Prison Rehabilitation

Generally, the mission of corrections is to implement court-prescribed sentences for criminal violators with a combination of surveillance and control of the offenders, through treatment and rehabilitative services, and of incapacitation during the service of a prison sentence along with the overall protection of society (Seiter, 2014). Prison systems have evolved and a variety of programs have been implemented as confinement time has shifted to more of a rehabilitation concept. Although the evolution of correctional eras in the United States have undergone several revisions to find the most cost-effective, efficient and functional operation, the end goal will continue to be public safety when the ex-offenders are released back into society

However, this system allowed prisoners to congregate during the day to work in factories to improve the production of goods and then resold to cover some of the prison operational costs. The Auburn system became known as the “congregate and silent” system. This style brought more income for the state and fewer inmates developed mental health problems. Unfortunately, these new prisons were quickly overcrowding and administrators had to look for methods to improve operations and reduce the growth in the inmate

This brought forth the Rehabilitative Era of 1960–1980, with the medical model as the dominant theory influencing prison and other correctional practices. Under the medical model, offenders were believed to be “sick,” which was the cause of their criminality and that treatment and rehabilitative programs would resolve their problems. This would prepare them to re-enter society well and productive and as crime-free individuals. The link between prisons and the community required a closer connection leading to reintegration. Community correctional programs were expanded, and halfway houses and special parole programs became important elements in the correctional process. This system seemed to be functional but in the early 1970s, it was under scrutiny. Research found no support that these programs significantly reduced recidivism and this became known as “nothing