State and federal correctional facilities both aim at penalizing and altering criminal conduct. The sort of crime performed causes a significant distinction between federal and state prisons. Federal detention facilities are for people who infringe on federal legislation, while state jails are for those who violate local regulations. At the same time, federal prisons have more criminals accused of non-violent actions, including economic crimes, fraud, and child pornography (Eisen 14). Their safety level is higher compared to the state prisons, where individuals accused of violent offenses are hosted (Eisen 15). As a result, there are fewer federal jails than state prisons because most criminals are charged with the things that require the highest level of control and supervision (Eisen 15). At the same time, state and federal jails have many common elements due to the same function the penitentiary institutions have. It allows assuming that the significant difference between state and federal prison systems is the severity of the committed offense, which requires specific security and safety levels.
It is possible to illustrate the differences between the inmates of federal and state prisons with examples of the cases and the demographic characteristics of people who are punished by detention. For instance, a prevalent number of inmates in federal prisons were employed when committing the crime (Eisen 17). Most people in the state prison were unemployed comparatively long (Eisen 17). This difference shows the social context behind the crimes committed by people. In addition, there are also more females in federal prisons than in state prisons, which indicates the essence of the offenses committed by women (Eisen 18). As mentioned, the individuals who committed economic crimes or were accused of breaking federal laws are in federal prisons. Therefore, they were not accused of robbery or murder, as the inmates in state prisons typically are.
Not all crimes that the inmates of the state prisons commit are violent. For example, theft, burglary, possession of drugs, and drug trafficking are among the most widespread offenses (Eisen 17). According to the estimates, more than 70 percent of people convicted to detention in the state prison were involved in non-violent actions (Eisen 20). Another critical detail is that more than 80 percent of people in the state prison had a history of past convictions (Eisen 20). The statistics regarding the prior convictions of people in federal jail are slightly different (Eisen 20). Most of the prisoners commit the crime for the first time.
The source of financing is the critical distinction between the state and the federal prisons. For instance, the source of financing the national penitentiary system is the federal budget, which means that the government authorizes expenses for the maintenance of the offenders. State prisons, in turn, are financed from the local budget and use public funds and community initiatives to ensure the penitentiary system functions adequately (Eisen 14). In some cases, state and federal prisons are financed from the taxes that people pay.
The expanses of the state and federal government on the prisons increase annually. The critical detail is that the overall rate of criminal offenses increases gradually every year, and this tendency has been preserved for many decades (The Sentencing Project 2). The analysts explain this situation with the severity of the drug law ratified in the 1980s. More than half of all prisoners in federal and state jails are convicted due to offenses connected with drug possession, abuse, or distribution (The Sentencing Project 3). It shows that the tendency toward the increasing number of offenders in federal and state prisons leads to controversies connected with their financing. It requires the reaction of the local and national governments because it is a significant problem in the modern penitentiary system.
State prisons are more numerous, and there are more offenders in the local jails compared to the federal prisons, so they require more financing. Public funds are often redirected to community organizations that focus on programs that aim at crime prevention (Prison Policy Initiative 1). For instance, both state and federal prisons launch educational programs to reduce recidivism among offenders, and it is a promising initiative for further development of the penitentiary system (Serpas, Merkl 4). The money is spent on rehabilitation and receiving the skills these people might need after their detention (Serpas, Merkl 3). The Department of Justice authorizes vocational training in prisons, and this program has existed since 2013 (Serpas, Merkl 3). Therefore, federal and state prisoners share similar concerns and follow common organizational patterns.
The sources of finances determine the amount of money the prison receives for supporting its inhabitants. The economic side of incarceration shows that it is expansive and has long-term consequences. For instance, the total government spending in the United States on correctional facilities is $80.7 billion, while $3.9 billion is spent on privatized correctional facilities (Eisen 42). The vital detail is that spending on the legal system increased by 310% during the last 40 years, and these numbers feature the inflation adjustment (Eisen 44). It shows that the penitentiary system does not help people start a new life after the punishment, and the problems with criminal activity aggravate. Another peculiar detail is that outsourcing companies make money on mass incarceration. For example, they provide the prisons with services, including food supplies.
State and federal prisons have a similar approach to the rehabilitation of offenders. As already mentioned, the problem of recidivism is significant in the United States, and the number of criminals increases yearly. From one point of view, there is the opinion that rehabilitation programs do not work at the federal or state levels. From another perspective, the absence of these programs in state and federal prisons might lead to an even more dramatic increase in criminal recidivism. The distinction between the state and the federal jails is in how the rehabilitation programs are managed (Gul 69). Every state has its local view on the rehabilitation process, and regional activists and organizations participate in it depending on the community’s needs (Eisen 16). The federal officials, in turn, propose a more general approach to the rehabilitation of the prisoners because they are not connected with the local communities (Eisen 16). It allows the assumption that the specific needs of the place where the criminals are in detention and the character of their offenses are crucial factors in the approach to managing federal and state prisons.
The differences in the rehabilitation places are essential because they determine the character of help the prisoners receive and the amount of money the rehabilitation program possesses. The extent how which community corrections initiatives embrace an offender’s life when executed varies. Specific initiatives are daily rehabilitation centers that criminals attend to receive therapy throughout the day, while others are attended for only a few hours a week. Residential courses may last anywhere between 30 and 120 days in duration (Eisen 61). These diverse programs provide an extensive range of benefits. Specialized therapies include substance abuse therapy, sexual misconduct therapy, psychiatric treatment, domestic abuse therapy, marriage and family therapy, occupational and career consulting, work recommendations, and practical training (Eisen 63). These programs are more actively implemented in state prisons where inmates lack the skills to integrate into the community and find decent work. The essence of the crimes convicted to federal prison is more complicated, and rehabilitation programs are not focused on acquiring practical skills.
The differences between prisons on the state and federal levels are predominantly formal. A different number of people are placed in these types of penal institutions. As a result, the country does not need as many federal prisons as state ones. Their size and number of criminals determine the way the prisons are managed. Moreover, state jails keep people who violate state regulations, while federal prisons are for people who breach federal laws. Additionally, state versus federal jail administration varies because state prisons are operated by the state administration, while the federal authorities control federal prisons. Most offenders in federal jails are there for smaller-scale violations, including drug trafficking, money laundering, and others. Nevertheless, the bulk of convicts in state prisons is there for crimes considered more serious, such as rape or murder. Additionally, there are fewer federal penal facilities than local jails. The last critical detail is the distinct source of financing the prisons on the state and national level, reflected in the approaches to rehabilitation of the offenders.
Works Cited
Eisen, Lauren-Brooke. Inside Private Prisons: An American Dilemma in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Columbia University Press, 2018.
Gul, Rais. “Our Prisons Punitive or Rehabilitative? An Analysis of Theory and Practice.” Policy Perspectives, vol. 15, no. 3, 2018, pp. 67–83. JSTOR, Web.
Prison Policy Initiative. Winnable Criminal Justice Reforms: A Prison Policy Initiative Briefing on Promising State Reform Issues for 2021. Prison Policy Initiative, 2021.
Serpas, Ronal W., and Taryn A. Merkl. “Preserve and Expand Recidivism Reduction.” Ensuring Justice and Public Safety: Federal Criminal Justice Priorities for 2020 and Beyond, Brennan Center for Justice, 2020, pp. 19–21. JSTOR, Web.
The Sentencing Project. Trends in U.S. Corrections. The Sentencing Project, 2021. JSTOR, Web.