State prisons house inmates that have committed felonies and have been sentenced to more than one year (Foster, 2006). State prison systems vary widely from state to state. Therefore, some states like North Carolina and Florida may have elaborate inmate classification systems, which also match duties, privileges, work assignments and security levels and institutions based on history, crime committed, propensity for violence and/or escape etc. (FDC, 2011; NCDC, 2011). These classification and assignments systems, though not customary in state prisons throughout the United States, mirror those of the Federal system. After all, most federal prisons have separate institutions for particular security levels, medical services, and administrative purposes (BOP, 2010). While some of the facilities have multiple security levels, this is not customary in the federal system (BOP, 2010).

Notably, Florida has several prisons within its elaborate state system. (FDC, 2011) Because Florida’s state prison has four different regions and its northernmost part, region one has 20 major institutions, 3 privatized facilities, 14 forestry work camps, 1 road prison, 3 work-release centers (WRCs), and one contract work release center, assimilating Florida state prisoners into the Federal prisons would instantaneously promote overcrowding, intermix persons who committed felonies with those in federal prisons who committed federal and/or capital crimes and thereby open federal inmates to increased chances of victimization and violence, but also open society to the chances of collaboration among those who have committed drug related and white collar crimes (federal offenses) and those who have committed violence and other felonies (Foster, 2006; AP, 1994; Corwin, 1990). For these reasons, Foster (2006) believes this integration has significant limits and negative consequences.

However, immediate integration of the Florida prison inmate population with the federal prisons would also engender numerous developments. It might lead to a revision of the federal inmate classification system and associative security levels (Corwin, 1990). Inevitably, many more facilities would become mid-level to high-middle security institutions. While this has been the case since the changes in drug related sentencing occurred in the 1980s, these wide-sweeping changes would become commonplace (AP, 1994). It might coauthor security divisions in federal facilities that do not contain multiple security levels and possibly lead to higher security to inmate ratios.

This integration would also derail many prison labor arrangements and/or institutional aims. Whereas both types of institutions state prisons and federal prisons offer society a sense of retribution and protection, it is questionable whether immediate integration of Florida’s state inmates with federal prisoners would increase the chances of successful reentry for those eligible to do so. For the aforementioned reasons then, immediate integration of these inmate populations would be more problematic than beneficial. It might also be more costly since federal prisons incur more costs than most state prisons do (Foster, 2006).

References

Associated Press [AP] (1994). Many drug criminals in federal prisons found not to be violent.

Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

19339_1_drug-criminals

Bureau of Prisons [BOP] (2010).The Bureau celebrates 80th anniversary. Federal Bureau of

Prisons. Retrieved from

(2011) Southeast prison locations. Retrieved from

Corwin, M. (1990 July 30). Lompoc prison loses ‘country club’ status. Los Angeles Times.

Florida Department of Corrections [FDC] (2011). Introduction to information on Florida prison

facilities. Retrieved from

(2011). Region 1 index. Retrieved from

region1/index.html

Foster, B. (2006). Corrections: The Fundamentals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice

Hall.

North Carolina Department of Corrections [NCDC] (2011). Assigning inmates to prisons.

Retrieved from