Inmates Welfare and Development

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Threading through the history of civilization, the pursuit of punishment of lawbreakers was almost as bloody as the crime committed. Punishment then was prompt and pitiless. Although there were penitentiaries in the annals of the early correctional system, its characteristics just redo the barbaric practices of treating erring individuals. In this contemporary society when an authority places a person behind bars, it has acknowledged a moral obligation to change that person before he or she goes back to mainstream society. Social scientists now believed that it is not right for the society to punish criminals without helping them to become productive and law-abiding citizens, otherwise, they may have no choice but to turn to crime again. Modern-day penologists envisage that jails and prisons are not any more places for punishment but a venue for corrections, nor mere walled quadra but quads for rehabilitation. For them, prison today is like a hospital, where socially ill patients are diagnosed and administered.

The new concept of rehabilitation is being introduced through various rehabilitative programs purposely to change the behavior of prisoners in order to protect society in general and to help them in particular. Historically, the public turned its attention to prisons only in times of crisis, when news tends to focus on issues of the moment, without reference to everyday realities of prison management. The growing professionalization of the entire field of corrections means that correction work is an increasingly attractive career choice. Yet the public is largely unaware of this as we failed to get our story across and that people already think they know what they need to know about prisons. Unfortunately, these pubic opinions are largely college of inaccurate, outdated impressions gathered from sensationalistic accounts of escapes and riots, or from movies. Woven from bits and pieces of history and anecdote, these images are far from the truth, but they are hard for an average citizen to absorb as facts.

In short, myths of mismanagement, staff brutality and neglect of inmate’s needs, rampant sexual assault, and unfettered drug use in prisons seriously misrepresent most prisons today. A subtle but pervasive misconception is associated with these beliefs the notion that prisons should, in some unique way, be able to change all inmates into law-abiding citizens. Prisons program should, in some unique way, be able to change all inmates into law-abiding citizens. Prisons program for self-development can help some offenders. However, to expect such programs to do so invariable is unrealistic. Prisons primarily house offenders who are products of failed experience with every other institution of society. By the time an inmate arrives in prison, the home, school church, and other social agencies have all had an opportunity to intervene in this person is life to no avail. It is totally unrealistic to think that in a context defined by deprivation of society is freedoms; imposing prison programs on such individuals will automatically change an inmate for the better.

To be realistic, we cannot expect prisons to do what every other instrument of society with far more constructive potential has failed to. Upon reflection, most people would acknowledge that prisons are far from the ideal setting for effecting change in attitudes and behavior. Prisons characteristically received that select group of offenders who poses a significant risk to the community and have been poorly motivated to change in other less stringent settings and programs. The prison population was, is a sense, defined by its very unwillingness or inability to change positively. As a result, we cannot expect prison experience to produce successes at the same rate as programs in the free community. Inmates released from prison face stigmatization that virtually ensures major obstacles for even the best candidates for a productive, crime-free life. No matter how well behaved or well intention an inmate might be upon return to the community, or how many programs he or she might be completed, the ex-con label can unravel the best plan for intentions.

The best prison programs are often neutralized by adverse community reaction. Thus, prisons are in a double bind, on the one hand, society expectation that imprisonment must have an improving effect on inmates characters and make them less likely to recidivate; on the other, the incapacitation, deterrence-driven warehouse image, which implies that prisons exist essentially to stack inmates out of harm’s away without attending to their betterment. The purpose of the inmate work program is to keep the inmates busy and to provide the money for their personal expenses and their families as well as help them to acquire livelihood skills, in order that may become productive citizens once they are released and assimilated back into the mainstream of the society. Conceptual Framework. The theoretical framework of the study focused on the necessity to understand the inmate’s welfare development variables and their effect on the operational efficiency in Muntinlupa City Jail. Inasmuch as we need to evaluate all factors extensively so that we can explore possibilities in resolving the problem with objectivity and creativity, the structural outline was conceived as a great help on the process. The theoretical framework is composed of three variables; input variables which are the demographic characteristics of the respondents and inmates welfare variables such as: socio-economic, physical structure, services provided, and internal policy; output were inmates welfare identified, the solution to the problem encountered, formulation of inmates welfare development program and process variables comprising the survey method, analysis, and interpretation of the response of respondent.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to assess the inmate’s welfare and development of inmates at Muntinlupa City Jail as a basis for crafting the community integration program.

Especially, to answer the following question:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in the study when classified in terms of gender; age; marital status; gross monthly income; highest educational attainment; length of stay in jail; and nature of crimes committed?
2. How are the inmate’s welfare and development of Muntinlupa City Jail influenced by the following factors as perceived by inmates and jail officers: jail facility; internal policies governing inmates; jail management; and inmate’s privileges?
3. Is there a significant difference between the response of inmates and jail officers in relation to the aforementioned inmate’s welfare and development variables?
4. What are the problems encountered and the solutions perceived to solve the same?
5. What Community Integration Program can be developed inmates for the inmates of Muntinlupa City Jail?

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Inmate’s welfare variables identified. The solution to problems encountered drawn out. Development of Community Integration Program for the inmate’s dd Survey method Interview analysis Analysis and interruption of the response of respondents Demographic characteristics of respondents Inmate’s welfare variables – socioeconomic – physical structure – services provided – internal policy. As part of the mandatory requirements in my course, Bachelor of Science in CRIMINOLOGY (BS-CRIMINOLOGY). I am working on a thesis entitled “Inmates Welfare and Development in Muntinlupa City jail: An Assessment. ” the same, however, could not be made possible if without the much-needed assistance of inmates and jail officers of said jail as the respondents of the study. In this regard, requests that the undersigned be allowed to administer survey questionnaires, conduct the informal interview, and gather relevant data at Muntinlupa City Jail.

Part ll.

Influencing inmate’s welfare factor Mark Check on the level/degree of the influencing inmate’s welfare factor based on the following set of standard/proposals:

• 5-Very Strong
• 4-Strong
• 3- Moderate
• 2-Weak
• 1-Very Weak

Jail facilities

• a. As disapproval of limited jail facilities.
• b. Security is tight and escape is not possible.
• c. because of a severe degree of congestion.
• d. Very limited space for rehabilitation programs

Internal policies governing inmates

• a. fear from the intimidation of cell leaders.
• b. Fear from severe and repressive penalties to infractions of rules.
• c. No one to lean on for help when in trouble.
• d. Lack of comprehensive policies for detainees.

Jail management/Administration in Jail

• a. fear from the severity of impossible penalty by personnel.
• b. fear from the suspension of privileges.
• c. Discontented with the management style of inmates’ leaders.
• d. To befriend jail personnel so as to have special privileges.

 Inmate’s Privilege in Jail

• a. While away hours while in prison.
• b. Earn extra money to support one’s needs.
• c. Disturbed by conscience because of their crimes committed.
• d. Be able to correct their mistakes.

Part lll.

If the following are the problems encountered by this jail, to ensure the improvements in the administration which do you think is the strongest or not. Please check the box.

• a. Poor performance or lack of motivation from the Paralegal officer
• b. Limited rehabilitation programs particularly on Livelihood aspects.
• c. Lack of rehabilitation programs with a focus on community integration.

Part lV. If the following proposals will be helpful to the system of jail administration reforms would increase the standards in the jail system here.

Which one do you think will be the first and more effective to do? Please check the box.

• a. Strengthening paralegal services.
• b. Enhance rehabilitation programs with = emphasis on income-generating projects
• c. Construction of a modern jail with enough space for detention.
• d. Enhance the rehabilitation program with an emphasis on community integration.
• e. Classify inmates according to age and crimes committed.