Abstraction:
The punishments or penalties in the kingdom of corrections reflect the doctrines and morals of civilizations and the authorities that sanction execution. Historically, corrections were grounded in “retribution and punishment- and the uglier the better”; “punishments were public occasions and street eyeglasses filled with humiliation” (Esperian, 2010). Then in the nineteenth century, there was the rise of the penitentiary, which designated violators a confined place to contemplate on the wrongdoings committed, atone and prepare for life outside incarceration, to become observant citizens of society (Esperian, 2010). Today, punishment in corrections considers concepts such as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. Therein, executions of different theoretical models of correctional doctrines, such as the justice model, the medical model, and the custodial model, have developed (Hebrews 13:3). All theories for the field of corrections are grounded in rehabilitative resources to assist and guide wrongdoers in gaining a fruitful life (Isaiah 43:18).
Punishment Doctrine:
Punishment is the “penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure” (Merriam-Webster, 2004). The punishments or penalties in the kingdom of corrections reflect the doctrines and morals of civilizations and the authorities that sanction execution. Historically, corrections were grounded in “retribution and punishment- and the uglier the better”; “punishments were public occasions and street eyeglasses filled with humiliation” (Esperian, 2010). Then in the nineteenth century, there was the rise of the penitentiary, which designated violators a confined place to contemplate on the wrongdoings committed, atone and prepare for life outside incarceration, to become observant citizens of society (Esperian, 2010). Today, punishment in corrections considers concepts such as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. Therein, executions of different theoretical models of correctional doctrines, such as the justice model, the medical model, and the custodial model, have developed. The models include and overlap in some theories, yet the primary goal of all correctional models is to prevent further offenses from happening or rehabilitation, along with lower recidivism in the system (Seiter, 2005) (1 John 1:9 New International Version).
Justice Model:
The justice model of punishment theory was proposed in 1975 by David Fogel, a former correctional officer. David Fogel (1975) “argued that interventions in prisons were a myth, parole board discretion was unpredictable and unjust to the inmates” (Seiter, 2005, p. 166). The justice model is rooted in retaliatory theory, which holds wrongdoers accountable for their actions, keeping convicted wrongdoers isolated from the society of the law-abiding, and making the wrongdoer serve “hard time” (Mackenzie, 2001) (Barton, 2012). Fogel (1975) believed his ideas would ensure that offenders received only what they deserved. To fulfill his justice model, prisons would return to the level determinate sentencing, with procedures and rules to limit sentence discretion. The parole boards and word bureaus would be wholly eliminated, and all intervention programs for rehabilitation would be strictly voluntary (Barton, 2012) (Seiter, 2005, p. 166) (Galatians 6:7).
Medical Model:
The medical model of punishment theory views offenders as individuals with psychological, medical, and social needs. The goal is to identify these needs, create an individualized treatment plan, and offer therapy, counseling.
The medical theoretical account of penal theory suggests that “offenders were ill, inflicted with problems that caused their criminal behavior, and needed intervention. Introducing rehabilitative intervention would treat and solve the offenders’ problems and prepare them for release into the community to become productive and crime-free” (Seiter, 2005, p. 23). Under the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal courts were inundated with appeals by inmates to improve the conditions of most prisons due to cruel and inhumane penalties. The appeals and prison conditions began the rehabilitative period, including the medical theoretical account, indeterminate sentencing, nearly limitless judicial discretion, parole, and coerced engagement in rehabilitation plans (Seiter, 2005, pp. 23, 164-167; MacNamara, 2006; Hebrews 13:3).
The custodial model of penal theory is based on the premise that the incarcerated offenders are a danger to the safety of society, undisciplined, and lack respect for any authority (McWhorter, 2010). Many prisons today, such as maximum-security prisons, operate under this model. Great emphasis is placed on security for staff as well as inmates, discipline, and order similar to the military, incapacitation, and monitoring of movements. These safeguards must be taken due to the nature of the offenses the offenders committed and their propensity toward violence (Mackenzie, 2001; Seiter, 2005; Colossians 3:25).
The world of corrections will always require prisons operating under the custodial model; there will always be those inmates who will not accept rehabilitation and have no intention of ever changing their violent, dangerous, and evil ways (Isaiah 48:22). The more convincing argument for the appropriate purposes of corrections is the medical theory. This approach enables the offender to rehabilitate themselves to become productive members of society. Medical does not necessarily mean physical illness, but a “sin sickness” that needs rehabilitation (James 5:16). The “medicines” to help the offender must be taken seriously, consistently, and voluntarily. This treatment could involve the implementation of one or more of these programs, such as educational courses, essential skills, and apprenticeship training, and testing.
The treatment-based programs could range from self-esteem, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, anger management, family classes, and domestic violence. All these programs would allow for probation instead of incarceration for non-violent offenders and provide mentors in society. These programs would pay for themselves with volunteers and reduced recidivism when implemented (Ecclesiastes 4:10). There must be deterrence from committing offenses and should be started in the community before offenses occur. There must be care taken to remove the criminogenic elements in society. Christian societies should pray for those who are in authority and for the government (1 Timothy 2:1-4) and should vote for governing representatives with godly understanding (1 John 4:10). Living according to godly principles, the laws will have more meaning and understanding, which will allow for the goal of rehabilitated citizens (Matthew 25:23).
Mentions:
- Barton, A. (2012, August 1). Just deserts theory. Retrieved from Encyclopedia of Prisons & Correctional Facilities: http://www.sagepub.com/hanserintro/study/materials/reference/ref3.1.pdf
- Esperian, J. H. (2010, December). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334. Retrieved July 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA345617852&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=cd6fb63c1b476073983acfb66c593b5c
- Mackenzie, D. L. (2001, July). Sentencing and corrections in the twenty-first century: Setting the stage for the future. Retrieved from ncjrs.gov: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189106-2.pdf
- MacNamara, D. E. (2006). The medical model in corrections. Criminology, 14(4), 439-448. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1977.tb00036.x
- McWhorter, R. L. (2010). Punishment. Salem Health: Psychology & Mental Health, IV, 1563-1566. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2275200464&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=184cd16bb595f9d0b96c22fca2e01642
- Merriam-Webster. (2004). Punishment. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment
- Seiter, R. P. (2005). Corrections: An Introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
