The Principle Objectives of Punishment Within the U.S. Corrections System
- Submitted by: SamiMD51
- Views: 520
- Category: Politics: Crime and Drugs
- Date Submitted: 01/10/2015 04:27 PM
- Pages: 7
- Report this Essay
The Principle Objectives of Punishment within the U.S. Corrections System
Sami-Marcia Donovan
CJA/234
September 29, 2014
Freddy Stansbury
.
Abstract
This paper will analyze a comparison of objectives of punishment within the state and federal prisons in the United States. A summary of the different methods of sentencing and the impact each has on the state and federal correction systems. In addition, an explanation of determinate and indeterminate sentencing will be reviewed and whether determinate or indeterminate has the greatest impact on the writer. Finally, the information from this analyzes will be supported by various professionals within the correctional system.
The Principle Objectives of Punishment within the U.S. Corrections System
Throughout history, the State and Federal Department of Corrections across America had changed their objectives when it came to punishment of criminals. These contributing factors throughout the prison system begins in the Attorney General’s office, presented to the Governor and is handed down to the Department of Corrections Director for implementation. With the constant increase in crime, laws have had to be changed to ensure the safety of the community. In addition, political views in regard to the prison system and how operations have had to be changed in order to enforce these new laws and to ensure the communities safety (Sootak, 2000).
The Federal and State Department of Corrections in every state across America has four set goals. The first and foremost is to protect the citizens, the staff and the inmates. The second is a commitment to professionalism and responsibility of prison staff. The third goal is to ensure that all concerned are treated with dignity, respect, sensitivity while making and enforcing administrative and operational judgments. Finally, is to rehabilitation of inmates in order prepare them for the institutional adjustments, transitions, and re-entry into society (Sootak, 2000).
Even...
Sami-Marcia Donovan
CJA/234
September 29, 2014
Freddy Stansbury
.
Abstract
This paper will analyze a comparison of objectives of punishment within the state and federal prisons in the United States. A summary of the different methods of sentencing and the impact each has on the state and federal correction systems. In addition, an explanation of determinate and indeterminate sentencing will be reviewed and whether determinate or indeterminate has the greatest impact on the writer. Finally, the information from this analyzes will be supported by various professionals within the correctional system.
The Principle Objectives of Punishment within the U.S. Corrections System
Throughout history, the State and Federal Department of Corrections across America had changed their objectives when it came to punishment of criminals. These contributing factors throughout the prison system begins in the Attorney General’s office, presented to the Governor and is handed down to the Department of Corrections Director for implementation. With the constant increase in crime, laws have had to be changed to ensure the safety of the community. In addition, political views in regard to the prison system and how operations have had to be changed in order to enforce these new laws and to ensure the communities safety (Sootak, 2000).
The Federal and State Department of Corrections in every state across America has four set goals. The first and foremost is to protect the citizens, the staff and the inmates. The second is a commitment to professionalism and responsibility of prison staff. The third goal is to ensure that all concerned are treated with dignity, respect, sensitivity while making and enforcing administrative and operational judgments. Finally, is to rehabilitation of inmates in order prepare them for the institutional adjustments, transitions, and re-entry into society (Sootak, 2000).
Even...