“Information provision and services in prisons

PAPER#1 noteews

“Information provision and services in prisons have been demonstrated to be a critical component of successful rehabilitation and reintegration” (Kankam & Baffour, 2023, p. 17). The misconception that I chose actually comes from my days of working inside of a jail. One common misconception that I heard over and over again was that you only have the right to make one phone call after you have been arrested. However, this is simply not true. You have the right to make a phone call until you have managed to reach another living breathing person on the other end of the line. Many of the inmates that I worked with would express sheer panic when their first phone call did not connect with someone simply because they thought that they had just wasted their only phone call. “Inmates in traditional centers may only make 6-minute phone calls, and phones can only be accessed when inmates are not locked in their cells” (Thaler et al., 2023, p. 29). Inmates who are lucky enough to have someone come and put money on their books or buy them phone time have the luxury of making as many phone calls as they would like to make, provided that they have enough phone time to do so. To be quite honest, I am not quite sure where this misconception started, but once inmates have been brought in, they are allowed to make a phone call until their call has actually connected with someone else. In the facility that I worked for, we actually allowed inmates to make two phone calls, The first call that they made was permitted so they could reach out to a family member to inform them of their charges, bond amount, location, and safety. The second phone call was to allow them to find an attorney that would take their case and represent them for their upcoming arraignment date.

PAPER#2 Gink

The topic is not a very popular area of discussion but in doing research and trying to gain general knowledge without bias interveing was challenging. An article from two thousand and four mentioned that research had been done on the history of sex offenders in an attempt to see how the recidivism rate was over a twenty-five years span and it was noted that three out of five offenders re-offended (Langevin et al., 2004). The next article disclosed sex offenders and the common beliefs of the public that they are monstrous predators that have no chance of changing behavior.

The article stated, “Sex offenders often employs pejorative labeling and emphasizes views such as sexual offenders are unlikely to change, that they are ‘predators’ of the lowest kind, and that they should be heavily punished for their crimes” (de Vel-Palumbo et al., 2019 p.421). Further research has shown that recidivism rate of sexual offenders is much lower than public common sense would been led to believe by commonsense-nonsense as the class book spoke of in chapter one (Lussier, 2023).

One thing that was noticed in the difference from previous research to common day research is the use of the offender register system that was put into place. Though the results are different and taking a look back into the situation would classify to some as commonsense beliefs that no longer require research due to the first set of fact following the common narrative the later findings would truly cause people to try and discredit the information. Trying to make alterations to the registry with the significant data changes would be a cause for concern.