DOCSLIB.ORG

Sentencing and Corrections in the 21St Century: Setting the Stage for the Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sentencing and Corrections in the 21St Century: Setting the Stage for the Future The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future Author(s): Doris L. Mackenzie Document No.: 189089 Date Received: 11/30/2001 Award Number: 96-SC-LX-0001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future Doris Layton Mackenzie Director and Professor Evaluation Research Group Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland College Park, MD July 2001 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Contents Growth of Correctional Populations ............................................... 1 Differencesamong States ...................................................... 3 Race. ethnicity. andgender ..................................................... 3 Correctional expenditures ...................................................... 5 From Indeterminacy to Crime Control ............................................. 6 The age of indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation ................................. 6 Atimeofchange:197&2000 .................................................. 7 The justice model of sentencing and corrections ..................................... 9 Crime control: Incapacitation and deterrence ........................................ 9 Changes in Crime Rates ....................................................... 13 Factors Accounting for the Growth in the Incarceration Rate ......................... 14 Community supervision and revocations .......................................... 16 ImpactoftheChanges ........................................................ 17 Structured sentencing ........................................................ 17 Mandatory sentences ........................................................ 18 Three-strikes laws .......................................................... 19 Parolerelease ............................................................. 19 Decisionmaking ............................................................ 20 prisoncrowding ............................................................ 20 Behavioral, cultural, and social changes impinging on corrections ....................... -21 Examining the Effectiveness of Different Strategies ................................ 21 Incapacitation and deterrence .................................................. 21 Controversy over costs ...................................................... 23 Intermediatesanctions ....................................................... 24 Rehabilitation: What works in corrections? ........................................ 25 Intended and Unintended Consequences .......................................... 29 Risk management and the new penology .......................................... 29 Minoritypopulations ......................................................... 30 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Impact on individual offenders ................................................. 3 I Unintended consequences for the community ...................................... 32 EmergingParadigms .......................................................... 33 Restorative and community justice ............................................. -33 Reemerging interest in treatment ................................................ 35 Specializedcourts .......................................................... 35 Reinteptionandreentry ..................................................... 36 Technology ............................................................... 36 Evidence-based corrections .................................................. -37 Conclusion .................................................................. 38 Notes ...................................................................... 38 Exhibits Exhibit 1. U.S. Incarceration Rates. State and Federal hstitutions. 1930-98 ...............2 Exhibit 2 . Adults on Probation and Parole and in Prison. 1980-97 ..................... -2 Exhiit 3 . Rates of Sentenced Prisoners. Selected States. 1980.1990. 1997 ..............3 Exhibit 4 . Number of People in Prison. on Probation. and on Parole. by Gender ............ 4 Exhibit 5. lncarceration Rates. Prisons and Jails. by Race and Gender. 1985-96 ........... 5 Exhibit 6. U.S . Crime and Incarceration Rates. 1965-97 ............................ 10 Exhibit 7. Djscrepancy Between Sentence and Time Served. Comparing State Prisoners Released From Prison in 1996 With Expected Time Served for New Admissions .................................................. 12 Exhibit 8. Increases in State Prison Populations. by Offense. 1980-96 .................. 15 Exhibit 9. Number of Prisoners in Custody of State Correctional Authorities. by Most Serious Crime.198 0-95 .................................................. 15 Exhibit 10 . Percentage of Admissions to State Prisons. 1985.1993. 1997 ................ 17 Exhibit 1 1 . State Sentencing Structures. 1997 ..................................... 18 Acknowledgments Thanks are expressed to Sean Rosenmerkel and Rubie G . Mize for help with this manuscript. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The past 30 years have seen enormous changes in the philosophy and practice of sentencing and 0 corrections. The strong emphasis on rehabilitation that existed for the first seven decades of the 20th century gave way in the 1970s to a focus on faimess and justice, by which sentences reflected “just deserts” rather than a utilitarian motive. Sentencing practices later moved toward a crime-control model that emphasized incarceration as a way to reduce crime in the community; this crime-control model became increasingly popular during the 1980s and 1990s. Discussion of sentencing and corrections in the 21 st century must begin with a review of these changes and their impact on the criminal justice system. The historical changes in sentencing and corrections policies and practices can be characterized, in part, by the emphasis on different goals. Four major goals are usually attributed to the sentencing process: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Retribution refers to just deserts: people who break the law deserve to be punished. The other three goals are utilitarian, emphasizing methods to protect the public. They differ, however, in the mechamsm expected to provide public safety. Deterrence emphasizes the onerousness of punishment; offenders are deterred fiom committing crimes because of a rational calculation that the cost of punishment is too pat. The punishment is so repugnant that neither the punished offender (specific deterrence) nor others (general deterrence) commit crimes in the future. lncapacitation deprives people of the capacity to commit crimes because they are physically detained in prison. Rehabilitation attempts to modify offendem’ behavior and thinking so they do not continue to commit crimes. Although sentences fiequently address several of these goals in practice, the emphasis on which goal is the highest priority has changed dramatically in the a past 30 years. At the same time the goals of punishment have been changing, the number of people in the United States who are under correctional supervision has increased enormously. Changes in the practice and philosophy of sentencing and corrections have clearly had a major impact on incarceration rates. However, there is no consensus on what, specifically, has caused the changes, the impact of the changes, or their intended and unintended consequences. This paper explores these issues. Growth of Correctional Populations A dramatic increase in offenderpopulations accompanied changes in sentencing and correctional philosophy; this increase was unprecedented and followed a period of relative stability (exhibit 1). From 1930 to 1975 the average incarceration rate was 106 inmates per 100,000 adults in the population. The rate fluctuated only slightly, from a low of 93 to a maximum of 137 per 100,000.’ This was the age of indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation. ARer 1975 incarceration rates grew tremendously; by 1985 the incarceration rate for individuals in State or Federal prisons was 202 per 100,000 adults in the population. The rate continued to grow, reaching 41 1 in 1995 and 445 in 1997. If local jail populations are also considered,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Examination of the Impact of Criminological Theory on Community Corrections Practice
    December 2016 15 An Examination of the Impact of Criminological Theory on Community Corrections Practice James Byrne University of Massachusetts Lowell Don Hummer Penn State Harrisburg CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT parole officers in terms of practical advice; to other community corrections programs are to why people commit crime are used—and mis- the contrary, we think a discussion of “cause” is be successful as “people changing” agencies. used—every day by legislative policy makers critical to the ongoing debate over the appro- But can we reasonably expect such diversity and community corrections managers when priate use of community-based sanctions, and flexibility from community corrections they develop new initiatives, sanctions, and and the development of effective community agencies, or is it more likely that one theory— programs; and these theories are also being corrections policies, practices, and programs. or group of theories—will be the dominant applied—and misapplied—by line commu­ However, the degree of uncertainty on the influence on community corrections practice? nity corrections officers in the workplace as cause—or causes—of our crime problem in Based on recent reviews of United States cor­ they classify, supervise, counsel, and con­ the academic community suggests that a rections history, we suspect that one group of trol offenders placed on their caseloads. The certain degree of skepticism is certainly in theories—supported by a dominant political purpose of this article is to provide a brief order when “new” crime control strategies are ideology—will continue to dominate until overview of the major theories of crime causa­ introduced. We need to look carefully at the the challenges to its efficacy move the field— tion and then to consider the implications of theory of crime causation on which these new both ideologically and theoretically—in a new these criminological theories for current and initiatives are based.
    [Show full text]
  • Tol, Xeer, and Somalinimo: Recognizing Somali And
    Tol , Xeer , and Somalinimo : Recognizing Somali and Mushunguli Refugees as Agents in the Integration Process A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Vinodh Kutty IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY David M. Lipset July 2010 © Vinodh Kutty 2010 Acknowledgements A doctoral dissertation is never completed without the help of many individuals. And to all of them, I owe a deep debt of gratitude. Funding for this project was provided by two block grants from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota and by two Children and Families Fellowship grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. These grants allowed me to travel to the United Kingdom and Kenya to conduct research and observe the trajectory of the refugee resettlement process from refugee camp to processing for immigration and then to resettlement to host country. The members of my dissertation committee, David Lipset, my advisor, Timothy Dunnigan, Frank Miller, and Bruce Downing all provided invaluable support and assistance. Indeed, I sometimes felt that my advisor, David Lipset, would not have been able to write this dissertation without my assistance! Timothy Dunnigan challenged me to honor the Somali community I worked with and for that I am grateful because that made the dissertation so much better. Frank Miller asked very thoughtful questions and always encouraged me and Bruce Downing provided me with detailed feedback to ensure that my writing was clear, succinct and organized. I also have others to thank. To my colleagues at the Office of Multicultural Services at Hennepin County, I want to say “Thank You Very Much!” They all provided me with the inspiration to look at the refugee resettlement process more critically and dared me to suggest ways to improve it.
    [Show full text]
  • INL Corrections Guide
    INL GUIDE TO CORRECTIONS ASSISTANCE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs INL GUIDE TO CORRECTIONS ASSISTANCE • I Contents Foreword . V Why Corrections Matters . .1 . Purpose and Scope of the Handbook . 2 . The Corrections World at a Glance . 2 Definitions . 2 Types of Incarceration and Supervision . 2. Elements of a Corrections System . 3. Persons in Vulnerable Situations . 4 The United States Corrections System . 4 . Institutional Resistance to Change . 5. Planning a Corrections Assistance Program . 5 U .S . Foreign Assistance and International Human Rights Standards . 5 . INL Program Objectives . 6 Identifying Resources for Sustainability . 7 . Context . 8 . Assessing the Corrections System . 9. Designing and Implementing a Corrections Assistance Program . 11 Program Design and Implementation . .11 . Program Activities . 12 Program Goals . 17 . Measuring Progress and Reporting in Corrections Assistance . 18. Incorporating Lessons Learned . 18 Appendix I: International Standards . 24. Appendix Ii: Corrections Terminology . .26 . Appendix Iii: Additional Resources . 27 INL GUIDE TO CORRECTIONS ASSISTANCE • III Foreword “Effective implementation of rule of law reforms can only be accomplished if corrections is part of the equation .” — Keynote Address to the 15th Annual International Corrections and Prisons Association Conference on October 28, 2013, William R. Brownfield he mission of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is to minimize the impact of international crime and illegal drugs on the United States and its citizens by providing Teffective foreign assistance and fostering global cooperation. The complex and transnational nature of crime can only be countered when nations work together to build effective and responsive criminal justice systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Sentencing and Corrections State Legislation Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation
    Trends in Sentencing and Corrections State Legislation Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation Trends in Sentencing and Corrections State Legislation By Alison Lawrence National Conference of State Legislatures William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, Colo. 80230 (303) 364-7700 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 www.ncsl.org July 2013 Printed on recycled paper. © 2013 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-58024-696-5 2 National Conference of State Legislatures Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation tate legislatures have been pivotal in Common developing sentencing and corrections Denominators strategies that focus on a trio of objec- S A distinguishing fea- tives: protecting public safety, holding offend- ers accountable, and doing so while making ture of some of the best use of fiscal resources. Significant trends most comprehensive have emerged in legislative leadership and state legislation has been cross-governmental plan- legislation in meeting these responsibilities. ning that involves stakeholders in all branches Actions have included expanding eligibility and at all levels of government. Setting apart for community corrections and improving su- the efforts of these groups from that of pre- pervision, employing the use of diversion and decessors has been their ability to collect and treatment, revising sentence lengths and priori- make effective use of data. A growing number tizing prison resources. of states have engaged in a “justice reinvest- ment” process that involves data collection and A decade ago, rising prison populations and analysis of trends that drive prison populations costs seemed to be an uninterruptable trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 23-A New York State Department of Corrections Law Licensure and Employment of Persons Previously Convicted of One Or More Criminal Offenses
    ARTICLE 23-A NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LAW LICENSURE AND EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF ONE OR MORE CRIMINAL OFFENSES Section 750. Definitions. 751. Applicability. 752. Unfair discrimination against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses prohibited. 753. Factors to be considered concerning a previous criminal conviction; presumption. 754. Written statement upon denial of license or employment. 755. Enforcement. S 750. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (1) "Public agency" means the state or any local subdivision thereof, or any state or local department, agency, board or commission. (2) "Private employer" means any person, company, corporation, labor organization or association which employs ten or more persons. (3) "Direct relationship" means that the nature of criminal conduct for which the person was convicted has a direct bearing on his fitness or ability to perform one or more of the duties or responsibilities necessarily related to the license or employment sought. (4) "License" means any certificate, license, permit or grant of permission required by the laws of this state, its political subdivisions or instrumentalities as a condition for the lawful practice of any occupation, employment, trade, vocation, business, or profession. Provided, however, that "license" shall not, for the purposes of this article, include any license or permit to own, possess, carry, or fire any explosives, pistol, handgun, rifle, shotgun, or other firearm. (5) "Employment" means any occupation, vocation, or employment, or any form of vocational or educational training. Provided, however, that "employment" shall not, for the purposes of this article, include membership in any law enforcement agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminology and the Criminologist Marvin E
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 54 Article 3 Issue 2 June Summer 1963 Criminology and the Criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Marvin E. Wolfgang, Criminology and the Criminologist, 54 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 155 (1963) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CRIMINOLOGY AND THE CRIMINOLOGIST MARVIN E. WOLFGANG The author is Associate Professor of Sociology in the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is also Director of a basic research project entitled "The Measurement of Delinquency." Dr. Wolfgang is the author of Patterns in Criminal Homicide, for which he received the August Vollmer Research Award in 1960, and is President of the Pennsylvania Prison Society. As a former Guggen- heim Fellow in Italy, he collected material for an historical analysis of crime and punishment in the Renaissance. In this article Dr. Wolfgang explores the meaning of the terms "criminology" and "criminol- ogist." Recognizing that these terms have been used with great varieties of meaning since Lombroso, and that in the United States criminology has had primarily a sociological orientation, the author poses the question whether criminology can be considered an autonomous, separate discipline of knowledge. He examines the interrelationships between criminology and other fields, and the di- versity of present-day approaches to the study of crime and criminals.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice-Report-Jan-6-.Pdf
    1 Heritage Institute Contents 2 Heritage Institute Acronyms 1. A2J Access to Justice 2. ADR Alternative dispute resolution 3. BRA Benadir Regional Administration 4. CCILS Consultative Committee for Integration of Legal 5. CFI Systems Court of First Instance 6. DPC District peace committees 7. FGS Federal Government of Somalia 8. FMS Federal Member States 9. GBV Gender-Based Violence 10. JSC Judicial Services Commission 11. HJC Higher Judicial Council 12. HRC Human Rights Commission 13. IDLO International Development Law Organization 14. MOJ Ministry of Justice 15. NGO Non-governmental organization 16. NSC National Security Court 17. OAG Office of the Attorney General 18. PCoS Provisional Constitution of Somalia 19. CCoS Constitutional Court of Somalia 20. SCoS Supreme Court of Somalia 21. PM Prime minister 22. SBA Somali Bar Association 23. SLC Somali Legal Society 24. SRC Supreme Revolutionary Council 25. SSC State Supreme Court 26. TFC Transition Federal Charter 27. TNG Transitional National Government 28. TFG Transitional Federal Government 3 Heritage Institute 1. Executive summary Despite recent reforms, the formal justice system in Somalia is broken at the core, depriving More than 10 years equitable access to justice for millions of citizens. More than 10 years with no judicial system (1990- with no judicial 2000) followed by 20 years of weak statutory courts (2000-2020) have had a profoundly deleterious system (1990- impact on the nation’s deeply decentralized judicial branch. As a result, a buffet of justice systems 2000) followed and alternative dispute mechanisms have flourished across the country, leading citizens to shop for by 20 years of the most favorable outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • In Law Or in Equity?
    In law or in equity? By Eric Lindquist, Of Counsel to Fox Horan & Camerini LLP © Eric Lindquist 2020 St. Thomas More, English Chancellor 1529-1532 Lawyers and businesspersons around the world read contracts every day that provide for indemnity against, or the release of, claims “in law or in equity.” Based on my conversations with civil lawyers and with business executives in the US and abroad, it seems that many of them haven’t really thought about what “equity” means in this context. Here are the basics. Equity jurisdiction arose in England during the Middle Ages to balance the excessive rigidity of the common law courts by allowing a royal official, the Lord Chancellor, to decide disputes based on broad concepts of fairness and good conscience. The distinction between law and equity is important because: (a) equitable claims are decided by a judge, not by a jury, (b) claims in equity are subject to different defenses from legal claims (the defenses of “unclean hands,” “laches,” or “undue hardship,” e.g.), (c) equitable relief being viewed as an “extraordinary remedy,” the standards of pleading and proof are generally stricter than for legal claims, requiring greater specificity and clearer evidence, (d) courts can retain jurisdiction over equitable matters long after judgment is entered, allowing them to modify or dissolve injunctions, or to appoint receivers to manage property or special masters to monitor compliance, (e) equitable judgments are enforceable by sanctions for contempt of court, and (f) equitable judgments are discretionary and therefore especially difficult to overturn on appeal. Most claims arising “in equity” ask the court for an injunction, that is, an order that the respondent do something or refrain from doing something.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrections Captain Duties
    DESCHUTES COUNTY ADULT JAIL CD-2-1 L. Shane Nelson, Sheriff Jail Operations Approved by: October 18, 2017 CORRECTIONS CAPTAIN DUTIES POLICY. The Corrections Captain is responsible for the operations of all jail facilities, including Court Security, Transports and Maintenance units. The Corrections Captain plans, organizes and supervises operational functions and activities; implements procedures; ensures compliance with legal or contract requirements; assesses situations and utilizes resources as appropriate, negotiates contracts; participates in operations; develops and administers a budget and handles special assignments as required. PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the duties and responsibilities of the Corrections Captain. OREGON JAIL STANDARDS: A-103 Jail Commander A-405 Management Training REFERENCES: ORS. 169.076 Standards for Local Corrections Facilities DEFINITIONS: Corrections Captain. Sworn personnel assigned to the Corrections Division by the Sheriff. Responsible for the overall operations of the jail facilities, with on-call, 24 hours a day, seven days a week accountability; assuming responsibility for the management and operations of the facility. The Corrections Captain has been given operational authority commensurate with the responsibilities assigned; and the duties and authority of the Corrections Captain are set forth in the Deschutes County Adult Jail policies and procedures manual. PROCEDURES. SECTION A: RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES A-1. Manage, direct and organize Corrections Division activities. Responsible for proper and effective operations of the assigned divisions. Ensure inmates, corrections deputies, staff and the public are secure within the jail, Work Center and courthouse facilities. Supersedes: February 9, 2016 Review Date: February 2019 Total Pages: 3 1 DCAJ CD-2-1 October 18, 2017 A-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Corrections: a Glimpse
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE NYLS Journal of Human Rights Volume 10 Issue 3 THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE: Article 7 RESTRUCTURING MENTAL DISABILITY LAW 1993 THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE AND CORRECTIONS: A GLIMPSE Fred Cohen Joel A. Dvoskin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_human_rights Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cohen, Fred and Dvoskin, Joel A. (1993) "THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE AND CORRECTIONS: A GLIMPSE," NYLS Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 10 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_human_rights/vol10/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of Human Rights by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE AND CORRECTIONS: A GLIMPSE Fred Cohen* & Joel A. Dvoskin* L Introduction To our knowledge, therapeutic jurisprudence has not yet had a long visit with the world of jails and prisons. The authors, on the other hand, do regularly visit those institutions in various roles: as professor, as researcher and writer, as clinician, as administrator, and as consultant. We are novices at therapeutic jurisprudence but have extensive experience in the world of law, corrections, and mental health. In this our first effort at trying therapeutic jurisprudence on for size, we first set out our broad understanding of therapeutic jurisprudence, along with a well-intentioned critique and a strong suggestion that at least one important research dimension seems lacking. Thereafter, we describe some of the characteristics of corrections as they seem to impact on therapeutic jurisprudence analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Educating the Correctional Practitioner
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 56 Article 6 Issue 1 March Spring 1965 The rP oblem of Educating the Correctional Practitioner Julian Roebuck Paul Zelhart Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Julian Roebuck, Paul Zelhart, The rP oblem of Educating the Correctional Practitioner, 56 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 45 (1965) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. RESEARCH REPORTS THE PROBLEM OF EDUCATING THE CORRECTIONAL PRACTITIONER JULIAN ROEBUCK AND PAUL ZELHART* For the past 20 years members of the field of industrial, training, and treatment objectives.' corrections have devoted much zeal and energy to Thus, what is meant by professionalization is stressing the need for more trained personnel unclear. without devoting much attention to where these People in several occupational and professional personnel are to come from. There is evidence of a categories utilize a variety of techniques and skills dearth of trained personnel in certain position in working with offenders which they have ac- categories within the correctional services,' but, quired from many sources; these people include just how many and what kinds of people are re- the police, jail keepers, correctional officers, quired, where they are required, who is to prepare chaplains, teachers, vocational instructors, psy- them, and how they are to be prepared remain chologists, physicians, recreation directors, in- unanswered.
    [Show full text]
  • NWFSC Criminal Justice Training Center Law Enforcement and Corrections Basic Recruit Training (BRT) Academies Frequently Asked Questions
    NWFSC Criminal Justice Training Center Law Enforcement and Corrections Basic Recruit Training (BRT) Academies Frequently Asked Questions Q. How long is the course? A. The daytime Corrections Officer BRT Academy is approximately 11 weeks long (less than one semester). The classes generally meet Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM. The Law Enforcement Officer BRT Academy is 30 weeks (two full semesters); this does not include breaks between semesters. The daytime schedule is Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 7 AM to 5 PM. Nighttime classes are Monday through Thursday from 6 PM to 10 PM and Sundays from 7 AM to 6 PM. Exact schedules are set for the entire given semester and students are provided with that schedule at orientation. Q. When do classes begin? A. We generally start new academy classes in the Fall (mid-August) and Spring (early January) semesters. Law Enforcement is divided into Police 1 (Fall) and Police 2 (Spring). Police 2 can be before Police 1. Q. Is there a deadline for applications? A. No, we take applications year-round, but candidates are admitted on a first come, first serve basis. Q. At which campus are classes held? Are there any online academy classes? A. All BRT academy classes are held at the Niceville Campus of NWFSC. There are no online classes, Q.however Can anyone all testing register is done for online academy through classes? the college’s D2L (Desire2Learn) system. A. No. The academies are Limited Access Programs which means that only those admitted to the program can register for the classes.
    [Show full text]