Corrections 1

AUCRI/IDS 160: Crime, Community & Corrections

Corrections: Part 1

• Instructor: Dr. Geraint Osborne
• Position: Professor of Sociology Law, Crime, & Justice
• Affiliation: Augustana Campus, University of Alberta

Corrections: Lecture Outline

1. Introduction
      - Why study corrections and what are they?
2. Non-custodial
      - What is probation?
3. Custodial
      - What are the origins of the prison?
      - What are Provincial & Territorial Correctional Facilities?
      - What are Federal Penitentiaries?
4. Effectiveness of Imprisonment
      - What is prison like and how effective is it?
5. Issues
      - What are the main challenges facing corrections?
6. Sources
      - READINGS: Ruddell: 9-10

Why Study Corrections?

1. Cultural Resonance (Cultural Studies)

• Importance of Freedom
    - Society values freedom inherently.
• Entertainment Value
    - “Bad guys make good entertainment” (Cecil, 2015)
• Collective Conscience
    - Refers to Durkheim’s concept: a set of shared beliefs, ideas, and moral attitudes that operate as a unifying force within society.
    - Reference: Cecil, D. (2015). Prison Life in Popular Culture: From The Big House to Orange is the New Black. Boulder; Rienner.

2. Safety

• Evaluates whether offenders are rehabilitated and less likely to reoffend.

3. Cost

• Annual corrections expenditure is approximately $4.5 billion.
    - Costs per inmate:
      - Federal: $357$ per day
      - Provincial/Territorial: $172$ per day
    - Gender segregation in corrections is noted to be costly.

What are Corrections?

• Definition: After sentencing, an individual convicted of a crime becomes the responsibility of either a provincial or federal government corrections agency.
• Responsibilities:
    - Work with offenders to correct behavior and deter further criminal activity.
    - Protect communities by managing and controlling adult offenders.
    - Includes both custodial and non-custodial options.

Non-Custodial Corrections

Overview

• Most offenders serve their sentences in the community on probation.

Controversy

• Crime Control Model: Argues that probationers are not always held accountable.
• Due Process Model: Points out that many probationers and parolees finish community sentences successfully without reoffending.

Probation

• Definition: A community-based sentence imposed by a judge.
    - Can be ordered instead of or in addition to jail.
    - Offender lives in the community under the supervision of a probation officer.
    - Aims to support stability in school, employment, and family responsibilities.
    - Administration: Managed by provincial/territorial governments, e.g., Alberta Justice.
    - Maximum Length: Up to three years.
    - Note: Federal offenders serving sentences of two or more years are generally supervised via parole or statutory release rather than probation.

Historical Context of Probation

• Origin: Dates back to the late 1800s in Canada.
• Expanded with the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908).
• Development of a strong evidence base on effective rehabilitation practices (evidence-based).
• Probation and parole officers create individualized case plans.
    - Case plans outline the goals, supports, and steps for rehabilitation.

Case Plans & Supervision

• Case plans target key criminogenic needs, including:
    - Substance abuse counseling
    - Anger management
    - Education
    - Employment
• Guiding Model: Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model applies to supervision.
    - Probation Officers (PO) assess the offender’s risk level and specific needs.
    - Probation Officers and probationers collaborate on rehabilitation goals.
    - Progress is regularly monitored and reassessed.

Risk Principle

• Definition: States that level of service should match the offender’s risk of reoffending.
    - High-risk individuals require intensive interventions.
    - Low-risk individuals should receive minimal intervention.
• Risk Factors:
    - Extensive criminal history
    - Early onset of offending
    - Antisocial personality traits
    - Associated with criminal peers
    - Past supervision failures

Need Principle

• Focus: Addresses criminogenic needs which are dynamic factors linked to criminal behavior and capable of change.
• The Big Four (most predictive):
    - History of antisocial behavior
    - Antisocial personality pattern (impulsivity, aggression)
    - Antisocial attitudes/cognitions
    - Antisocial peers
• The Moderate Four:
    - Family/marital problems
    - School/work issues
    - Lack of prosocial leisure activities
    - Substance abuse

Responsivity Principle

• Definition: Interventions should be delivered in ways the offender can understand and engage with.
• General Responsivity:
    - Cognitive-behavioral approaches yield effective results.
    - Structured, skills-based programming shows the best outcomes including:
      - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) programs
      - Problem-solving training
      - Social skills training
      - Relapse prevention
• Specific Responsivity:
    - Tailors interventions to individual characteristics such as mental health issues, motivation level, culture, trauma history, disabilities, etc.

Criticism of Case Plans

• Critics argue that case plans do not sufficiently challenge criminogenic attitudes or properly address community risk factors.
• Criminogenic Attitudes:
    - Justifying crime (e.g., “Everyone does it”)
    - Hostility toward authority or law
    - Lack of empathy for victims
    - Feelings of entitlement or antisocial values
    - Impulsivity and poor problem-solving
• Community Risk Factors:
    - Criminal peer groups or gangs
    - Substance use culture in neighborhoods
    - Poverty and unemployment
    - Lack of stable housing
    - Limited access to education, treatment, or social support
    - Residing in high-crime or socially disorganized communities

Key Elements for Probation Success

1. Quality of officer supervision
2. Availability of rehabilitation supports
3. Types of interventions utilized
4. Frequency of meetings between probation officer and offender

• Note: Heavy caseloads and poor skills lead to inadequate supervision.

Custodial Corrections

Overview

• Refers to the incarceration of individuals in correctional facilities.
• Includes both:
    - Individuals awaiting trial (remand)
    - Individuals serving sentences (sentenced custody)
• Definitions:
    - Remand: Detention before trial or sentencing
    - Sentenced Custody: Detention after conviction with facility designation dependent on sentence length.
      - Provincial/Territorial: For remand and sentences under 2 years.
      - Federal: For sentences of 2 years or more.

Historical Context

• In early colonial Canada, populations often relied on informal social control.
• Formal control methods were often swift, severe, and humiliating, involving public punishments, such as fines, whipping, transportation to Australia, or banishment.
• Correctional practices were imported from Europe by British and French colonists.

Notable Executions

• Case Example from 1757:
    - Damiens, condemned for regicide, faced brutal public execution methods.
    - Detailed execution methods included physical torture followed by dismemberment and burning.
• Case Example from 1772:
    - A servant girl was executed in a gruesome manner, reflecting the severe punishment practices of the time.

Early Local Jails in Canada (Pre-Penitentiary Era)

• Established before the modern penitentiary system was created in the mid-1800s.
• Operated by local or municipal authorities primarily for short-term detention rather than long-term punishment.
• Example: Charlotte County Court House (1840), Old Gaol (1832, still in use until 1979).

Main Purposes of Early Jails

• Holding individuals awaiting trial or impending punishment.
• Detaining debtors and vagrants.
• Confining individuals before corporal or capital punishment (e.g., whipping, execution).

Conditions & Practices in Early Jails

• Characteristics included:
    - Small, overcrowded, and unsanitary facilities
    - Little separation based on age, gender, or type of offense
    - Minimal supervision with few rules in place
    - Focus on punishment and containment rather than rehabilitation
• Example: Huron County Gaol in Goderich, Ontario (1841-1972).

Historical Foundations & Evolution

• Penitentiaries are comparatively new.
• Described as the “Great Transformation” in late 18th to 19th century Europe.
    1. Increased involvement of a centralized state
    2. Expert categorization of deviants
    3. Greater use of segregation and incarceration
    4. Shift from punitive to rehabilitative objectives in punishment (from physical retribution to mental reform).
  
• Reference: Cohen, S. Visions of Social Control, 1985.

Causes of the Great Transformation

1. Humanitarian Ideals: Influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Howard.
2. Emergence of a Disciplining Society: Increased discipline and surveillance methods became commonplace in modern society (Foucault, Ignatieff, Rothman, etc.).
     - Viewed as an exercise of governmentality (state power and social control).
3. The adoption of the penitentiary model known as the panopticon (a design allowing visibility of inmates at all times).

Characteristics of the Panopticon Model

• Central authority (Warden) manages the facility.
• Surveillance provided by guards monitoring inmates.
• Imposed discipline through routine for the inmates.
• Represented by architectural designs often referred to as the “Big House.”

Examples of Modern Panopticon Settings

• Military Barracks: Used to instill discipline and order among soldiers.
• Factory Workshops: Such as those utilized in boot manufacturing and similar industries characterized by a strict work regimen.
• Schools, Orphanages, and Mental Hospitals: Sometimes mirrored aspects of panopticon design through surveillance elements for behavior control.

Canadian Penitentiaries

• Early Model Influences: The Auburn and Pennsylvania systems were prominent models.
    - Pennsylvania System: Advocated for complete isolation of inmates to foster penitence through solitude and religious reflection.
    - Auburn System: Allowed inmates solitary sleep but required silence during communal labor, emphasizing discipline and productivity.

Canadian Penitentiary Development

• First Penitentiary: Established in 1835 in Kingston, closely aligned with the Auburn system.
• Kingston became known as the prison capital of Canada.
• Kingston Penitentiary was closed in September 2013 after functioning as a significant correctional facility.

Staff Composition at Kingston Penitentiary

• Many prison guards stemmed from similar social backgrounds as the inmates, and some had prior criminal records themselves.

Corporal Punishment Practices

• Widely implemented through the use of leather paddles and straps until 1968.
    - Dimensions of Punishment Straps: Typically measured $3 imes 16$ inches with a handle of $10$ inches.
    - Offenders experienced corporal punishment usually as a disciplinary measure for rule violations, up to twenty strokes could be prescribed.

Historical Context of Corporal Punishment

• The Criminal Code permitted corporal punishment until 1972.
    - Included whipping forms, notably using the cat-o’-nine-tails or paddling.
    - Specific frameworks (e.g., whipping frames) were developed for securing offenders during physical punishment applications.

Archambault Report (1938)

• Reacted to the violence and riots prevalent in prisons during the Great Depression.
• Recommended shifts from punitive approaches to rehabilitation.
    - By the 1950s, prisons began to incorporate educators and mental health professionals, developing training programs.
    - Notable Quote: "The undeniable responsibility of the state to those held in its custody is to see that they are not returned to freedom worse than when they were taken in charge…." (Archambault Report of 1938)

Sources

• Blomberg, T. and Cohen, S. (eds). Punishment and Social Control, New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1995.
• Braithwaite, J. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• Brookbank, C. and Kingley, B. (1999). "Adult Criminal Court Statistics, 1997-98," The Jurist Reader: A Statistical Overview of the Canadian Justice System, Toronto: Thompson.
• Cayley, D. The Expanding Prison: The Crisis in Crime and Punishment and the Search for Alternatives, Toronto: Anansi, 1998.
• Cecil, Dawn. Prison Life in Popular Culture: From The Big House to Orange is the New Black, Boulder: Lynn Rienner, 2015.
• Cellard, Andre (2000). Punishment, Imprisonment and Reform in Canada, from New France to the Present. Canadian Historical Association.
• Cohen, Stanley. Visions of Social Control, Cambridge: Polity, 1985.
• Dauvergne, M. (2012). "Adult correctional statistics in Canada, 2010/11," Juristat, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ottawa.
• Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage, 1977.
• Friedman, L. Crime and Punishment in American History, New York: Basic Books, 1993.
• Garland, David. Punishment and Modern Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
• ----- The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
• Goffman, E. Asylums, New York: Anchor, 1959.
• Griffiths, Curt and Cunningham, Alison. Canadian Corrections, Scarborough: Nelson, 2000.
• Harding, Richard. Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997.
• Harris, Michael. Con Game: The Truth about Canada’s Prisons, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2002.
• Ignatieff, Michael. A Just Measure of Pain, London: Penguin, 1978.
• Jackson, Michael. Justice Behind the Walls: Human Rights in Canadian Prisons, Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2002.
• Mann, W. (1964). "Socialization in a Medium-Security Reformatory," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1.3: 138-155.
  ------- Society Behind Bars, Toronto: Social Sciences Publishers, 1967.
• Marron, Kevin. The Slammer: The Crisis in Canada's Prison System, Toronto: Doubleday, 1996.
• Oliver, Peter. “Terror to Evil-Doers”: Prisons and Punishments in 19th Century Ontario, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
• Osborne, Geraint. (2006). "Scientific Experimentation on Canadian Inmates, 1955-1975," Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45.3: 284-306.
• Ricciardelli, Rose. Surviving Incarceration: Inside Canadian Prisons. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2014.
• Rothman, David. Conscience and Convenience, Glenview: Scott, Foreseman and Company, 1980.
• Shichor, David. Punishment for Profit: Private Prisons/Public Concern, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
• West, Gordon and Morris, Ruth. The Case for Penal Abolition, Toronto: Fernwood, 2000.