Effective Correctional Services: Custody and Control of Inmates

 

Effective Correctional Services: Custody and Control of Inmates

 

The operation of a prison facility is significantly affected by three major components that include the correctional staffs, incarcerated offenders, and the prison facility itself (property). Every major incident, activity, or emergency that occur in a prison usually involves all these three essentials components, and without one or the other, an institution cannot function as a correctional institution. In other words, what makes an institution a correctional institution is the presence of correctional staffs and incarcerated offenders, interacting under the same roof, in a close vicinity.

Major interactions between offenders and correctional staffs usually take place in the housing units. Here, correctional officers engage with inmates. They intervene, manage, and resolve conflicts, crisis, and issues that arise between and among inmates. In the most of the time, a prison emergency would start from the housing unit, and when its starts, correctional staffs and their supervisors must be able to contain an emergency situation, deactivate it, and restore security and order. Once an emergency situation spreads beyond the control of housing unit staffs, it can easily become a threat to the public. According to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Staffs Development and Training, (2017), major prison emergencies include escape, hostage situation, fire, inmate death, and inmate riot. At one particular time or the other, every prison facility will experience an emergency; however, a good leader and competent correctional staff will prevent the emergency from becoming a threat to the public.

Also, according to Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K. & Dedreu, C. W. (2010), every organization, either small or large, has the potential and the tendency to experience crisis or emergency; however, it is the responsibility of leaders to strive to overcome it (P.5). Therefore, correctional staffs must be professional and be consistent in their daily interaction with incarcerated offenders. They must understand that there uppermost responsibility is to protect the public. This is the whole point of the department in the first place. This is why we are all here, to keep these highly dangerous convicts away from the general population.

 

Correctional Housing Unit Management

Maintaining the custody and control of incarcerated offenders on the housing unit is the most effective way to prevent an emergency and ultimately protect the public. This involves developing and implementing a standard of operation that encourages safe and secured atmosphere for inmates and correctional staffs. For instance, observation of inmates’ activities in their assigned cell and housing area, by custody staffs, should be feasible without any hindrance. Movement of offenders, from one area of the prison to another, should not post a safety risk or risk of escape; and all inmates, regardless of age, race, physical capability, or crime convicted of, should be able to live, in their housing unit, with peace of mind and free of threat, harassment, assault, or extortion from peers.

Maintaining the custody and control of incarcerated offenders on the housing unit also includes the provision of inmates’ needs, and management of inmates’ welfare. Incarcerated offenders have little or no ability to make their own decision, do whatever they wish to do, or live their live as they please. The have social and sometimes, physical limitations; they are unable to completely function as capable human beings; and as a result, they are needier than people in the community. Correctional Housing Unit Managers (CHUM) and supervisors must provide and be able to meet the needs of inmates assigned to their unit, in accordance with the department’s policy and guidelines. For instance, just like people in the community, inmates’ needs include personal hygiene products, food and essential nutrition, recreation activities materials, clothes and other essential daily products. It is the responsibility of a good CHUM to develop and implement a standard of operation that fosters the provision, supply, and maintenance of inmate needs and concerns.

Notwithstanding, detention, custody and control of inmates will not be possible without the use of mechanical control and restraints devices like cuffs, keys, and lock devices. It will not be possible without the use of communication devises like radio, telephone, and intercom paging system, and it will be extremely difficult without the use of inmates’ population and movement control system like electronically controlled doors, use of sally port, inmate holding cell, and the use of recreation and retention cages for high security control inmates. Thus, effective inmate management will not be possible without effective maintenance and management of available correctional resources, which includes correctional equipment, the housing unit area, assigned correctional staff, and the inmate population.
 

 Maintenance and management of inmate-control equipment, tools, and other assigned assets are important part of the responsibilities of supervisors and housing unit managers. A good leader must develop a plan and procedure for equipment control and accountability. In a prison facility, the potential for crisis and violence activities is very high. Dangerous and violent offenders are constantly looking for a way to disrupt the peace and smooth operation of the facility. They are always engaging in activities that pose threat to safety and security of the facility. Therefore, to prevent an emergency or a crisis situation, like escape, deadly assault on staff, or a hostage situation, proper control and accountability of security keys, restraints, radios, and other control station equipment must be maintained.


In addition, while it is important to control and account for assigned equipment, tools, and other assets, supervisors must develop and supervise equipment and assets refinement plan. For instance, assigned radio, restraints, locks, and other control devices must be managed and refined regularly. Broken radio, non-serviceable baton, or locking device that does not work can pose threat to safety and security, and it can hinder effective custody of inmates and safety of correctional staff. Therefore, leaders and supervisors must regularly conduct the inspection of their housing unit, supervise safety and custody drill, and maintain order and cleanliness of the unit.

References

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K. & Dedreu, C. W. (2010). Cultures of conflict: How         leaders and members shape conflict cultures in organizations. Academy of Management           Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the        Business Source Complete database.

Department of Public Safety, Office of Staff Development and Training. (2017). Prison    Emergencies: Prevention and Response (822 PartII). Office of Staff Development and          Training: Adult Correction In-Service Training. Retrieved from            http://internal.doc.state.nc.us/osdt/lesson-plans/2017-2018/DPS-308-2017.pdf

 

Neo-Philosophical Argument

I believe the moral duty of a state, in the international community, can be grouped into two. We have maxima moral duty and minima moral duty; however, I am going to discuss in detail only the maxima moral duty of a state. The moral duties that states are required to do in the global community are called, the maxima moral duty of a state. They include the duty of a state not to attack or threatening the peace of another state, and the moral duty to intervene, with the intension of humanitarian liberation, when another state is massively violating the fundamental human right of its people. According to Christoffer Lammer-Heindel, all states have maxima moral duty, or what he described as the duty to assist when there is a massive human suffering or death (1).  


Human life is the most valuable commodity, resources, and end. It is a valuable source, capital, and means that led to the production and existence of all other valuable things. Morally, it should not be traded, exchanged, or substituted for anything. This is why all humans have the duty to protect human life whenever human life is in danger or being threatened. Let’s take a domestic analogy for example; you live in a city where there is no police or any kind of law enforcement body. Your neighbor is drowning in his swimming pool located at his backyard. If you are aware of this, and you can swim perfectly, and saving him would not cause a significant danger to your life, you have a moral duty to save his life. This analogy can be used when discussing the role of states, in the global community. All states that are militarily powerful and economically developed have a maxima moral duty (morally required) to rescue and provide aid assistance as best as they can whenever human life is in danger, or being threatening by disease, hunger, or death.

Moreover, as human life is very valuable and priceless, human right is also a necessity whenever there is an existence of human life. Whenever human life is being protected, preserved, and valued, the right of that life to live peacefully, happily, and securely must not be denied. Normally, one cannot say it values human life and at the same time, deprives human life its essential rights. Therefore, as it is a moral duty for all humans to protect human life, so it is a moral duty for all humans to make sure that the essential rights of human are not violated or deprived. However, a state is not just made up of a territory and a geographical location, but importantly a population or a community of human. So, if the government of a state is overwhelmed or cannot put an end to an atrocity or a massive violation of human right in its country, other states that are militarily capable and economically in good standing, have a maxima moral obligation to intervene on the basis of humanitarian intervention.

The US Moral Duty in the Darfur Region of Sudan

Between 2005 and 2006, Darfur region of Sudan was in a mist of civil war; there was what you can call high level atrocity and calamity. Death of human life was at the peak; there was a displacement of over 2 million people, and uncountable human life was loss due to hunger and deadly diseases. During this disastrous period, the Sudanese government was unable to provide aid and assistance to the people who were suffering. The government was unable to control and stop the militia group, Janjaweed, which was the mastermind of the chaos. In addition, not only was the government useless and ineffective in bringing this chaos to an end, it was accused of supporting the mass-murder of human life that was going on in the country (Schwartz).

Even recently, between the year 2015 and 2017, crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan continues. There are reports of use of chemical weapons against civilians while targeted killing of Christians and non-Arab Muslims continues (Gellar). Yet, the United States of America and other powerful and developed countries have done little or nothing to intervene (Carafano). The United States for instance, is economically and militarily powerful. She has adequate and sufficient resources to intervene in in the region, on the basis of saving human life and protecting human right without posing much risk to herself. Thus, the moral duty of protecting human life was in her hand and she should have intervened.

 

Refuting Opposing Argument

Sovereignty is one of the most important fundamental rights of a state. It is the foundation of the freedom of a state to be in the way it pleases (Haass 54). Using the domestic analogy for example, sovereignty is like the right of an individual to exist without being enslaved or controlled by another individual. Sovereignty is so essential in the global world that any political community that lacks sovereignty is not recognized as a state. A political community that lacks sovereignty can be governed, colonized, or controlled by another sovereign state. Therefore, it is important and it is a maxima moral duty for a state to recognize and respect the sovereign right of other states to be independent and not be threatened.

Thus, one could argue that if The United States were to perform her maxima moral duty and intervene in the Sudan crisis, it would have violated the sovereignty of Sudan. This argument cannot stand because a state can lose it sovereignty when it massively violates human right and destroys the life of its own people. As I have noted above that human life and human rights are the most important valuable means and end. Morally, no right should be favored above human rights, and there should be no other ends that are valued more than human life. Though sovereignty is a very important right to a state, human rights are much more important and should be valued more than sovereignty. Let’s use the neighbor analogy for example; during the time when your neighbor is drawing in his swimming pool, located at his backyard, saving his life should be the most important end to you at that moment. This means that during the moment when your neighbor is drowning, he has lost his right to privacy in his own home. Saving his life must be valued above his right to privacy. This domestic analogy can be used in the discussion of the situation in the Darfur region. The United States had a moral responsibility to intervene on the basis of saving human life and protecting human rights, without regards to the sovereignty of Sudan.

 

Furthermore, one could argue that if the United States had intervened in the region, it would have posed an enormous or deadly risk to the life of many American soldiers. While this is a true notion, it is a fallacy in the debate of international intervention. Whenever an individual agrees to become a combatant for its country, according to Uwe Steinhoff’s argument on moral equality of combatant, he or she becomes a legitimate target of war. He or she loses its right not to be killed (p. 346-350). He or she agrees to bear a dreadful risk upon its life by becoming a weapon of combat for its country. Therefore, during the time of war and peace, an individual soldier is expected to be loyal to its vow, which is to serve its country with its life. An individual soldier of the United States is to be regarded as a part of military weapon and armor of the U.S. government. For this reason, the risk that is posed to an individual soldier of a state, in the time of war or peace, should be regarded as less tragic than the risk that is posed to an individual civilian. Thus the risk that would be posed to individual soldiers of a state is not a sufficient reason for the state not to intervene on the basis of humanitarian liberation. 
Finally, whenever human life is in danger, or fundamental human right is being deprived or massively violated, anybody, any organization, or government that is in a capable position to bring the situation to an end has a maxima moral duty to do so. In conclusion, as war of self-defense is justifiable in the international community, humanitarian intervention is also justifiable. The United States and other developed and vigorous countries should intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan without waiting on the approval of the Sudanese government. Notwithstanding, one could argue that the United States and other capable countries did not strive to intervene in Darfur because they valued self-interest as a means and an end than human life. This means that the United States would rather intervene in Darfur with the purpose of promoting its own interest than merely saving human life.

 

 

Carafano, James J. "Failure to Denounce Religious Genocide Borders on Atrocious." TCA News Service, 24 Mar, 2016. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy169.nclive.org.


Gellar, Sheldon. "Genocide in Darfur, then and Now." Jerusalem Post (International), 14 May, 2017, pp. 14. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy169.nclive.org.

Haass, Richard N. “Sovereignty” Foreign Policy; Washington Iss. 150,  (Sep/Oct 2005): 54-55.        https://search-proquest-com

Lammer-Heindel, Christoffer Spencer. "Does the state have moral duties? State duty claims and the possibility of institutionally held moral obligations." University of Iowa, 2012.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3330.

Schwartz, Felicia. "Lawmakers Urge More Active U.S. Role in Ending Sudan's Violence." Wall Street Journal Online, 04 May, 2016, pp. n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks  sirscom.proxy169.nclive.org.

Steinhoff, Uwe. “Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality of Combatants” The Journal of Ethics; Dordrecht Vol. 16, Iss. 4, https://search-proquest-com.proxy169.nclive.org

© Odetayo Odedere