The role of solitary confinement, and why it’s necessary Anthony Gangi September 08, 2015 https://www.corrections1.com/treatment/articles/the-role-of-soly-confinement-and-why-its-necess ary-h9hyGSg5d2 XP4LR2/.
Solitary confinement can be viewed as an extreme loss of granted items in which all efforts to maintain control through normal procedures have failed. In order to maintain safety, correctional staff now has to enter the extreme and start from scratch by removing all granted items and having the inmate transition themselves to a position where they can slowly regain what was taken. Punishment by removal has been utilized by corrections as a way to motivate compliance in a manner that is humane and decent. For those who work in corrections, we need to maintain order in a world that wants to be chaotic.
Solitary Confinement Can Be Necessary Stanton E. Samenow April 30, 2021 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-crimi nal-mind/202104/solitary-confinement-can-be-necessary.
As thousands of dedicated men and women who work in prisons know, solitary confinement of inmates can be a necessary, often life-saving measure to spare both staff and inmates from injury or death. What can correctional officers do when faced with an inmate who not only constantly defies basic rules of conduct but who also poses a constant danger to staff and other prisoners?
Solitary Confinement: The Pros and Cons Criminal Law, Prisoners Issues October 26, 2017.
It helps ensure prison safety. From its establishment, the purpose of solitary confinement in prisons is to restrict incarcerated persons from being a threat to others. It gives prison guards another method to discipline inmates. Punishment methods allow guards to maintain a sense of order within the prison. It can reform an inmate’s character. An additional goal of solitary confinement is to give incarcerated persons rehabilitation or reform their character. Although solitary confinement is designed to reform and rehabilitate an incarcerated persons, it does not always work successfully.
McQuade, Brendan. “Histories of Abolition, Critiques of Security.” Social Justice, vol. 45, no. 2/3, 2018, pp. 1–24. JSTOR.
McQuade argues that abolitionist movements, especially those influenced by the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), challenge existing notions of security and demand a transformation of society beyond criminal justice reform. He critiques the co-opting of abolition by mainstream politics and highlights the tension between revolutionary goals and reformist concessions.
Atkin-Plunk, Cassandra A. “Should All Violent Offenders Be Treated Equally? Perceptions of Punishment and Rehabilitation for Violent Offenders with Varying Attributes.” Victims & Offenders, vol. 15, no. 2, 24 Jan. 2020, pp. 218–242, doi:10.1080/15564886.2019.1711277.
This article uses a case study method to examine different sociological backgrounds’ responses on punitive measures. The concept of punishment and rehabilitation was examined through the various perspectives of criminal and criminology students to describe their cerebral responses to punitive methods as rehabilitation or punishment. I thought the size of her participants allowed for a clear understanding of the student perspectives but the process had its gaps of interpretation. One common theme around the perspectives of these students, outlined a necessary approach to balanced-justice. Public opinion was a central aspect in the socialization of the students. This article outlines the fragile line of punishment and rehabilitation but illustrates the nuances of this punitive construct.
Benson, Etienne. “Rehabilitate or Punish?” Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2003, http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.
This article features the perspective of rehabilitation through the discipline of psychology. The mental illness rates within prison populations were drawn to express the importance of the corrections system approach. The psychologist is expressed as having a unique role in ushering change within the rehabilitation of the carceral system through an adaptation of rehabilitative methods decentering outdated punitive measures. Benson discusses the ongoing debate between rehabilitation and punishment within the criminal justice system, focusing on the psychological perspectives that inform these contrasting approaches. The piece examines how psychologists contribute to understanding the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs compared to punitive measures, emphasizing research that suggests rehabilitation is more successful in reducing recidivism rates.
Bloom, Tina, and G. A. Bradshaw. “Inside of a Prison: How a Culture of Punishment Prevents Rehabilitation.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, Feb. 2022, pp. 140–143, doi:10.1037/pac0000572.
Bloom and Bradshaw explore the counterproductive effects of a punitive culture within prison systems, arguing that the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation undermines efforts to reintegrate incarcerated individuals into society. The authors contend that the prevailing institutional culture, which prioritizes retribution, fosters environments that are hostile to the personal growth and rehabilitation of prisoners.
Condry, Rachel, and Shona Minson. “Conceptualizing the Effects of Imprisonment on Families: Collateral Consequences, Secondary Punishment, or Symbiotic Harms?” Theoretical Criminology, vol. 25, no. 4, 28 Jan. 2020, pp. 540–558, doi:10.1177/1362480619897078.
In this article, Condry and Minson examine the impact of imprisonment on the families of incarcerated individuals, exploring various conceptual frameworks to understand these effects. The authors challenge the traditional view of the “collateral consequences” of imprisonment, suggesting that the harm caused to families extends beyond mere economic or emotional fallout. They propose the concept of “symbiotic harms,” where families experience both direct and indirect consequences in ways that reflect a complex interdependence between the prisoner and their relatives.
Cullen, Francis T., et al. “Public Opinion about Punishment and Corrections.” Crime and Justice, vol. 27, Jan. 2000, pp. 1–79, doi:10.1086/652198.
This comprehensive study by Cullen and colleagues explores public attitudes toward punishment and corrections, focusing on how societal views shape criminal justice policies and practices. The authors examine a wide range of public opinion surveys, analyzing how factors such as crime rates, media portrayals of crime, and political ideologies influence public support for various forms of punishment, including incarceration, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
Cullen, Francis, and Karen Gilbert. Reaffirming Rehabilitation, 13 Nov. 2012, doi:10.4324/9781315721361.
Cullen and Gilbert revisit the concept of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system, offering a thorough defense of rehabilitative approaches to criminal offenders. The authors critique the dominant punitive philosophies that have shaped criminal justice policies over recent decades and advocate for a return to rehabilitation as a primary goal of the justice system. The book synthesizes decades of research on rehabilitation, demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing recidivism and promoting successful reintegration of offenders into society.
Duff, Antony. “Punishment and Rehabilitation – or Punishment as Rehabilitation.” Criminal Justice Matters, vol. 60, no. 1, 13 Mar. 2008, pp. 18–19, doi:10.1080/09627250508553608.
In this brief yet thought-provoking article, Antony Duff explores the complex relationship between punishment and rehabilitation within the criminal justice system. Duff critically examines the notion that punishment itself can serve as a form of rehabilitation, questioning whether punitive measures can truly foster personal transformation or if they merely serve retributive functions.
Jonson, Cheryl Lero, et al. “Public Support for a New Correctional Era.” The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation, 6 Sept. 2024, pp. 13–25, doi:10.1002/9781119893073.ch2.
In this chapter, Jonson and colleagues examine the critical role of public opinion in shaping the future of correctional practices, particularly in the context of a shift toward more rehabilitative approaches within the criminal justice system. The authors explore the factors influencing public support for correctional reform, including attitudes toward punishment, rehabilitation, and recidivism.
McNeill, Fergus. McNeill, Fergus (2014) Punishment as Rehabilitation., 2014, eprints.gla.ac.uk/91580/1/91580.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.
In this article, Fergus McNeill critically examines the concept of “punishment as rehabilitation,” exploring the philosophical and practical implications of blending punitive measures with rehabilitative goals in the criminal justice system. McNeill argues that while rehabilitation is often seen as an alternative to punishment, the idea of incorporating rehabilitative principles within the punishment process itself offers a more integrated and potentially effective approach.
Moss, Simon A., et al. “When Do People Value Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice over the Punishment of Offenders?” vol. 14, no. 1, 13 Nov. 2018, pp. 32–51, doi:10.1080/15564886.2018.1539688.
This article by Moss and colleagues explores the factors that influence public preferences for rehabilitation and restorative justice over traditional punitive approaches to criminal justice. The authors use empirical data from surveys and psychological experiments to examine when and why people are more likely to support rehabilitative or restorative measures, as opposed to retributive punishment, in the context of criminal behavior.
Robinson, Gwen. “Late-Modern Rehabilitation.” Punishment & Society, vol. 10, no. 4, 1 Oct. 2008, pp. 429–445, doi:10.1177/1462474508095319.
In this article, Gwen Robinson explores the concept of rehabilitation in the context of late-modern society, critically analyzing how contemporary correctional practices and rehabilitation strategies have evolved. Robinson argues that rehabilitation, once seen as a core objective of criminal justice systems, has been reshaped by the neoliberal ideologies and policies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Rogers, Darrin L., and Christopher J. Ferguson. “Punishment and Rehabilitation Attitudes toward Sex Offenders versus Nonsexual Offenders.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, vol. 20, no. 4, May 2011, pp. 395–414, doi:10.1080/10926771.2011.570287. (Source contains Robinson annotation):
In this article, Gwen Robinson explores the concept of rehabilitation in the context of late-modern society, critically analyzing how contemporary correctional practices and rehabilitation strategies have evolved. Robinson argues that rehabilitation, once seen as a core objective of criminal justice systems, has been reshaped by the neoliberal ideologies and policies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Tunick , Mark. Punishment: Theory and Practice Mark Tunick. University of California Press, 2023.
Mark Tunick offers a comprehensive analysis of the philosophical, legal, and practical dimensions of punishment within contemporary society. Drawing on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, Tunick examines the ethical justifications for punishment, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
Van Ginneken, Esther FJC, and David Hayes. “‘Just’ Punishment? Offenders’ Views on the Meaning and Severity of Punishment.” Criminology & Criminal Justice, vol. 17, no. 1, 24 July 2017, pp. 62–78, doi:10.1177/1748895816654204.
In this article, Van Ginneken and Hayes explore offenders’ perceptions of punishment, focusing on how they understand its fairness and severity. Through interviews and qualitative research, the authors examine the subjective experiences of incarcerated individuals, revealing how offenders interpret the concept of “just” punishment and how these views align with or diverge from legal and societal definitions of justice.
Vicente, Constanza. “(PDF) from Punishment to Rehabilitation: A Progressive Vision for Criminal Justice Reform.” 2023.
In this article, Constanza Vicente presents a compelling argument for shifting criminal justice policies from punitive measures to rehabilitative approaches. Drawing on contemporary research and case studies, Vicente advocates for a criminal justice system that focuses on rehabilitation as the central goal, aiming to address the root causes of criminal behavior such as mental illness, addiction, and poverty.