The correctional system component consists of jails, prisons, and community corrections which revived a service of detention or incarceration, parole, and probation (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). All of these services and components of the correctional system was a product of years of criminal justice evolution (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). The correctional system was not merely built in a day; it has evolved over time to become an exemplar of correctional system (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009).
Society itself has changed since the correctional system initiation, and so to should the ideologies and theories of rimming justice corrections Ooh mason, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). During the initial setup and phase of the current criminal justice system, America was focused on punishment, that mentality changed with time and eventually evolved into a concept of incarceration as being the means to an end (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). Research and philosophies developed over time and began to realize that these were not the only ways to deter, and mitigate criminal activities (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
Eventually the system transitioned to include concepts of the aforementioned methods of rimming justice corrections, like parole, probation, rehabilitation, and community corrections (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). The criminal justice system took a while to become amicable to the notions that criminals could atone for their indiscretions and rehabilitate to societal normalcy (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). The Correctional Systems Past and Evolution Previous methods of criminal justice corrections focused on the punishment, which were stringent and swift form of justice (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
These forms of justice were never deliberated on and there were no formal raciest that would ensue to stop the harsh punishment. Later, these punishments were considered to be barbaric and ruthless by a more educated, freer, and open minded society. Society then implemented terms of sentences and formalized fact finding missions and deliberations over the guilt or innocence of the offender (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resign 2009). These sentences were long and poorly thought out, and if someone got out they were troubled by the institutionalizing and did not acclimate well to society (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
During this time period society also differentiated between the incarceration of juveniles and separated facilities for different genders, due to the heinous nature and activities that has previously occurred within these arcane institutions (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). Around this time period is when, the logic to separate the worst kinds of offenders from the simple criminal offenses, this type of change spurred jails to promulgate throughout the United States (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005).
Correctional institutions further developed into concepts of suffrage ND punishment, making inmates chip big rocks into little rocks (Murrain & Roberts, 2009). These ideals prevailed for a time but eventually lost their luster due to commercial economic influences and the rough, Strenuous climates or conditions (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). Society evolution has occurred again and again, deciding that the current architecture, environment and policies alone cannot fully deter and mitigate crime (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009).
From these ages of reason, came the insight to implement different forms of correctional practice, either through lighter enticing guideline, probation, parole, community correctional methods, and rehabilitative methods of correction (Murrain & Roberts, 2009). These turning points and trends of the past develop and integrate into the present system and operations of the criminal justice system (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005).
The prior internal perception of crime and external perceptions through society will inevitably shape the future of these institutions by making a proxy to the past process and methods that did not facilitate the desired outcome (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). Present Trends in the Correctional System Today’s correctional environment is a far cry from the past indiscretions, considering jails and prison’s evolved from the mindset of covering inmates with masks and hoods and sticking them in a solitary cell without interactions or anything to keep them sane (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
Alas, the previous methods of corrections were challenged, giving way to new measures, the approach changed from punishing an offender, and making them penitent, to preventative corrections, discouraging crime by way or institutionalizing ND correcting the problem at its base roots by some sort of rehabilitative methodology (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005). Jails specifically help inmates acclimate to societal surroundings, establishing in-depth rehabilitative programs that are meant to give an offender the opportunity to normalize their behaviors (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009).
During this process the inmates create beliefs and start to realize their faults and formulate necessary outlets for their behaviors, and guiding their ethics/ values toward that of a functional member of the community (Murrain & Roberts, 2009). Rehabilitation and reintegration into society is the new shiny idea that everyone supports. It helps alleviate the current budgetary constraints on the correctional system and manages the overwhelming influx of offenders housed in the confines of the correctional system.
Since the implementation of these rehabilitative services, community based corrections have been on the rise to help assist in the transition offenders (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Regis 2009). They supplement classes and programs to naturally bring offenders back into their environment but this time with the skills and instructions necessary to provide insight and knowledge into everyday troubles (Murrain & Roberts, 2009). Currently the correctional system has reduced heehaw strains on the overtly bloated system by focusing their efforts toward the community based correctional approach (Laird, Fatal, Cromwell, & Rolando, 2008).
This approach of providing services such as electronic monitoring, probation, bail, supervision programs, work release and other alternative measures has alleviated constraints on resources and strengthened the systems core, making future endeavors possible by infusing ends and resources to their development (Glaze, Lauren, & Bonanza). These revolutionary programs serve to make inmates accountable for their crimes, while simultaneously creating an alternative to punishment and institutionalizing (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
These programs help facilitate the needs of the system and promote an offender responsibility for their own sentences or terms of punishment (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). In today’s correctional environment, there are a plethora of variables that affect the progression and development of criminal justice capabilities and operations (Glaze, Lauren, & Bonanza). Society has become sensitive to punitive measures, and the correctional system is overwhelmed with policies and laws that bog down the system. These laws and policies have brought about an insurmountable strain on the system’s operations and its resources (Murrain & Roberts, 2009).
The correctional systems population has swelled to critical levels, to the point drastic future measures have to be taken to quell the administration problems of overcrowding and depletion of funds and resources (Laird, Fatal, Cromwell, & Rolando, 2008). The Future Trends in the Correctional System The correctional system has consistently changed to meet the needs and progressions of societal influence, because societal influences affect the future of the correctional system and legislation that puts offenders there (Johnson, Databanks, & Pall, 2005).
The current mode and operations of the correctional system will determine what type Of actions and what policies will spring up around it (Tony & Michael, 2006). The overall goal will be to provide justice and maintain order (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). The current allocation of resources and growing prison population adversely affect how correctional staff operates, significantly altering adman situational concerns for procedural and safety of their staff (Laird, Fatal, Cromwell, & Rolando, 2008).
Evolving and changing the current environment and decontaminating some offenses may slowly but surely free up resources to the effect that the correctional system can worry themselves over properly training their staff, managing hours appropriately for their staff, properly allocating and staffing facilities, providing proper treatment and quality of life for inmates and increasing funding for rehabilitative programs (Murrain & Roberts, 2009). The future is now; beginning to create and forge alternative solutions to the current problems, these problems will determine the outlook of the future correctional landscape.
The main source of discontent is resources, so by resolving waste, and abuse or even developing technologies and security parameters that provide the same quality and security of services at optimal or minimal levels may provide a future abundance of financial leeway (Clear, Todd, Cole, & Resist, 2009). Also, providing equal sentencing guidelines for saws or policies could in essence slow the rate of institutionalizing Of diverse offenders (Laird, Fatal, Cromwell, & Rolando, 2008).