Genesis of the concept of correctional punishment: From antiquity to modern times

The article examines the genesis of the idea of correctional punishment. The authors analyse the concepts and views on the purpose of punishing Plato, Roman lawyers, European humanists, as well as English prison reformers of the XVIII century. The relevance of this topic for domestic legal science is due to the ongoing transformation of approaches to determining the purpose of punishment, the revision of strategies in the field of punishments in foreign penology and the development of correctional policy, taking into account new goals. The era of correctional punishment, admittedly, was the XIX century. The basis of penitentiary discourse during this period was the belief that with the help of a proper prison regime, segregation, humane treatment and spiritual care, it would certainly be possible to correct convicts. Although the ideas of correctional punishment appear in ancient times and acquire their practical implementation in the medieval Christian tradition of European states, the idea of the primacy of English and American prison reformers in the establishment of penitentiary systems prevails in historiography. An unbiased analysis of knowledge systems and the rejection of the methodology of ideological bias allowed proving that the penitentiary systems of the XIX century only developed the models of prison discipline that began in previous periods. In fact, there was a revival of the ancient paternalistic concept of correctional punishment, supplemented by a religious doctrine that provided for the influence not on the body, but on the soul of the offender to repent, correct and, as a result, return to society. At the end of the XVIII century, the secular authorities adopted these disciplinary models. They will be most widely implemented in correctional and penitentiary houses in England during the prison reform of the 70s and 90s and will later become the basis for the formation of penitentiary systems that will be implemented in practice in most countries of the world during the XIX-early XX centuries

Millennials as the Future of Corrections: A Generational Analysis of Public Policy Opinions

This study presents a comprehensive assessment of what Millennials think about U.S. correctional policy. Using a 2017 national-level sample ( N = 1,000), Millennials’ correctional policy opinions across 13 outcomes are assessed and compared to the views of other generations. The main findings are twofold. First, Millennials are only modestly punitive but clearly supportive of progressive policies. Thus, Millennials favor a rehabilitative correctional orientation, believe in offender redeemability, and prefer policies to protect ex-felons’ civil rights and to expunge criminal records for minor offenses. Second, generational differences in public support for correctional policies are mostly limited. Americans of all generations tend to endorse inclusionary policies—a finding indicating that the future of American corrections might see a lengthy era of progressive reform.

Administrative Segregation: A Review of State and Federal Policies

The use of administrative segregation in prison is a controversial correctional policy. Proponents argue this type of housing is necessary for maintaining institutional safety and order, whereas critics contend it is damaging to inmate mental health. Despite the increase in academic attention over the last decade, there is much that remains unknown about the uses and effects of this practice. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by content-analyzing the administrative segregation policies of 48 state and federal prison systems. The results provide evidence of consistency and discrepancy across key elements of these policies, including placement criteria and review procedures. Findings further highlight how basic information regarding mental health provisions and conditions of confinement are missing from a substantial number of policies. This investigation emphasizes a need for more governmental accountability and transparency in the use of this correctional policy and identifies several areas for future research.

Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reforms correctional institutions via administrative mechanisms and represents a major shift in both correctional policy and workplace practice. Using qualitative data within six prisons in one U.S. state, finding suggest that staff view PREA as an administrative, safety, and cultural burden, which creates a misalignment of institutional logics. Rather than seeing themselves as central to eliminating prison sexual misconduct/violence, staff see PREA as interfering with their “real” custody/control work. This misalignment has major implications for the productive implementation and use of PREA and the broader shift to administrative rather than legal processes for institutional reform.

Examining Change in Family Conflict and Family Violence After Release From Prison

This study examines changes in family conflict and violence among a sample of adult men after release from prison. Using longitudinal panel data on 1,282 men in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, cross-lagged dynamic fixed-effects panel data models are used to examine factors that relate to family conflict and family violence perpetrated by men after release from prison. Increased contact with family members during incarceration, as well as postrelease family support, related to decreased family conflict, even after accounting for family conflict during incarceration. Contact was unrelated to postrelease family violence. Interestingly, family violence prior to incarceration did not predict within-person changes in violence postrelease. Postrelease substance use and criminal offending significantly related to postrelease family violence. With incarceration affecting so many people nationwide, understanding how the experiences of incarceration and reentry impacts family health and well-being should be an important consideration for correctional policy and programming.