Introduction
In any organization, there is usually a blend of organizational rules and the discretion of the people working in the organization. The organization cannot wholly depend on the rules alone as the guide because some decisions will require the discretion of the person dealing with the issue. The success of the criminal justice system is highly dependent on several factors. The factor is the ability of the system to correctly identify those who have violated the law, apprehend them, punish and also identify the intent of the lawbreakers. (Eskridge 2004) This is not to say that any criminal justice system is perfect and can fulfill all of the above requirements. Most of them are imperfect, which is why innocent people are punished, the guilty remain free, or the guilty are severely punished. The reason why there are all these mistakes in the criminal justice system is that these systems are dependent on the decisions of human beings who are not perfect. This paper aims to show the role of personal discretion in corrections and whether it does more good or harm.
Factors affecting the correction officer’s discretion.
There is a lack of uniformity in the corrections because of human error. This human error is even amplified more when the officers exercise discretion in their decisions. Several factors make personal discretion in corrections lack uniformity. The first factor is that correction officers often have different philosophical orientations regarding the goal of sentencing (Gelsthorpe & Padfield, 2003). Some officers believe that purpose of sentencing is rehabilitation. Others think it is incapacitation, retribution, or deterrence. Depending on how they view the goal of sentencing, that thinking will determine their decisions.
Secondly, it also depends on the interpretation of the law (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). Just like in other branches of the criminal justice system, the interpretation of the law is not always uniform. So how one officer interprets the law greatly differs from how another officer will interpret the law. These differing interpretations will lead to different decisions.
Thirdly, the organization’s culture and practices. Officers base most of their decisions based on the practices of the facility that they are in(Jones & Kerbs, 2007). According to a study in which corrections officers exercise discretion, they determined that before making any decisions, they have to try and determine how their decision will be interpreted and viewed by other officers and leaders (Haggerty & Bucerius,2020). This means that when exercising discretion, it is not a decision that is made independent of the views and attitudes of other people involved. The facility’s culture is often determined by how the rules are implemented (Arnold et al., 2007). In a certain prison, when giving out new brushes, the inmates must bring the old ones before they are given the new ones. In another prison, the inmates are allowed to take as many toothbrushes as they can. So if an officer comes to implement the culture of prison A in prison B, there is a likelihood of a clash and riot.
Fourthly, a discretionary decision is highly dependent on personal preferences. Personal preferences take into account the personalities, biases, prejudices, gender, and age of correctional officers(Haggerty & Bucerius,2020).In sociology, this is known as personal habitus. The officers with more experience dealing with the inmates were likelier to use their discretion more than those with little experience. Those with little experience prefer to stick to the law and the rules.
Another factor that determines how the officer applies discretion is the types of inmates in a particular unit, the kind of crime they committed, and also their gender. So the unit in which the inmate is placed serves as a master status that determines how discretion is applied. (Hughes,1945) For example, in maximum security prisons, where the prisoners are wild and hostile and are ready to break the rules at every twist or turn, the officers often choose to exercise their discretion more. (Ferdik, & Smith 2016) In these facilities, the officers relax the rules more to create a relationship with these inmates and prevent a riot. In women’s prisons, the officers are more likely to enforce more rules than males. This is because women are likelier to follow the rules than males.
Choosing discretion over the rule of law
Correctional officers often face the daunting task of applying many rules to a population determined to break the rules. Contrary to the popular assumption, in prison, many rules govern the conduct of prisoners(Haggerty & Bucerius,2020). These include not gambling, not fighting, not keeping food in the cells, and no drugs and other contraband goods, among many other rules. At the beginning of every year, the correctional officers read these rules and see that they are enforced. The problem that usually occurs is that the rules are so many, and the prisoners are usually determined to break atleast all of them in a single day. The number of prisoners far outweighs the number of officers. So the officers are often overworked trying to keep a population from breaking many rules. The officers often rationalize that if they were to ensure that no rule is broken, they would be running around throughout the day and neglecting other duties. So the officers pick their battles and choose the laws to enforce and what not to enforce. For example, an officer might allow the prisoners to gamble as long they are not fighting. So allowing the prisoners to gamble frees their time and energy to deal with other matters.
Officers often choose not to enforce the law too frequently but apply their discretion because of the attitude of the other colleagues. A study showed that in the prison environment, the officers who prefer strict observance of the law are not usually liked by other officers(Haggerty & Bucerius,2020). They often view such officers as uptight and incapable of being friendly with other officers because they can report them to higher authorities if they break the law. So officers often choose to relax the rules so that their peers like and favor them. So in the moment of making a decision, the officer is not concerned about whether the verdict is right or wrong; it is a decision that often affects the unfolding of events and relationships.
Contrary to what one would expect, in many prisons, the prison supervisors do not particularly like the officers reporting more often on the incidents than disciplinary measures. When an officer continuously reports on the rules broken by the inmates, instead of being praised as good and faithful employees, they are often seen as incompetent by their supervisors. So the officer is more likely to be moved from one unit to another. So a choice of discretion has a bearing on the officer’s reputation and career.
One of the significant reasons exercising discretion is preferred over enforcing the rule of law is because of the soft power that comes with such a decision. (Crewe, 2008). In the prison context unlike court or police exercise, discretion is not a one-time decision and then it is done. The decisions that are made have a bearing on other officers and inmates. Correctional officers acknowledge that in prison, it is about give and take relationship between inmates and the officers. So a momentary decision can impact the relationship between the officer and the inmate for many months or even years. The officers are, therefore, very cautious when applying these rules because it will determine their relationship.
So the officers often deal with the prisoners to let them get away with some offenses as long as they keep their end of the bargain(Haggerty & Bucerius,2020). One officer in an interview confessed to letting the prisoners deal with drugs as long as the drugs were dealt with in small amounts and that no one was allowed to overdose in his unit. He would punish the inmates by taking away their luxury items like photos on the wall and even access to food. By doing this, the officers create a cordial relationship with the inmates that allows them to have an easier time than constantly trying to get them to keep the laws that they are wholly determined to break. This negotiation between the officers and the inmates is based on the idea that power is often shared in such situations.
Prison can be a dangerous place for officers. There are many cases where the gangs have fought with the officers and injured them, necessitating that they go on medical leave. (Stichman, & Gordon,2015). The reason prison can be volatile is that a sizable number of inmates often struggle with drug-related accusations ranging from hard drugs like cocaine to illicit alcohol. These drugs can alter their states, making them violent towards others and the officers. Even those who do not abuse drugs suffer from stresses that are associated with being put in prison. Even non-violent inmates often turn violent when faced with such stresses. The officers often recognize the reality that prison can become a deadly place in a matter of minutes. So the strict enforcement of rules which follows the inmate manual can make a minor issue escalate into a full-blown riot that would be difficult to calm down. In order to avoid endangering their lives, officers often choose to relax on the rules for the sake of the rules.
Ethical Implications of discretionary power in Corrections
Corrections have many justifications for why exercising discretionary power in prisons is good and works in their favor. However, discretion has some ethical implications for corrections and the criminal justice system. Firstly, it has been observed that exercising discretion reduces professionalism. (Davis,1969). When applied to the court or law enforcement, professionalism differs significantly from professionalism in corrections. For police officers using discretion in their daily work means they are professionals (Goldstein, 1963). In courts as well, it is the work of judges to exercise discretion in their decisions. However, in corrections, it tends to diminish the professionalism of the corrections officers. The officers’ task is to ensure that law and order are kept in prison. The main emphasis of the corrections officers when using their discretion to make decisions is to maintain calm and peace. Even if the law has been broken, that, in a way, diminishes their professionalism.
Secondly, the use of discretion often hinders the goals of sentencing and corrections. One of the goals of corrections is rehabilitation (Kolind, 2015). This means that the inmates are supposed to abandon their behavior before entering prison and should change before they get out. So if someone was a drug user, when they come to prison, they are supposed to not continue with their drug use. So if the officers allow the prisoners to access the drugs and use them, they are hindering one of the goals of sentencing, which is rehabilitation.
Thirdly, discretionary power left in the hands of the prison wardens is a sign of incompetence on the side of the administrators (Jablonski,1973). The supervisors are the people who are in charge of prisons and how they should be run. Discretionary power implies that power is left to those who should not make decisions and rules. The supervisors and others high up in authority should be the ones to develop laws, regulations, and rules that govern the specific facilities. However, this task and responsibility are left to people whose experience and expertise do not warrant them to make such decisions.
Conclusion
A prison is a busy place with many complexities. It is not easy to develop a one size fits all solution. Correctional officers must exercise discretion on what they should do in various instances. Correctional officers often prefer to exercise discretion because it is daunting to enforce many rules. Their colleagues and supervisors help them, and it helps in making their work more accessible, reducing the risk of violence, and giving them soft power over the inmates. While exercising discretion seems advantageous, it has some drawbacks that should be examined. Discretion power may lead to the unprofessionalism of correctional officers, and it also leaves power in the hand of those who should not possess that power. Discretionary power is essential but should not be used as a substitute for the rule of law.
References
Arnold, H., Liebling, A., & Tait, S. (2007). Prison officers and prison culture. In Y. Jewkes, J. Bennett, & B. Crewe(Eds.), Handbook on prisons. Willan
Crewe, B. (2008). Soft power in prison. European Journal of Criminology,8(), pp. 456–458.
Davis, K.C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Eskridge, C.W. (2004). “Justice and the American Justice Network.” In C. W. Eskridge (Ed.), Criminal justice: Concepts and issues (pp. 8-14). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing
Ferdik, F. V., & Smith, H. P. (2016). Maximum security correctional officers: An exploratory investigation into their social bases of power. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 498-521.
Gelsthorpe, L., & Padfield, N. (2003). “Introduction.” In L. Gelsthorpe & N. Padfield (Eds.) Exercising discretion: Decision-making in the Criminal Justice System (pp.1–28). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Goldstein, H. (1963). “Police discretion: The ideal versus the real.” Public Administration Review, 23, 140-148.
Haggerty, Kevin & Bucerius, Sandra. (2020). Picking battles: Correctional officers, rules, and discretion in prison. Criminology. 59. 10.1111/1745-9125.12263.
Jablonski, J. A. (1973). Controlling Discretionary Power in Prison Organizations: A Review of the Model Act. Wash. ULQ, 563.
Kolind, T. (2015). Drugs and discretionary power in prisons: The officer’s perspective. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 799–807.
Stichman, A. J., & Gordon, J. A. (2015). A preliminary investigation of the effect of correctional officers’ bases of power on their fear and risk of victimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 543-558.
Jones, M., & Kerbs, J. J. (2007). Probation and parole officers and discretionary decision-making: Responses to technical and criminal violations. Fed. Probation, pp. 71, 9.
write