Open and Closed Prisons

An open system has frequent interaction between the organization and other groups to obtain resources, gain support, and accomplish goals (Seiter, 2011). Furthermore, open systems as described by Snarr receive numerous inputs from external government units and are held accountable for certain expected outputs from those such as taxpayers and elected officials. The textbook, Corrections: An introduction further states that prisons today interact with the local community; with their headquarters organization; with interested groups of employees, citizens, vendors, and other public agencies; and with other providers of correctional or counseling services to offenders (Seiter, 2011).

Closed systems on the other hand consist of only the internal environment and, for prisons; this meant what happen within the walls and fences, under the direct control of the warden and without much interest or interference from external groups (Seiter, 2011). The organization of a closed system, often with autocratic leadership, is usually very simple, and the mission and goals of the organization are determined and the leader (which would be the warden) enforces compliance. However, as a result of the external interest in the management of prisons not to mention the fact that no modern entity operates by itself and without interacting with many others, correctional agencies changed from closed systems to open systems (Seiter, 2011).

The organization I have found to be more effective is open system prisons because although these offenders are in prison they should have some sort of communication level from the outside. Everyone seems to forget that everyone is human and mistakes can be made however, by allowing external units such as counseling to come into the prison system perhaps would give those inmates who will someday be released a wake-up call of sorts letting them deal with not only the good of being released but also the bad that may come with re-entering society as well.