CHANGING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR





Changing Criminal Behavior

Outline:

Part 1: The views of the inmates going through operant conditioning, the problems with such treatment.

Part 2: Official attitudes towards treatment; their extent and scope.

Part 3: A suggested approach for changes in behavior

Part 4: patterns of reconvictions and moral considerations

Part 5: Discussion on the historical perspectives of deviant behavior, the solutions and the problems.

Part 1: Introduction

In Mackey v. Procunier, the judge ruled that the treatment given to the prisoners was without their consent and the judgment of the district court could have at least ascertained that whether the charges could have been substantiated( Mackey v. Procunier [1973]). This judgment at its outset, mentions the dilemma facing the courts, the prison system and the lawmakers in general. Is the punishment that we give to the most serious offenders, moral? Does it change their behavior? Does it have the effect that we desire it to have? The inmates in the abovementioned case had though in principle given their consent for a form of operant condition treatment, yet their consent did not extend to them being injected drugs that would have adverse effects on them.

In the case of Clonce v. Richardson, the judge held that though the rights of the prisoners were not violated, when they were transferred to a program that was based on involuntary behavior modification that made drastic changes to the way they lived in the prison, none the less they should have been entitled to a hearing before their transfer of (Clonce v. Richardson[1974]). What is evident form this case is that the courts did not rule on the program itself or its nature; rather they ruled that the prisoners should have been given a hearing before their transfer into such a program.

In Knecht v. Gillman, the prisoner had charged the prison authorities, with giving them an injection that induced vomiting in them and caused them mental torture and stress, giving them nightmares. The prison authorities, had followed Pavlovian conditioning, method had given the offenders adverse stimuli since they had broken rules of conduct. Interestingly the court here also ruled that, though the whole process of giving the injection and its aftermath was a negative experience for the offenders, yet the injection was to be given in the presence of a trained nurse, and a prison staff member who had observed the offence taking place(Knecht v. Gillman[1973]).

Part 2

What is amply clear from the above mentioned cases is the fact that the courts are seldom willing to strike down programs that prima facie are described as correctional programs that will achieve the intended result and will cause the performance of the prisoners to change. The problem then arises, when such treatments cross the line and in an open setting would be compared to downright torture. A Thin line is then that separates, the treatment given by the prison authorities in the name of correctional programs and their fundamental rights being violated under the eighth ...