Policy Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, November, 1982

1. SYMPOSIUM ON CORRECTIONS POLICY

Symposium Editors, Jameson W. Doig and Tycho Manson

THE WIDER CONTEXT OF CORRECTIONS POLICY: INTRODUCTION TO A SYMPOSIUM Tycho Manson and Jarneson W. Doig

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

All the essays in this symposium are concerned with one aspect or another of incarceration, but they have more in common than this. Each paper addresses in some way the question of reform in the field of correc- tions. Reform in any area implies that changes are or ought to be taking place, and an initial glance at the articles will show that change is a fun- damental concern of al l the authors. Each essay either discusses the implica- tions of changes that are currently taking place in corrections policy, or pinpoints an area of corrections policy where change is needed. Change, by itself, does not alone constitute reform, however; reformers usually desire that the practices of institutions be brought into rational conformity with the goals, whatever these may be, that society has set for those institutions. Each essay is primarily concerned with a particular question in the field of corrections policy, but an interest in rational reform is the thread that binds them al l to a common concern.

Incarceration at the hands of the state is an issue of more than just specialized significance. "Prison haunts our civilization," according to one scholar far removed from the field of corrections policy, and not least because of i ts affirmation of "the power of society" (Brombert, 1978, p.3; Foucault, 1977). A contemporary critic of American corrections makes the same point more concretely:

The punishment of crime is a political act. It represents the use of physical force by the state to control the lives of people the state has defined as criminal (Wright, 1973, p. 22).

One need not subscribe to any particular normative framework to accept this definition; certain people are defined as criminals because they have transgressed boundaries that the state has found it necessary or convenient to define as the limits of socially acceptable action. But before we dismiss this definition as trivial and obvious, we should pause to consider what it implies. Every question concerning crime and the correction of criminal behavior must relate back to a society's political choices. Insofar as political choices are always matters for debate, so, ultimately, are questions con- cerning crime and i t s correction. The demarcation between the criminal and the non-criminal i s more than a technical decision; it is a political act that takes place within an implied context of beliefs concerning the range and application of state power, whether we admit this or not.

187

Jameson W. Doig and Tycho Manson

The study of a society's correctional system-its official response to the kinds of behavior it has defined as criminal-is therefore of interest in two ways. We can ask whether the system succeeds in meeting the re- quirements society has set for it, such as retribution, incapacitation, re- habilitation, and deterrence. We can also, however, ask the broader question of how these sorts of goals are related to such social goals as equity, justice, or the maximization of individual freedom. We may want to know not only whether the means employed to meet the specific goals of the cor- rectional system are actually working, but also whether they mesh with social goals, or whether contradictions and difficulties arise that result in dysfunctions both within the criminal justice system and in the society itself.

The essays in this collection are primarily addressed to the first of these ways of studying the correctional system, since policy analysts are naturally interested in concrete questions of how the system does or does not work. Each essay is sensitive to the broader context as well, however, and thus, taken together, they allow problems and proposals for reform to be considered in terms of their relation to the social whole. By explor- ing particular areas in American corrections, they also cast light on the more general issues that are manifested in the way American society re- sponds to criminal behavior.

RESPONSES TO INCREASED PUBLIC CONCERN WITH CRIME

There is l i t t le doubt that crime, especially violent crime, has become a central object of fear and concern for Americans. Public opinion reflects this; indeed, some polls show that crime surpasses national defense in importance as viewed by the public (Roberts, 1982). This concern is in turn reflected in public expenditures on corrections, the growth of which outpaced that of overall government spending by 53 percent between 1970 and 1979 (Bureau of Justice, 1980). Whether as a cause or a con- sequence of this, the total number of prisoners in state and federal institu- tions alone grew from about 200,000 to 329,000 between 1970 and 1980 (National institute of Justice, 1980). When inmates of local jails and ju- venile institutions are included, the 1980 total exceeds 500,000 (American Correctional Association, 1982 p. xxvii).

At the same time, however, less than 10 percent of reported violent crimes resulted in imprisonment of the offenders: about three-fifths of these crimes did not even result in any arrests (Bureau of Justice, 1981, p. 41). This apparent shortfall between public concern and expenditure on the one hand and effective results on the other is probably one of the causes of the "get-tough" attitude toward crime exemplified by Ronald Reagan's insistence that the supposed social causes of crime are chimerical: 'The truth is that today's criminals for the most part are not desperate people seeking bread for their families. Crime is the way they've chosen to live" (Reagan, 1981). Other observers dispute this explanation, arguing that violent crime is more aptly explained by the social frustration caused by

188

Symposium on Corrections Policy

mass unemployment among the urban poor and fueled by drug use (Baze- Ion, 1982, pp. 5-6; A. Bouza cited in Tucker, 1981, pp. 83-84). Social frustration is a difficult notion to grasp in concrete terms, however, and mass unemployment is difficult to eradicate. Politicians therefore prefer to invest their energy and their constituents' money in programs aimed at increasing the efficacy of crime-fighting techniques (Roberts, 1982). But the success of such programs would serve to increase the strain on already- overcrowded prisons and on the public purse; every prisoner added to state and federal roles in the last decade cost roughly $20,000.00 per year (Na- tional Institute of Justice, 1980). Despite the difficulty of extrapolating from previous conditions to present circumstances, a successful effort to catch and incarcerate those who are not now caught would generate an additional cost of millions for prisons, other correctional facilities, and personnel.

Consideration of the immense cost of imprisonment can lead also to reflection on whether everyone who is in prison ought to be there. I f some convicted criminals can safely (and justly) be released from prison into alternative modes of correction, the efficiency of the prison system, and perhaps i t s efficacy as well, may be increased. This consideration has led several states to implement "community corrections" programs, in which some prisoners are released to various types of community facilities (in addition to parole) that emphasize rehabilitation over punishment and incar- ceration. The papers by Dennis Palumbo and by John Byrne and Donald Yanich examine this approach and find that community corrections must be placed in a wider political context in order to understand why it has so far yielded only mixed results.

By pointing to the political ambiguities that surround policy choices such as construction of new prisons or community corrections programs, these three papers demonstrate that solutions to corrections problems are not as simple as the proclamations of politicians might suggest. At the same time, however, they serve as reminders that seemingly clear-cut policy choices encounter a web of complexity once they enter the political arena.

IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PROBLEM OF CLARIFYING CONFLICTING GOALS

The essays seem to provide cause for a t least pessimism concerning the prospects for corrections reform, since each essay draws attention to the more intractable social and political problems that stand in the way of quick solutions. More positively, however, consideration of the relations between policy choices and the wider community in which they are made reminds us that a prerequisite of successful corrections reform is clarification of the purposes that policy serves. Can the criminal justice system turn a blind eye to questions of social justice that impinge upon it without defeating the goal of reducing crime? How can incarceration of less dangerous offenders be de-emphasized, and the upward pressure on the prison population reduced when the public sees incarceration as the best way to protect its interests?

189

Jameson W. Doig and Tycho Manson

Corrections officials need to address these questions in order to enhance the chances for success of reform strategies.

It is necessary also to examine instances in which previous reforms have either been unsuccessful or have led to undesired consequences in the hope that awareness of the factors influencing past errors will guard against future ones. Judith Resnik, for example, asks whether there is any justification of separating prisoners by sex, a distinction first imposed as a nineteenth-century reform measure, when that separation leads to a pub1 ic image of women’s prisons that masks a more brutal reality. Other essays look a t the ways in which reform efforts are either prevented or perverted by unforeseen difficulties in implementation. Bruce Bullington, Daniel Katkin, and Drew Hyman show how juvenile justice reforms have gone awry due to difficulties encountered a t the implementation stage, while David Weimer and Karen Reixach point to structural and bureaucratic impedi- ments to attempts to impose state-set standards on local jails. By clarifying the factors that impede implementation of reforms in these areas, the essays lay the groundwork for further reform strategies and suggest the directions such strategies might take.

Reform strategies themselves are the subject of the remaining essays. Students of public policy will be familiar with the three perspectives for developing reform strategies they present: judicial intervention, strict standards, and reliance on professionalism. Daryl Fair and Candace McCoy discuss judicial intervention, via lawsuits, in prison conditions from two different perspectives. Fair develops a theoretical justification for what he calls the “broad-gauge” approach to prison cases, a strategy which seems currently to be in partial eclipse. McCoy explores the question from the other side and asks what possibilities for reform are available in the kinds of decisions that the courts are presently producing and how far such possibilities might extend. Though McCoy is somewhat hopeful, there are legitimate grounds for concern that courts will follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court and retreat from the interest in positive reform of prison conditions that characterized the Court in previous years. With correctional facilities in thirty states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico currently in operation under court orders (National Prison Project, 1982). changes in judicial attitudes to intervention in corrections are necessarily of importance to students of the field.

STANDARDS WS. PROFESSIONALISM

The essays by Fair and McCoy point to a more general distinction among reform strategies. Should reliance be placed on the imposition of strict standards that provide officials with clear-cut rules and guidelines, or can increased reliance on professional expertise be counted upon to provide solutions to problems that are too unexpected or amorphous for rigidly defined standards? The Weimer and Reixach essay examines the efficacy of standards in the case of local jails, while the contribution of Thomas Gilmore and Joseph E. McCann discusses ways in which profes- sionals can overcome threats to effective management and reform that may

190

Symposium on Corrections Policy

arise during leadership transitions. Stuart Nagel compares two models of arriving at sentencing standards that will be both feasible and in accor- dance with community requirements. At the same time, he makes a more general point concerning the debate between rationalism and incremental- ism as modes of policy formulation and suggests that the question is best answered not abstractly, but by considering the requirements of specific situations.

CONCLUSION

The symposium addresses several issues of central concern to scholars and administrators in the field of corrections. These articles also remind us that in corrections, as in other fields, effective implementation requires close understanding of the bureaucratic, structural, and political obstacles to change. The essays are therefore of interest as well to policy analysts who have no particular expertise in corrections, but who seek concrete instances of the obstacles and possibilities confronting efforts to translate policy decisions into positive results.

Finally, when taken together, the essays present a broad picture of the sometimes contradictory goals and imperatives of the American criminal justice system, and of the kinds of problems that result from efforts to implement policies that meet these goals. Corrections issues are inevitably intertwined with more basic issues in American political life; it is noteworthy that some of the essays in this symposium draw the conclusion that effective corrections reform depends on confronting such broad aspects of American l i fe as the ideology that shapes popular attitudes toward crim- inal justice or the conventional distinctions between men and women. Even the essays that do not draw such connections explicitly imply further considerations extending beyond the field of corrections policy itself. Corrections reform raises questions of more general interest to political scientists and social theorists and, therefore, touches upon the concerns of those in many other areas of social science. For if corrections policy cannot be considered apart from i t s wider social and political context, neither can the study of society afford to ignore the way society deals with those who transgress i ts bounds.

REFERENCES

American Correctional Association. Directory. Washington, D.C.: American Correc- tional Association, 1982.

Barelon, D. The crime controversy: Avoiding realities. Vanderbilt Law Review, Feb- ruary 12,1982,5-6.

Brombert, V. The Romantic Prison: The French Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Violent Crime in the United States. Washington, D.C.: US. Department of Justice, 1980.

Foucault, M. Diocipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977.

191

Jameson W. Doig and Tycho Manson

National Institute of Ju,stice. American Prisons and Jails (Vol. 3). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1980.

National Prison Project. Report. Washington, D.C.: American Civil Liberties Union, March, 1982.

Reagan, R . Remarks of the President to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. September 28,1981.

Roberts, S. Crime an increasingly compelling political issue. New York Times. June 24.1982.

Tucker, R. Politks as Leadership. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1981.

Wright, E. The Politics of Punishment: A Critical Analysis of Prisons in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

192