Compare and contrast the role of utilitarian and non-utilitarian theories of corrections. What are the main components underlying each perspective?
In their context, governments apply numerous theories to support punishment use in maintaining law and order in the society. In a bid to achieve this objective, they employ utilitarian and non-utilitarian theories of corrections (Carlson, 2013). Under utilitarian theory, the argument is that, laws should be utilized in maximizing happiness within the society. Given that punishment and crime are not consistent with happiness, they ought to be corrected. The theory holds that, it is impossible to have a society free from crime. In that sense, the theory holds punishment given should be sufficient to deter future acts of crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In contrast, non-utilitarian theory of correction operates from the principle of whether the offender deserves to be punished, and if the punishment serves as a deterrent, then it is appropriate (Carlson, 2013). The primary objective of non-utilitarian is on what the offender deserves and not on the rehabilitative or deterrent effect. Non-utilitarian believes in respecting the free will of the offender, by punishing only those individuals who deserve it, without compelling them to change against their will.
Each concept has underlying main components. While utilitarian main objective is to use law and punishment to deter future crime, non-utilitarian main goal is to offer punishment without seeking to rehabilitate the offender (Carlson, 2013). In the same vein, utilitarian holds that, correction should only be administered if it leads to overall societal benefit. In contrast, non-utilitarian aims at upholding correction, without seeking any particular benefit.
What is evidence-based corrections and why is it important for the future of the field?
Evidence-based corrections is the latest terminology when it comes to correctional facilities. It plays a guiding role to the correction professionals to make informed decisions. The professional can now use academically tested programs in dealing with inmates and staff. EBP are outcome-oriented interventions and approaches that have been tested scientifically within controlled studies (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Simply put, EBP indicates presence of definable outcome, that can be measured and defined based on practical realities such as victim satisfaction and recidivism. When it comes to correctional facilities, interventions are deemed effective when they help to minimize subsequent recidivism and offender risk.
Evidence-based corrections are significant for the future of the filed given that they demonstrate potential of improving the outcomes of corrections interventions. They will help in improving outcomes, and minimize cases of victimization (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Evidence-based practices will assist in enhancing collaboration, besides nourishing appetite for data-driven decision-making. Through evidence-based corrections, additional funding will be needed to support interventions that will yield greatest returns.
Discuss how baseball (Moneyball) and evidence-based corrections are related. What are similarities and differences?
Baseball (Moneyball) and evidence-based corrections are related and have differences. Just as in baseball, there is high price to pay for ignoring the scientific based evidence. In the 2003 American League Series, the Red Sox were ahead of Yankees by 5 to 2 towards the ninth inning. Pedro Martinez had displayed a remarkable play. Grady Little, the manager of Sox had to make a decision on whether Martinez should stay in the game, or be relieved by another player. The manager decided to replace Pedro (Carlson, 2013). The decision would have been challenged, only that statistics indicated that Pedro’s performance would decline beyond the seventh round. Yankees’ player Derek Jeter took his chances and at the end of the game, the two tied at 5. Red So survived losing the game and they secured a spot to play in the World Series, and Grady survived sacking. Similarly, corrections are not immune to high cost of ignoring evidence. It was common knowledge that boot camps did not amount to much, and millions were wasted on an intervention that had scant prospects of working.
Although the two have similarities, it is simple to predict the number of runs a team will score, and equally a different thing to predict the recidivism rate for a treatment program (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Both baseball and evidence based corrections rely on statistics to arrive at a certain decision. At the baseball parks, the reports do not just reveal the batting averages but also on-base percentage, the statistics that relate to winning games and run production.
Compare and contrast the role of insider and outsider knowledge. Do they share similarities? What are the differences?
When it comes to insider and outsider knowledge, their roles are different. Firstly, the insider knowledge is well acquainted with the surrounding, in terms of formal structures, systems, culture, and ethos. The role of the insider knowledge is to come up with legitimate claims, since one has experienced the surrounding before. Insider knowledge is already aware on the areas of weakness (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). In contrast, outsider knowledge is different, considering one does not understand the values, culture, language and the participation from the community is not guaranteed. However, compared to insider knowledge, outsider knowledge is likely to be highly valued, since it is argued that, insider presumes that he or she already understands the way the system works. Outsider knowledge has an advantage of non-partisanship and objectivity, which are significance to acceptance of any message being accepted.
However, the two face similar issue, when it comes to confidentiality. Both insider and outsider tend to alter or omit data, and as such, it becomes vital to question the confidentiality aspect (Cullen & Jonson, 2012).
Specific and general deterrence have two separate goals but are both part of the deterrence perspective. How do the two types differ and how do they each work to prevent future crime?
Deterrence refers to the tendency of discouraging individuals from participating in criminal activities. The idea is to issue punishment to ensure the behavior is not repeated. It operates in the spirit on making individuals reconsider breaking the law. Deterrence comes in two forms namely general deterrence and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence approach focuses on the person that has committed the crime (Carlson, 2013). It operates on the idea that, in case, the individual that has committed crime is severely punished, then, he will not attempt to commit same crime in the future.
In its context, general deterrence is used to discourage the public in general to avoid a similar crime that the person being sentenced committed. It aims at teaching the public a lesson, apart from ensuring the perpetrator is charged (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). It operates from the idea that, by punishing the individual harshly will dissuade the rest from committing same mistake. For instance, when a criminal is subjected to death sentence, the public will avoid the crime he committed.
References
Carlson, P. M. (2013). Prison and jail administration: Practice and Theory. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers
Cullen, F.T. & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional Theory: Context and Consequences. New York, NY: SAGE
