Institutional Clients – Prisoner Re-Entry and Parole
IP5 - Institutional Clients – Prisoner Re-Entry and Parole
By: Michaelle Anderson
CJUS263-1301A-03: American Corrections
February 10, 2013
I. Classification:
Proper classification is crucial to the efficient and safe operation of any prison facility. Although there are a variety of classification systems throughout corrections, they each are used in order to asses, manage, treat and ultimately return offenders to general society. The classification system not only provides proper placement of inmates, but ensures that order and discipline are maintained, programs and reasonable treatment is available, assurance that the staff, prisoners, as well as the public are protected by proper procedures. Allotting resources and planning of facility management also falls under the classification system.
The presentence report has multiple topics and is important for the judge to review and consider when sentencing an offender. The guidelines are issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. The presentence report is organized by offense (facts of the case – to include victim impact), criminal history, offender characteristics, sentencing options, factors that may warrant departure and an addendum.
Classifications varies from county to state to federal, however the most common facilities are: “Supermax” which is meant to house the most dangerous of offenders and generally are kept on lockdown for 23 hours of the day, along with constant supervision via closed-circuit televisions. “Maximum” security prisons are by design reflective of the inmates, which the system deems a serious threat to the public by means of high escape risks, to themselves, and other inmates including staff. Security measures for both the facility and the inmates are abundant. “High” security prions have very secure structures, they can have both multiple and single-occupant cells, and has the highest staff-to-inmate ratio. “Medium” facilities are classified by the need to house
By: Michaelle Anderson
CJUS263-1301A-03: American Corrections
February 10, 2013
I. Classification:
Proper classification is crucial to the efficient and safe operation of any prison facility. Although there are a variety of classification systems throughout corrections, they each are used in order to asses, manage, treat and ultimately return offenders to general society. The classification system not only provides proper placement of inmates, but ensures that order and discipline are maintained, programs and reasonable treatment is available, assurance that the staff, prisoners, as well as the public are protected by proper procedures. Allotting resources and planning of facility management also falls under the classification system.
The presentence report has multiple topics and is important for the judge to review and consider when sentencing an offender. The guidelines are issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. The presentence report is organized by offense (facts of the case – to include victim impact), criminal history, offender characteristics, sentencing options, factors that may warrant departure and an addendum.
Classifications varies from county to state to federal, however the most common facilities are: “Supermax” which is meant to house the most dangerous of offenders and generally are kept on lockdown for 23 hours of the day, along with constant supervision via closed-circuit televisions. “Maximum” security prisons are by design reflective of the inmates, which the system deems a serious threat to the public by means of high escape risks, to themselves, and other inmates including staff. Security measures for both the facility and the inmates are abundant. “High” security prions have very secure structures, they can have both multiple and single-occupant cells, and has the highest staff-to-inmate ratio. “Medium” facilities are classified by the need to house
Bibliography: Parole in the Federal Probation System. (2011, May). Retrieved January 2013, from United States Court: http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/11-05-01/Parole_in_the_Federal_Probation_System.aspx Bartollas, C. (2002). Invitation to Corrections: with Built-in Study Guide. Boston, MA: A Pearson Education Company. Dittmann, M. (2003, July). A voice for women in prison. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/voice.aspx Haney, C. (2001). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration on Children, Families, and Communities: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Haney.htm insideprison.com. (2006, April). Prison Classification and Reclassification. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from InsidePrison.com: http://www.insideprison.com/ James Autsin, P., & Hardyman, P. P. (2004). Objective Prison Classification: A Guide for Correctional Agencies. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. Probabtion & Parole. (n.d.). Retrieved February 9, 2013, from Justice Fellowship: http://www.justicefellowship.org/node/73 Senik Mahmood, m., Tripodi, Ph.D., S., & Bender, Ph.D., K. (2010). Women Coping in Prison: An Empirical Examination. Society for Social Work and Research.