More than often, variety of programs, facilities, services and organizations remain responsible for the supervision and correctional action undertaken upon individuals within the society who have been convicted of criminal offenses. More significantly, correctional actions and practices, undertaken by individuals and institutions who are premeditated to ensure conformity with the norms and rules of society leads to adoption of either authoritarian, bureaucratic or participative model. Notably, correctional process undertaken ensures adherence to improved quality life through a complicated web of disparate processes that mainly focus on adherence to fair punishment and community protection among the convicts. Considerably, it is essential to focus on the goal of corrections based on correctional facility operated using the model by analyzing each models as a way of establishing effective correctional model that ensures maintenance and reinforcement of social cohesion.
In most cases, corrections undertaken in the correctional facilities encompasses on increased legal responses of the society to prohibited behaviors that include a variety of actions undertaken by authorities involved in managing people convicted of criminal offenses. Even though, punishing people who break society rules remain as an unfortunate but necessary part within the social life the correctional action vary depending on the model adopted. As an indigenous model used in correctional facilities both in theory and practice the authoritarian model increasingly dominated the nineteenth century (Johnson & Wolfe, 2003). More notably, the authoritarian model was adopted until the middle of the twentieth century because the unconcerned publics were not focused on punishment and community protection among the convicts because they did not care much about prisons. Considering the increased outcome of using the authoritarian model there is still increased reflection of this style of management in some contemporary prisons.
The authoritarian model was an arbitrary system that was centralized power-one-man rule based on repressive social control as it did not permit for increased inmate associations because it frustrated the development of convict groups among the prisoners. As a result, the model gave increased powers to wardens who responded with swift, certain, and sometimes terrible control measures whenever the prisoners indicated they were defiant to their orders. More significantly, the model focused on social control as it had increased levels of rights to restrain disciplinary procedures on the accused leading to secret accusation and accusation without notice, hearing counsel as there remained increased levels of secrecy through increased actual use of informers, as a formal control of maintaining values and social structure among inmate society.
The model had several disadvantages including increased abuse of power, authority and privileges among the corrective authority because it advocated more powers to them as it remained as an arbitrary system with centralized one man power rule. In addition, there was increased absence of any due process in the correctional system that guarantees to govern the prisoners thus, increasing lack of public accountability among the prison officials. More significantly, the warders had increased powers as they established elaborate internal intelligence systems, as an approach of asserting that they were trusted as they took swift, certain actions that sometimes include terrible control measures. As a system, which gave more powers to the warders over the convicts there were increased forces that led to its decline, especially through increased civil rights revolutions leading to the adoption of the bureaucratic model (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005). As a result, the model did not work for long as it led to the opening of the prisons to official inspection with increased reforms as a way of providing convicts with an opportunity to carry out equitable correctional action.
After the fall of the authoritarian administration style there was increased changes with the adoption of the bureaucratic model, which altered the whole field of corrections. As a result, there was increased equitable correctional action as official inspection based on reforms and introduction of professional services led to a new commitment of the prison institution to the ideal of rehabilitation (Meyers, Villanueva & Smith, 2005). As a model introduced after World War II the correctional department shifted to states as reforms on the prison management was increasingly leading to the establishment of chains of formal command and accountability within the prison system similar to those in other governmental departments. As a result, state departments who were involved directly with the correctional facilities carried out responsibilities of managing the different state’s prison systems.
More significantly, the bureaucratic model had increased levels of formal chains of command that were created and institutionalized as a reform process through regulations and practices. In addition, the bureaucratic model prison came up with means of achieving prisons reforms as correctional facilities focused on being cost effective in its operation. As a result, procedures and processes that could lead to cost reduction were established as wardens became accountable through their feedback with the increased use of an elaborate bookkeeping system. In addition, the model lead to professionals working in prison and central office as they amicably handled newly emerging needs and demands (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005). As compared to the authoritarian administration style, the bureaucratic model was more beneficial as it facilitated an effective operation of the correctional facility with increased levels of accountability. Nevertheless, the wardens lost the increased power they had over the prisoners in the authoritarian model because the bureaucratic model advocated for increased accountability for their actions.
Even though, the bureaucratic model seemed to increase the reforms within the correctional facility participative model granted increased correctional reforms that favored the prisoners. As a result, the participative model was mainly characterized with increased rehabilitative and democratic ideology as it remained more flexible as compared to the authoritarian model through its recognition of legitimate rights of group association within the prison (Craig, 2004). This model advocated for increased flexibility on administrative power and control through increased rehabilitation changes by reduction in exercising increased external physical control. More significantly, the model allowed for minimum and absolutely necessary levels of control that could essentially facilitate reform and rehabilitation in prison as the outsiders including civil organizations managed further to reduce the authority of top prison officials. Considering that, the bureaucratic model advocates for increased rehabilitation changes it remains practicable when the correctional facility is not in permanent crisis as it remains practicable when organization is stable and not under pressure.
More considerably, participative model remain beneficial to the prisoners because they entered the prison disadvantaged but ended up having a voice because they were not oppressed. As a result, the model considered punishing people who break rules guiding the society as an unfortunate but necessary part of social life (Belbot, 2004). Considering the existence of increased external and internal pressures there were increased reforms based on inmate civil rights as they got entitled to visitations, correspondence, and censorship. In addition, the model led to increased assistance of intimates to understand their rights as law libraries were introduced in correctional institutions. The main disadvantage of the participative model is the administration of control that later became harder to maintain particularly because warders were confronted with such legitimate rights and interests. In most cases, participative model is more administered in both the juvenile and other correctional facilities including the courts because it advocates for increased abolition of the uncertain sentence system. In addition, participative model allows for increased restoration of civil and human rights to the prisoners as it increases the establishment of rights for the prisoners for increased justice and fairness in treatment.
In conclusion, models adopted in the correctional facilities should increasingly undertake reforms and recognition of legitimate rights. As a result, corrections undertaken should encompass all the legal responses that remain responsible for managing people accused criminal offenses to administer equitable justice. Without doubt, the correctional facilities should undertake to amicably handle newly emerging needs and demands within the facilities to allow for effective administration of justice.
Belbot, B. (2004). Report on the prison litigation reform act: What have the courts decided so
far? The Prison Journal, 84(3): 290-316.
Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a "Real World" Prison Setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32 (3): 3-25.
Craig, S. (2004). Rehabilitation versus control: An organizational theory of prison management. The Prison Journal 84(4): 92-114.
Johnson, A. & Wolfe, N. (2003). History of criminal justice. 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
Meyers, R., Villanueva, M., & Smith, J. (2005). The community reinforcement approach: History and new directions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 19, 247-260.