Prison Policy Transfer
Prison Policy TransferIntroductionThe present research on Supermax resources suggest that these institutions pose a potential damage to the inmates’ psychological and mental health as well as failing to meet their initial objective as intended. This has resulted in the added troubles from the correctional superintendents and economic overheads to the national budgets without any benefits from it despite the popularity of these Supermax prisons in Australia. This essay will review the changes that have taken place since the introduction of Supermax in Australia in addition to the introduction of the policy transfer policy which has gradually finds its way into the Australia territory. Most of this policy transfer is believed to be borrowed from the U.S. In spite of the increasing Supermax institutions in the last 20 years, there is little that is known about these institutions placement, behaviors surrounding it and correctional impacts among the inmates. However the little that is known is insufficient to warrant acceptance and this includes isolation and segregation of inmates from others as a security measure.
This essay will also review all the links and the objective of introducing the Supermax imprisonment through the imported policies from the US into the Australian territories. The due rights of all the prisoners are also fundamental and must be considered at all levels. Community supervision may raise a lot of human rights violation as a result of the introduction of Supermax Prison.
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u HYPERLINK l “_Toc377197917” Prison Policy Transfer PAGEREF _Toc377197917 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377197918” Introduction PAGEREF _Toc377197918 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377197919” Supermax prison as US policy transfer PAGEREF _Toc377197919 h 2
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377197920” Supermax as a rebadging of long established secondary punishment PAGEREF _Toc377197920 h 4
HYPERLINK l “_Toc377197921” Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc377197921 h 6
Supermax prison as US policy transferJones and Newburn (2007, pp.1) states that policy transfer is a new and very important growing aspect in the body of punitive works associated with many disciplines including criminal justice and is the most popular in the United States. The focus is basically oriented toward the actors, agency and institutions in the flow of crime control policy all the way from US to UK. Recently, a number of approaches were devised to counter crime and to improve the correctional facilities in the developed countries, one of which is the Supermax or super-maximum prison. Supermax is the commonly referred to as a high security unit among the prisons available. This prison is known to host highly classified prisoners, people remanded awaiting trials, convicted criminal engaged in the act of terrorism and suspects that have diverse and sensitive information related to the security system. These criminals are sent to highly secured prisons like prison in port Victoria in US.
A closer observation of the above issues as seen from the use of Supermax prison reveals a number of issues as compared to the Australian prisons. In the case of Supermax, queries arise as to whether the vagueness, cultural, catchiness political and media is a step that led to the colonial era where regimes used secondary punishment which was a key component used as conviction in the society. Most of the suffering from those ancients conviction subjected the convicted persons to a double punishment which included being moved to another region for either trial or conviction. As noted by Sim (2004, p.115) other consequences of Supermax are a prolonged and isolation which causes frequent mental breakdown, personality harm, suicidal attempts and criminal violence. Haney (2002, p.53) pointed out that during the post colonial era, most countries penal systems consisted of specific prison units and sections that were designated for punishment, security and correctional units and are known to exhibit historical brutality and isolations based on sensory deprivation. These departments acted as site for terror by the state which was conducted in secret and no longer act as a correctional or relational centre as intended (Carlton,2008, p.23).
As stated by Baldry (2011, p.17) it is not easy to determine all the borrowed technological, design, hardware, programs, regimes and practices from other security units into the security units of Australia and specifically for the US by the way of policy transfer other than the word Supermax. However, the use of orange colored suits by the security prisoners and guardians, the embracing of certain specific shackles by the prisoners, the methods through which prisoners are classified, increased use of the surveillance and other electronic to monitor prisoners could have been influenced and borrowed from the US but some may have been in existence.
According to Siegel (2010, pp. 526) the existence and fear of terrorism has lead to the design of new prisons and the way it is perceived as a medium of security. These prisons are reinforced and protected against both internal and external hostages, revolts and escaping of prisoners and also to seal off a division of prisons. A new grouping of prisoners was introduced in such a way that prisoners were classified into several categories. For example, a category arising from gender, age, nature of crime, and other categories which were introduced catered for various needs. At some instances, DNA test is conducted among the prisoners and failure to comply leads to forcefully testing to indentify the prisoners before they are admitted into a given prison. Besides that, it is the significant increased technology that is now being implemented in the security system to observe all the movement by the prisoners and as well as the visitors. These include biometrics verification of visitors and surveillance cameras which are now evident in the Australian prisons. Vigilance is evident when visitors visit the prison where he or she is subjected to tight security and monitoring of the communication between the visitor and the prisoner.
Supermax as a rebadging of long established secondary punishmentSifakis (2003, pp.249) noted that there is need for extensive research to unfold the extent to which the use and import of Supermax practices is used in Australia as in Guantanamo Bay. The most appropriate sample of national security and terrorism in Australia is the intensified cooperation among the prison men, police, military personnel, security officials and intelligence department in the radicalization of the prisons. In the year 2006, the media reported of a case where it was believed that there was a looming conversion of prisoners to Islam and further sympathy with the terrorist. Generally, the number of convicted terrorist in Australia is significantly less compared to other countries. However, the debate on penal code and practices and cultures is potentially great. The highly politicized and media overestimated facts relating to Supermax even though it is linked to historical use of secondary punishment. During the 20th century, security departments were widespread and provided an apparent justification for a wide range of security norms. The old categorization of terrorist as intractable and worst of the worst is used to obscure and restrict high scrutiny and to disrupt accountability of the mistreatment (Brown, 2008, p. 56).
The landscape of the penal code has significantly changed in the last decades to include provisions which in fact coincide with the Australian Prisons as a Project. Many things have changed to include element like nature, quality of the prisons and the location of the prisons buildings and treatment or post release plan for the prisoner. Current statistic shows that many people are in prison compared to three decades ago. The ever expanding penal confinement to the people of Australia and the daily increase of Supermax secondary punishments has depicted several Australian punishments with complex origin. The foundations of these policies could be found at one level of the contemporary argument in relation to the security, public protection or the unyielding crimes. However, the contemporary penal practice used in Australia also has roots and links with previous practices and attitudes (Haney, 2003, p.225).
The idea of justice investment and the penal moderation are the two main rational that argue in favor of the reduction of the use of imprisonment as a means of punishment. The main theme here is that by channeling these funds to the community initiative and funding an aggressive campaign against offences rather than building prisons is far much economical and significant apart from decongesting the prisons. That is instead of building complexes and prisons, resources can be channeled to the community policing to ensure that the underlying offence issues are addressed amicably by the stakeholders. However, Baldy(2011, pp.21) observes that these reports are yet to be effected in Australia so as to drastically reduce the punishment based and embracing community development in order to change the culture of imprisonment at the expense of improved economic efficiency in Australia.
Pizarro and Stenius (2004, p. 263) observed that Supermax detention centers have failed to improve public security since the inmates held in these facilities cannot be declared to be posing security to the public in general. Unlike in other situations, prisoners confined in an institution may not necessarily be the ones who committed crimes but they nonetheless fall victims of the prison wardens who are the sole decision makers in prisons. Positioning a strong Supermax is not a punishment but an executive decision founded on a model of awfulness. Their sole purpose is to guarantee institutional protection rather than public safety.
The representations of Supermax prisons as tough, innovative and efficient coincide with the current punitive policy not necessarily because it was brought about by the U.S. but because it falls under the paradigms of the branded penology while at the same time bringing revenue to the communities in form of employments. The Supermax philosophy is based on three items: the myth of novelty, the myth of the public safety, and the myth of the managerial efficacy in which all have promoted increased number of these institutions.
ConclusionThe Supermax prisons have inflicted fear among the citizens who have the view that the introduction of these prisons may act as incubators dangerous criminals. This is because of the interactions among the inmates who recruit others into the sect of criminality. The Supermax prisons are also believed to be a source of stimulus to a global tendency in the penal regime where several range of security measures are borrowed as a process of policy transfer.The introduction of policy transfer is also going to subject the convicted persons to a double punishment as a result of being moved to another region for either trial or conviction. This is because the policy transfer and the Supermax units’ acts as a site of terror by the and thus no longer act as a correctional or relational as intended.The representations of Supermax prisons as tough, innovative and efficient coincide with the current punitive policy not necessarily because it was brought about by the US but because it falls under the paradigms of the branded penology while at the same time bringing in revenue to the communities in form of employments. Apart from of other changes taking effect from the prison systems, the penal codes and policies, Supermax issues need further researching to unfold the effect of this intuitions as regards to the inmates.
References
Baldry, et al 2011, ‘Imprisoning rationalities’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol.44 ,no.4, pp. 24-40.
Brown, BC 2008, Returning from the War on Terrorism: What Every Veteran Needs to Know to Receive Your Maximum Benefits, Atlantic Publishing Company, New York, pp.50-61.
Carlton, B 2008, “Isolation as Counter Insurgency: Supermax Prison and the War on Terror’ in C. Cunneen and M Salter (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd Australian and New Zealand Critical Criminological Conference, Crime and justice Network University of New South Wales, pp.53-57.
Haney, C 2002, Infamous punishment: The psychological consequences of isolation, L. F. Alarid & P.F, London, pp. 51-56.
Haney, C 2003, mental health issues in long-term solitary and “Supermax” Confinement. Crime and Delinquency, vol.49, no.2, pp. 124-156.
Jones, T & Newburn, T 2007, Title Policy transfer and criminal justice: exploring US influence over British crime control policy, McGraw-Hill International, New York, pp.1-5.
Pizarro, J & Stenius, VM 2004, Supermax prisons: Their rise, current practices, and the effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, vol.84, no.3, pp. 248-264.
Siegel, LJ 2010, Essentials of Criminal Justice, Cengage Learning, New York, pp.521-527.
Sifakis, C 2003, The encyclopedia of American prisons, Facts on File crime library, Infobase, London, pp.244-251.
Sim, J 2004, ‘The victimised state and the mystification of social harm’ Beyond Criminology: Taking State Harm Seriously, Pluto Press, London, pp.113‐32
