evolving correctional policies. Thus, this chapter will focus on the bureaucratic development of correctional organizations as a by-product of prisoner litigation and the manner in which such litigation has affected the correctional profession and management.
According to Gottschalk (2006), correctional management should be based on three principles: incapacitation as the sole purpose of punishment, resocializing incarcerated offenders so they can reintegrate upon release, and managing the prison in accordance with constitutional guarantees that assure a humane and dignified environment to those housed within its walls. However, prison as a total institution is designed to operate within a set of predetermined rules that must not be challenged. Such rules create a bureaucratic environment that depersonalize those individuals who reside within its walls. Individuals lose their identities by being referred to as "prisoners"/"inmates" and assigned identification numbers. Their identity is stripped from them, and they are expected to follow strict rules and procedures that serve the interest of the institution. The basic managerial model of correctional facilities is that of separation and power, it is one that inspired and follows external bureaucratic organizational style and regime. Guards, prison administration, and other staff hold the power to control the movement, life, and liberty of the inmates, who are kept separate from the staff. Such control is legitimized by legislation, whereas use of force is available to those working in the institution to maintain order and control while enforcing the law and other institutional regulations. Such an approach also suppresses local culture by enforcing general principles, protecting civil rights, and constraining power. In the words of Feeley and Swearingen (2003: 467) it can be perceived as the "iron fist cloaked in the velvet glove."
As mentioned earlier, in Chapter 4, correctional institutions operate in two levels. According to Goffman (1961; 1968), correctional institutions operate on both the formal and informal level. The formal level is also the more visible one, the one that all must abide by. This level directly corresponds with Weber's definition of bureaucracy, which manifests itself in today's correctional institutions in a defined organizational structure with a clear division of power and responsibility, a rationalized set of rules to be followed, a management class of professional administrators who specialize in corrections, and a rigid classification system for all individuals involved (see Feeley & Swearingen, 2003). Simply put, the formal level that operates inside correctional institutions, also known as total institutions, includes the rules and regulations, and the system of discipline, order, and other procedures. On the other hand, the informal level is the one that is less visible to the observer; it derives from personal interests, conflicts, and struggles between inmates and between inmates and staff. Power struggles eventually lead to changes in the administration of policies and consequent rules. Thus, it is essential to understand that as a result of competing interests between inmates and correctional staff, conflicts will arise, and lawsuits will be filed. Such actions should be viewed in a much wider context of opposition. Inmates who are perceived as powerless tend to use the legal system in an effort to gain power, while at the same time adjusting to their situation of being powerless individuals. Another argument is that inmates use litigation as a way to manifest their oppositional culture by way of harassing correctional personnel (Schlanger, 2003; Thomas, 1988). In fact, Thomas (1988) argues that such harassment is not without intent; rather, it puts a particular officer on notice that future misbehavior will receive scrutiny. Regardless of intent, such litigation and appeals to the courts can and should also be viewed in a constitutional context.
As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as a guardian of citizens and their rights when dealing with governmental institutions (DeLisi & Conis, 2013). All actions, policies, and practices...
To continue reading
Request your trial