State and Federal Prisons in the United States Differ in a Number of Ways. Partially Explicated

1

Introduction

State and federal prisons in the United States differ in a number of ways. Partially explicated through the dissimilar histories and evolutionary processes that coauthored them and the justice system, state and federal prisons serve society’s need for retribution and protection. However, they do so through differing levels of security within state prisons. At the federal level, prisoners are sentenced to the appropriate facility based on the crime committed and the level of security the federal prison implements.

Prima facie, all persons convicted of crimes are sentenced. As a result, society gains a sense of retribution and societal protection. Yet, prisoners are also sentenced to different facilities dependent upon the crimes committed. For example, crimes committed within a state with sentences of a less than one year will dictate serving time in jail. Yet, judges order sentences for nonfederal crimes in state prisons.

Although state prisons vary widely, they all have roots in the Quaker prison system and that of the Auburn style prisons of the late eighteenth century (Foster, 2006). Depending upon the crime, the sentence and the conditions for release, if any, prisoners can move within the state prison system from more restrictive to less restrictive environments. In North Carolina, for example, assigning inmates to a prison necessitates inmate risk assessments balanced with the weight of the crime and the security level required (NCDC, 2011). After sentencing inmates are transported to one of North Carolina’s prison receiving centers (NCDC, 2011). Two of these centers receive females, two receive youths and seven receive males. In each of these centers, inmates are subjected to medical and mental health evaluations. Based on these evaluations and those of the crimes committed, their previous prison or criminal history, background, socioeconomic, educational and occupational evaluations, the North Carolina State prison system classifies the inmates and assigns them the most appropriate level of security and prison (NCDC, 2011). This set of initial evaluations and classification, in turn, determines the inmate’s progression through the system.

Based on this classification and the results of the evaluation, the prison managers assign the inmates job and educational duties or programs, monitor the inmates’ progress and/or assign other rehabilitative programming (NCDC, 2011). Those who follow the rules, complete tasks, etc. may more quickly progress through the system to a lesser restrictive environment. On the other hand, those who refuse to perform or follow rules, those who engage in violence and the like may be assigned a more restrictive level of custody and/or necessitate transfer to a more restrictive environment.

Since state facilities can range from minimal security such as halfway homes to medium security levels or maximum security and solitary confinement, authorities have a great deal of control over the inmates’ safety and societal protection. While state levels of security do differ, North Carolina uses the following classification system (NCDS, 2011): close, medium, minimum I, minimum II and minimum III. Of these, the close status is the most restrictive but each contains several subclassifications. These include maximum, death row, intensive safekeeper, disciplinary, administrative and protective (NCS, 2011). All privileges extend from classification and status and maintain order in the prison, protect staff safety and /or inmate safety.

Prison security levels also differ and maintain either close, medium or minimum levels of security. Using specific cells in close security prisons, maximum security prisoners are held. Typically, maximum security necessitates prisoners in these cells for 23 hours a day. This is not unlike maximum security at the Federal prisons like the one in Marion, IL (Raab, 2002; Capeci and Rashbaum, 1996). Accordingly, movement is restricted.

In closed security North Carolina state prisons, the cell blocks are remotely controlled (NCDC, 2011). They are generally designed Auburn style with wide aisles in between the row of cells. Supervised during work hours and during corrective programs, inmates have little free movement. These prisons have a double fence with armed watch towers and/or armed patrols.

Medium security prisons use dormitory designs that house up to 50 inmates, who share a sink, shower and toilet area (NCDC, 2011). While inmates in these facilities enjoy more freedom of movement, these dormitories are locked and supervised at night. They also have the same barrier as the maximum security prisons do.

Minimum security prisons have non-secured dormitories regularly patrolled by correctional officers (NCDC, 2011). They also have shared sink, shower and toilet facilities. However, the barrier to the outside has a single perimeter fence with armed patrols but no watch tower. In fact, minimum security inmates generally perform community based work assignments or gain work releases with civilian employees.

Federal Prison History

Although the Bureau of Prisons was founded in 1930, Federal Prisons were officially designated in 1891 Prisons Act (BOP, 2010). Due to the need for such facilities, the first three federal prisons USP Leavenworth, USP Atlanta, and USP McNeil Island served the needs of the federal courts and the prisoners who committed federal crimes. Over time, these federal crimes have included but are not limited to white collar crimes such as tax evasion, illegal insider trading, crimes against the government and murders in several states (Foster, 2006; BOP, 2011).

Whereas the original federal prisons operated with little Department of Justice Supervision, the federal prison system further evolved in the 1920s. Due to societal changes, especially relative to the treatment of juvenile offenders and the treatment of female prisoners, new federal institutions emerged to meet these demands. These included the federal reformatory for youth offenders in Chillicothe and the federal reformatory in Alderson for women (BOP, 2010). In fact, many female celebrities have stayed at Alderson including but not limited to Billie Holiday for drug related offenses and Martha Stewart in 2004 for trading violations (Masters, 2004). Yet, with the emergence of these reformatories and societal need for protection and security as well as prison guard and inmate safety, the Bureau of Prisons was developed and implemented as a central agency for federal prison administration and standard implementations (BOP, 2010). In this way, perhaps, the Federal Bureau of Prisons reflected the central U.S. government. In fact, the Assistant Attorney General, Mabel Walker Willebrandt was largely responsible for the administrative developments, obtaining the Department of Justice support for the BOP and for the creation of the reformatories (BOP, 2010).

During the 1920s, the BOP promoted a more unified and centralized approach to the federal prisons. It sought ways (BOP, 2010) to reduce overcrowding, to implement and maintain its policies and standards, to improve staff training, and to eliminate political patronage through the establishment of the Federal Prison Industries program (FPI). Understandably then, the BOP constructed prisons to meet the federal prison system needs. These prisons included USP Lewisburg, PA, designed to incorporate different security levels in the same prison and MCFP Springfield, MO, which became the first medical facility within the system and established its partnership with the U.S. Health Service (BOP, 2010).

Sweeping BOP Changes

Under the BOP, the federal prison system has seen numerous changes. With each era, federal prisons accommodated the inmate population needs all the while maintaining its central goals and standards. During the 1930s, perhaps, the BOP saw the most rapid changes, reportedly doubling in population and including 14 intuitions (BOP, 2010). The 1950s brought more vocational, educational and work programs to meet inmates’ needs, while the 1960s BOP was greatly influenced by the medical model (BOP, 2010). Accordingly, prison inmate classifications were coauthored by the prevailing thoughts of criminal behavior as disease. Counseling and education were prescribed treatments among the 36 intuitions.

Between 1960 and 1970, BOP policies took another divergent turn and began preparing inmates for reentry. The BOP (2010) firmly believed that successful integration was dependent upon such. Accordingly, halfway houses were also established to meet these needs and thereby provided (BOP, 2010) “[…] community-based options to adult offenders.” In the 1980s, the medical model was rejected and deemed ineffective.

Yet, (BOP, 2010) the 1984 Enactment of the Criminal Control Act greatly induced the rise in federal prison inmates. It not only created many more federal crimes but also abolished parole, established sentencing guidelines including those for substance related offenses and also reenacted the death penalty. For all of these reasons, the need for more federal prisons became clear. While the 1990 federal prison inmate population was 65,347, it more than doubled by 2000. In fact, the BOP (2010) reveals the 200 federal prison populations was 145, 125, despite implementing the Violent Crime Conduct & Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which significantly reduced time served for those who participated in drug treatment programs (BOP, 2010).

Nevertheless, facilities such as Alderson changed to accommodate the burgeoning populations. In fact, many of the cottages were demolished in order to build dormitories (Masters, 2004). At other federal prisons like Lompoc Federal prison Camp in California were being converted from minimum security federal prisons to medium security ones with fences and more security guards per prisoner. This reflected the recent changes in sentencing guidelines and the increase in prisoners with more violent histories (Corwin, 1990; AP, 1994).

Conclusion

Both the state and federal prison system have evolved over time. Whereas the federal system, its development and expansion processes have extended from a centralized administration charged with oversight of the inmate classification system, assignment of prison security levels and the implementation of standardized policies, programs and procedures, the state prison system is far less homogenous. Rather, it lacks centralized standards or control. For these reasons, the state prison system is largely dependent upon each state’s policies, the facilities available and the inmate classification system devised and implemented. While most states do not have elaborate state prison systems like that of North Carolina, some do separate inmates by security levels at state prisons. Others, separate them within the prison according to the block assigned. Regardless, both systems serve society’s need for retribution and protection and reflect the processes through which they emerged. .

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

Capeci J. and Rashbaum, W.K. (1996). Gotti beaten bloody in prison yard. NY Daily News.

Retrieved from

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

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

Hall.

Marks, A. (2004 Oct.). The prison that Martha Stewart will call home. Retrieved from

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

Retrieved from

Raab, S. (2002). John Gotti dies in prison at 61; Mafia boss relished the spotlight. The New York

Times. Retrieved from