Criminology

Should there be a jail design for the new generation The world was thirsty for a new jail design and perhaps their quest was answered when, after 200 years in 1983, new concepts of jail design were introduced, among them direct supervision (Beck, 2006). The new jail designs evolved to address the increased violence caused by the overflowing jails (Sechrest, 2002). They were accepted by several professionals and institutions such as National Institute of corrections, NIC. Direct supervision was then embraced by AJA (American Jail Association), ACA (American Correctional Association) and not withstanding, Committee on Architecture for Justice of the American Institute of Architects (Beck, 2006). Direct supervision jail design has been used in hundreds of jails and is credited as the best when compared to other designs (Wener, 2006).  Choosing a design that is effective by commissioners is a difficult task because these concepts on jail design may be unfamiliar. In addition, in selecting a design, a commissioner must accommodate mistakes that are bound to affect the inmates and their staff, as a result of the employment of the new design (Beck, 2006). This is not to say that all the new designs that are introduced are perfect and must be embraced.  It should take careful consideration before a new design is adopted. There are three major designs that have been put forward direct supervision, indirect supervision and linear surveillance (Beck, 2006). Direct supervision has stood a shoulder high above the rest due to its numerous advantages, to name but a few, reduction of both the required staff and incidences of violence within the correctional environment.

Direct supervision design
This is also referred to as podular-direct surveillance (Nelson, OToole, Krauth  Whitemore, 1983).  It involves a continuous observation process that places the station of correctional officers in the living area of the inmates or in what is referred to as pod. The officer directly observes the inmates and is in a position to have a face to face interaction with them. During the day, the inmates stay in a dayroom (an open area) where they are not allowed into their rooms. If they have to, they have to seek permission from the officers and are expected to return quickly. There is a control panel from where door locks are controlled. The panel is designed in such a way that when the officer in charge leaves the station, it is possible to switch the functions of the panel to a central control that is in a remote environment. The officer also carries a small radio whose function is to allow him or her to communicate immediately with the control center of the jail in case the need be. Furthermore, central control is equipped with video camera to also help in monitoring the pod (Beck, 2006).  It is what Nelson, Krauth and Whitemore (1983) in their article, New generation jails, calls new generation jail. Direct supervision is convenient in minimum and medium jails as inmates are less violent and less disruptive. However, it can be risky for the officers if applied in maximum custodies as would be required to be in direct contact with more violent criminals (Beck, 2006).

Comparing and contrasting direct supervision with other confinement methods
Indirect supervision
Indirect supervision is at times referred to as podular-remote surveillance (Nelson, OToole, Krauth  Whitemore, 1983) or simply, remote surveillance. It also involves a continuous observation just like the direct supervision. The only variation is that the station of the officer is not confined in the living areas of the inmates or pods. The station of the officer is in a very secure room. To enable the officer to observe the inmates, a protective window is placed in the front part of the officers desk. In addition, a microphone is also placed at the front right part of the desk or console as Beck refers to it in his article, Deciding on a new jail design (Beck, 2006).  Speakers are also available in the room and they are connected to the pods. The microphones together with the speakers enhance communication between the officer and the inmates (Beck, 2006). Incase of any misconduct, the officer calls other jail staffs who deal with the situation (Nelson, OToole, Krauth  Whitemore, 1983). It is not only effective with minimum and medium supervision pods but also in the maximum pods. However in the maximum pods, indirect supervision involves smaller areas of housing. More so, inmates cannot be allowed to move out of their cells into a dayroom. They are only allowed out individually for exercise. Owing to this reason, maximum pods are big with durable doors and other fixtures (Beck, 2006).

At times, this design is made such that one officer can attend to more than one pods that are adjacent to each other. The officer will observe into the pods though inmates in one of the pods cannot see what is happening in the other adjacent pods. This ensures that no communication takes place between inmates in different pods (Beck, 2006). The officers physical view of the inmates is uninterrupted and he or she is restricted from moving from his or her post. However, there is no direct contact with the inmates hence observing inmates behavior and administering the right correction is not immediate like in direct supervision. Beck (2006) adds that, Indirect supervision does not afford the same level of control over inmate behavior as direct supervision. The correctional officer loses much of the immediate sensitivity about communications within the inmate group by being separated in a control room.

Therefore, officers are unable to correct problematic situations (National Institute of corrections, ND). He further suggests, as separation compensation, the use of a rover who will occasionally move into the housing units to establish contact. Despite the fact that this may make improvements in indirect supervision, it still does not equal direct supervision in conflict management of the inmates (Beck, 2006).

Linear design
Linear design is the traditional method of jail surveillance that has been put in practice for a long period of time (Nelson, OToole, Krauth  Whitemore, 1983). Nelson William in his article, New generation jails, refers to the traditional jails that employed this design as the jails of our-not-so-glorious past. (William, ND). It can also be called intermittent surveillance design. Linear design does not apply continuous supervision like the direct or indirect supervision. With a picture of a hospital design in mind, it is easier to understand the structures of a linear supervision design. There are many rooms in rows arranged alongside a corridor. Beck (2006) in his article Deciding on a new jail design, points out that, A common variation is to suite housing units, instead of individual cells, along the corridor.

In each unit, there is a narrow window that enables observation into the pod and an entry door. A jail officer then walks along the corridor, looking through the windows into each of the housing units and may even enter if a strange behavior is observed. Closed doors ensure that barely any sound from the unit is heard outside in the corridors (Beck, 2006). This design suffers a major drawback in that it may lead to violence between inmates as the officer is not always in the pods as is the case for direct surveillance (Beck, 2006).

Electronic surveillance is used to help overcome the limitations in linear design. It involves use of video cameras enabling the officers to view the cells from video screens. This also does not heal the condition as officers are sometimes engaged in other things and they also get tired of viewing too many cameras. Moreover, inmates can decide to move to a place off-camera making it hard for their illicit behaviors to be captured by the camera. This makes it difficult then for the officers to notice all the inmates behaviors and for this reason, the latter can even engage in violence. Direct supervision jail design is therefore a better option as the officer can view the entire pod and hence cases of violence are minimized (Beck, 2006).

Though the linear design has been found to be less expensive in terms of construction costs, it can lead to deadly violence that can leave some of the inmates dead either by suicide or murder, sexually assaulted among other harassments as the officer is most of the time not available. The money that officials want to save using linear supervision is not equivalent to a human life or his or her dignity. Direct supervision therefore helps a lot in curbing this kind of violence as the inmates are very sure that they are being observed at all times (Beck, 2006). Some professional administrators avoid this design as they are aware of the damage that it can cause. This therefore leaves us with only one option, direct supervision (Beck, 2006).

Reasons why direct supervision is most effective method used today in a correctional setting
One of the most outstanding benefits of the direct supervision design is that it has fewer or no violation of the formal rules (Senese, 1997). Fights are easily terminated as the officer is always within the vicinity to intervene. The inmates cannot use weapons in the fights as it is absolutely impossible to find anything that can lead to harm in these pods. On the other hand, sexual harassments are almost unheard of. The known danger zones, toilets and shower rooms are constantly checked and this makes them safe (Correction Center for North Ohio, 2010). 

Regarding the reduction of violence, direct supervision can take the number one position when compared to other methods of jail supervision (Correction Center for North Ohio, 2010).  By the use of the reward and punishment concepts, inmates are aware of constant supervision and if they become uncontrollable, they can be removed from their pods that have certain privileges to different pods with reduced privileges such as, not being allowed to leave their pods. Inmates in higher level ponds on the other hand, will work to reform their behaviors with the hope of being placed in a low custody pod that has more privileges. More so, inmates know that the security officer is armed with video monitoring equipment and a radio alarm and hence they fear attacking him. This can result to overall transformation of the inmates behavior. Direct supervision in this case will have assisted to mould the inmate into a responsible citizen (Beck, 2006). They have a higher chance of living productively long after their jail term (Oswego County Sheriff, nd).

Another benefit of podular-direct method is that inmates are in total control. This is because the security officers are with the inmates 24 hours a day, providing leadership, monitoring the inmates behaviors and setting standards. Inmates in this case are discouraged from forming gangs that could become unruly. Furthermore, any inmate who is difficult to control can always be removed from the unit to a higher one where the conditions are harsher and the privileges are withdrawn. Direct supervision therefore helps in controlling the inmates and ensuring that their behaviors are monitored (Corrections Centre for North Ohio, 2010).

Direct supervision also helps to reduce noise in jails as shouting or any unnecessary sounds are prohibited. In addition, the prisoners will keep their voices low as they are aware that they are being monitored (Correction Center for North Ohio, 2010).

Most jail staff if asked would better chose the direct supervision design. This is because they are allowed to mix freely with the prisoners and to solve problems in their pods without involving the administration. In the process, they gain experience in leadership skills that can put them in future management roles. Most of them find the job more satisfying as they can live courageously and more relaxed paying more attention to their tasks (Correction Center for North Ohio, 2010).

Officer can immediately respond to the inmates problems or questions unlike in other models when there may be delays (Correction Center for North Ohio, 2010). There is quick response and the inmates like such kind of the setting. Farbstein  Wener (1989) in their article, A comparison of direct and indirect supervision correctional facilities, feel that there is stopping of problems before they start. The inmates feel more protected within the direct supervision design. This also is away of reducing stress levels of the inmates (Beck, 2006).

This design is most preferred as it ensures that the officers are at all the time with the inmates unlike in either linear or indirect method where officers spend a lot of time at their respective desks, chatting with others and giving little attention to the inmates. Officers in other models often lose touch and are unfamiliar with the inmates (Farbstein  Wener, 1989).

It has also been put across that direct supervision method is, as compared to indirect method, cost effective. Its facilities cost less to fix (Farbstein  Wener, 1989). In addition, the costs of maintenance are low because fulltime supervision decreases the chances of equipment, wall furnishings destruction and misuse (Beck, 2006).  The jails liability and generally that of the county is reduced because the inmates behaviors are closely monitored and hence cases of suicide, murder, fights, rape, accidents and medical emergencies are controllable and attended to with immediate effect (Beck, 2006). It also requires less or equal number of staff with indirect supervision. Despite the reduced number of staff, they produce desirable results in achieving their mission, improvement of security and stress reduction (Farbstein  Wener, 1989).

Whatever has an advantage must have a disadvantage. The officers in direct contact with the inmates are faced with a hard time in dealing with the latter as they have to deal their unending questions, complaints and requests. Despite these challenges some have a call for their work and they love it with passion. Menke (1986) in his article, Model personnel selection process for podular, direct-supervision new generation jails, states that, not everyone is cut out for the life of a teacher (or police officer, social worker, etc), so is it evident that not everyone is cut out for the demands of the New generation jail workplace.

Furthermore this design is only suitable with minimum and medium inmate custodies where inmates are less violent. It can endanger the lives of the officers if also used in maximum inmate custodies. Inmates here are crazy and they can do anything even killing the officer without minding the consequences (Beck, 2006).

Conclusion
Evidently, most of the jails around the world are still stuck to the old designs of supervision despite the wave of change that is taking place in other institutions. No one needs to be told that the methods are not up to standard. So many methods have been adopted. For instance, in the United States of America, more than 50 models are in use. They vary in philosophy and their outcome. Are the correctional systems successful The obvious answer that everyone will shout is no (Alexander, 1960). There is therefore a call for prisons to adopt the one and the only effective method in terms of staff number and violence reduction in jails the direct supervision design. The Sarasota county sheriff in their article, Direct supervision, admits that Direct supervision is the wave of the future for jails (Sarasota County Sheriff, nd). There should be total supervision (direct) as opposed to intermittent supervision (linear and indirect) in prisons if the government wants to reduce both the staffing and the level of violence (Sony Emerson, 2005)