Law

The impact of the introduction of the new British Supreme Court with particular emphasis on the constitutional implications

The formation of the Supreme Court in the UK is a great step towards the realisation of constitutional reforms in the land. This is best explained by the fact that the opening such a court marks the ultimate separation of the judiciary from the interferences of both the parliament and the executive arms of the government. It is however to be noted that the new court could still be inferior to parliaments decisions.
This essay gives a critical assessment on the impact of introducing the new British Supreme Court and its constitutional implications. The author also gives an analysis to ascertain whether or not the new Supreme Court will be more powerful than the House of Lords committee it replaces.

First is a discussion on the constitutional implication of the new Supreme Court. The new British Supreme Court has far-reaching constitutional implications. The first and foremost implication is that the Supreme Court will evidently enhance the independence of the judiciary. It should be noted here that this new court will have independence from the political arm of the government. Still to be realised is the fact the new judicial system will give individual judges independence of making rulings (Rozenberg, 2009). This is unlike the previous system in which ruling was mainly a summary of the reasoning and similar arguments of the different judges involved in the panel.

It is also to be understood that such a new court, with its independence will mitigate the practice of electing judges to share inquires. This could be a milestone towards realizing independence in their rulings by mitigating political influences on the outcome of both the inquiries and the final court ruling. It is therefore rightly argued that such could reduce the public perception of the courts as major political players in our republic. With the matching of the courts proceedings and rulings with the accountability standards provided by the Court and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, it is clear that the courts will improve transparency in the legal justice system.

Thirdly, the formation of the British Supreme Court is seen as the first step towards the realisation of a written constitution in the nation. To be stated here is the fact that the current government in its operation relies on an unwritten constitution mainly guided by statutes and parliamentary convections as well as standing court judgments. It is however just and fair that for the operation of the independent judiciary should be guided by well laid down principles to increase its effectiveness and accountability in administering justice to the citizens (The Guardian, 2009). This requirement could thus mandate for the finding of a written constitution in our nation. It has been claimed that the dissolving of the House of Lords who formed the unelected upper chamber of the UK parliament could lead to formation of a new democratic chamber with periodic elections for its members.

This will mark a great constitutional reform towards the modernisation of the nations democracy. The question of power devolution could also remain another constitutional reform that will be forced by the institutionalisation of the new British Supreme Court. Independence of the judiciary can only be best achieved with the putting in place of clear distinctions separating the different arms of the government (Clarkson, 2009). It is therefore clear that the functioning of the supreme courts will mandate for the changing of the constitution to reflective the aspect of power devolution.

It is clear that most of the governing members of the UK government are in office by acts of endorsement based on religion. However, it should be noted that the formation of the new British supreme courts was based on the need to separate the government leadership and laws from religion. This move means that the constitution will have to be changed to accommodate this fact. Such changes of the constitution will entail that political offices bearers should be democratically elected thus resolving the problem of discriminative selection of the members of the house of the commons in the nation (Rozenberg, 2009). Still to be noted is that this will give the otherwise highly qualified but with weaker religious strengths an equal opportunity in sharing the decision making panels of our nation.

It has also been a common claim that the Supreme Court will have the long term effectives of instilling democratic representation and accountability in the parliament, ensure a more equitable distribution of power across the different arms of the government and oversee the written constitution for United Kingdom democracy (The Guardian, 2009). All these factors will have the end result of improving the overall functioning of the government to match other developed democracies of the globe.

Second is an argument that the Supreme Court will be more powerful than the House of Lords committee it replaces. With its increased independence from political influence, the process of executing justice by the new courts will be greatly improved. It is here to be noted that unlike the rulings of the House of Lords which were marked with many separate but similar summaries of the cases by the different judges involved. The Supreme Court on the other side gives the individual judges the independence of making a conclusive final ruling on a case. It is also to be noted that failure to individual ruling could be remedied by ruling on a major vote by the participating judges (Clarkson, 2009).  Still to be noted is the fact that with a written constitution, the Supreme Court will enjoy the institutional advantage of interpreting law for application in the law courts thus making it or subject to hearing cases which are way above the provisions of the constitution.
In conclusion, it has been clearly established that the new Supreme Court will greatly improve the democratic space in UK by its cause for constitutional reforms. The court will also evidently be more powerful than the House of Lords particularly on its influence of the execution of justice.

    In relation to memory politics, understanding the implications of political and social transitions upon concepts such as personal perception, judgment, reparation, and government justification is indeed vital to attain an appropriate level of understanding phases or occurrences throughout history. Among such phases of interest include the Holocaust in Europe and the Dirty War in Argentina. In relation to both of the aforementioned historical events, it is rather apparent that transition and changes, through a holistic perspective, are a central theme. To further explain, it is of course necessary to provide a proper overview regarding such historical occurrences so as to better understand the impacts of such on both individuals and other aspects of society. The Holocaust occurred in Europe throughout the 1940s wherein Jews were evidently selected against and were attempted to be eliminated through deportation and genocide by the Nazis (Landau 178). Considering the scale and scope in which the Nazi Holocaust has occurred, then there is no doubt that it may be regarded as a considerable phase of transition.

    Aside from the Nazi holocaust, as above mentioned, the dirty war in Argentina may also be considered as a proper subject for study. Similar to the Holocaust in Europe, the Dirty War in Argentina may be most represented by the number of individuals that faced death and various forms of oppression during this  period. Specifically, the Dirty War was a period throughout the 1970s up to the 1980s wherein individuals were made to disappear, which implies that fact that either inhumane treatment and punishment or death awaited them. The term dirty was derived from the fact that such individuals were not given a proper legal process (Lewis 72,154). Therefore, given the two above-mentioned historical events, four aspects would be discussed in relation to such events so as to gain further understanding in the area of memory politics. These four aspects are as follows limits of testimony, the pursuit of judgment, reparations, and government justifications for human rights violations.  
      
2. Limits of Testimony 
    Limits in testimony may be associated with potential concerns regarding the validity of information contained within human memory. In particular, such concerns encompass issues pertaining to the distortion of memory based on the nature of a certain experience. The effects of experiences on memory distortion may be most appropriately assessed and discussed in relation to the Holocaust in Europe. In particular, in cases such as throughout the course of a holocaust, differences in perspective emerge in relation to an individuals relative level of being a witness of a specific event. To further expound, the three levels of being a witness are mainly based upon distinctions on what aspect the concept of being a witness applies. The first level pertains to being a witness from a point of view based upon oneself. The second level, on the other hand, focuses upon the act of becoming a witness based upon information gained externally, and the third level is the act of directly witnessing a certain event firsthand (Felman and Laub 75). In order to establish the connection between such levels, memory distortions, and experiences, it would be most appropriate to point out differences in the information provided by witnesses of a holocaust.

       Individuals of different ages perceive a specific event in a rather dissimilar way. For one, the differences in how children and adults remember, perceive, and tell of stories pertaining to traumatic experiences, such as throughout the holocaust, mainly rely upon distinctions based upon the capability to think as well as the extent of ideas and concepts that are understood (Felman and Laub 76). In this sense, differences in the manner in which a certain event may be conveyed through ones memory may indeed differ due to the relative variations in the mental capability of individuals. However, an important point should also be made regarding the changes in ones memory and the understanding of such as progression throughout different phases of life is experienced. To further explain, while a certain witness to the Holocaust may have seen traumatic events throughout childhood, the way in which such experiences are remembered often differs as he or she progresses through life. Specifically, as further instances of graphic events are witnessed by the aforementioned individual, the extent of resentment increases while the relative clarity of the events witness continuously decreases (Felman and Laub 80).

    In relation to such, traumatic experiences also allow for the possibility of developing a selective memory. Selective memory pertains to the repression and virtual elimination of thoughts pertaining to a specific traumatic event, which is generally considered as a common response to the Holocaust in Europe (Levy and Sznaider 58). Of course, such a trend in response is rather expected as it is for a fact that the events that have transpired during such a period in history may indeed be considered as to be among the most shocking and depressing for numerous individuals. The same may be said for the Dirty War in Argentina, as it has been proven that certain texts and sources of information upon which current data are based may in fact be compromised due to selective memory of those from whom information has been gained (Kaminsky 201). Given such points, it becomes rather apparent that the likelihood of developing selective memory may be considered to be most probable especially for those who have experienced and have directly seen acts of violence and cruelty throughout events similar to those mentioned above. Considering the fact that individuals with a selective memory may not be regarded as the most appropriate source of information or testimony, then it may be stated that testimonies pertaining to holocausts may be presumed to be not completely factual.     

    To further provide detail regarding the occurrences of both memory distortions and selective memory, it is of course most appropriate to discuss and provide additional examples. In relation to memory distortion, a man that was once a child who was told to escape from a certain military encampment to avoid death  is likely to remember several unpleasant parts of his experience in a manner and imagery that are definitely more pleasant. Specifically, at certain points in his childhood, the aforementioned individual was forced to seek refuge in a violent whorehouse, but according to his memory later on, he was instead given care and comfort within the confines of a hospital (Felman and Laub 87). From such an example, it becomes evident that memory distortion may in fact manifest in ways as simple as such, wherein a substitution of thoughts from those that may convey negative emotions and uneasiness to those that may emphasize safety and comfort may be exhibited. Certain individuals that have been sexually oppressed and victimized may be among those that would most probably develop selective memory. A simple example would be the experiences and memories of a woman that has been raped throughout childhood and yet, upon reaching adulthood, she does not recall anything related to such (Loftus 287).

    Although it is for certain that the aforementioned points regarding memory do highlight the fact that memory is not a most reliable source of testimony, it is also necessary to emphasize that even psychologists consider memory as may not be entirely consistent especially as new memories are gained (Beike, Lampinen, and Behrend 127). Hence, it is for a fact that memories do not necessarily reflect an actual occurrence or event through an entirely accurate manner. As explained and discussed beforehand, the memories of an individual may be altered and may take different forms, all depending upon aspects such as the relative level of knowledge and mental development of an individual, the extent in which the event may have affected the individual, the alterations between roles assumed in offering information for testimony, and of course the possible psychological responses that have occurred so as to cope with such memories. Therefore, the extent and number of manners or ways in which memories may be altered highlights the fact that information derived from memories may not be considered as completely true. Given such, unless there are no other possible means so as to collect information, which may be true in both the Holocaust in Europe and the Dirty War in Argentina, memories should not be regarded as prime sources of evidence or basis for testimonies.
  
3. Pursuit of Judgment
    In terms of the pursuit of judgment, it is evident that in response to both the Holocaust in Europe and the Dirty War in Argentina, the justice system has been more focused on providing a sentence rather than the need to find the truth. In the quest to find the truth, the memories of many people play a crucial role. These have always been associated with the past, and taking on the memories that one did not experience is a brand new phenomenon named as prosthetic memories. This concept means that even though such individual did not gain the memory from his actual experience, he has a deeply felt memory of certain past occurrences. The power of the memory must not be be undermined because it can serve the needs of the nation in more ways than one. However, it can also be used as an instrument when it comes to pursuing judgment (Landsberg 3).

    Todays society is more interested in the pursuit of judgment rather than the pursuit of the truth, and one of the ways to carry this out is to use the collective memories of the people in order to see that their sentence will be carried out. Prosthetic memory enables people to feel that they are a part of the situation, and its significance can be observed upon examination of historical events as in the case of the United States Immigrants in 1910s and 1920s. These people were parted from their communities in Europe and as a result, their memory of their homeland was not uncomplicated. Another instance where prosthetic memories were formed can be seen in the situation of the African Americans after the era of slavery which Orlando Patterson calls the  natal alienation  because that era has drastic implications in the memory and genealogy of those who lived it. Lastly, the case of the Holocaust remains a classic example of how the eradication and death of witnesses caused complications in the memory and testimonies of the witnesses. In all of these examples, the connection between the members of the family and their individual ties with the community were broken. As such, alternative methods for transferring and disseminating memories became necessary because the memories that were molded in the minds of these people are not their exclusive memories in such a way that the Holocaust does not belong solely to the Jews and slavery does not belong solely to the African Americans.

    The prosthetic memory happens due to many reasons such as the existence of technologies of the masses. Due to the growing needs of the society, mass culture has assumed a significant role when it comes to circulating narratives about the past, and what separates prosthetic memory from the rest of the mass cultural commodities is the process of commodification. This process allows memories to circulate on a grand scale by making these memories open to those who have the capacity to pay. Because of this development, prosthetic memory was also made available not only to those who can pass on memories but also to those who have the means to transmit these memories even though they have no biological connections to them. What was once an exclusive memory is now available to the general public. This is a classic example of how memories can be transferred from one person to another regardless of sex, race, or creed (Landsberg 9).

    In more ways than one, prosthetic memories can produce empathy and social responsibility because they can affect people and shape their view about politics (Landsberg 22). In the criminal justice system, finding the truth is not an easy thing to do, but it is necessary in order to further the ends of justice. However, this does not happen all the time. In most cases, pursuing a sentence is deemed as an adequate substitute to pursuing the truth. Sentence is the punishment paid by the criminals for the crimes that they have done. In the eyes of the people, justice has been served if a criminal has been sentenced to serve a specified period of time in a penal establishment, but this situation is not true in many instances. All crimes have an impact on the peace and order of the society, and if these remain unsolved, there is a strong tendency for repetition. This situation describes the very essence of the dilemma that the legal systems of today face, and it is this very situation that drives many people to pursue a sentence rather than the truth. A person may be guilty in fact but not guilty in law and in reverse, a person may also be pronounced guilty in law but not guilty in fact. It is a devastating fact that this type of injustice is continually happening in the world. In order to provide a solution to this problem, many people became content with giving out sentences to those accused of crimes regardless of their guilt or innocence. This method helps the justice system feel that it has done its job to the society by catching a person who would be serving the sentence for a crime whether or not he is the one who actually did it.

    It is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to let one innocent person be convicted for something that he or she did not do. The saying signifies the fact that the justice system was created to pursue and find out the truth, and this very essence will be destroyed if the pursuit of truth will be compromised by letting an innocent person take the fall and serve a sentence that he or she does not deserve just to satisfy the psychological demands of the society. The importance of the adversarial system is to place the defendant in equal footing with the prosecutor in order to provide him or her with an opportunity to defend him- or herself in front of a judge and jury in their quest to find the truth.

4. Rituals of Social Reparation
    The rituals of social reparation is a concept or process that is focused on furthering the status of human rights at a given area or to aid those that have gone through traumatic experiences due to a breach of such rights (Agger and Jensen 202). Social reparation is not merely an act of goodwill in order to provide a better condition of living for those who may be at risk of being violated in relation to such rights. Such a process, given that countries consider the use of certain forms of social reparation, indicates that rituals of social reparation serve a more significant purpose. In particular, the rationale behind the actualization of various rituals of social reparation is so that further acts of violence to individuals may manifest as a result, if a population is not given the proper support to recover. In addition, due to the chaos that may ensue from such a scenario wherein social reparation has not been applied, then the possibility of attaining and maintaining democracy would further be decreased (Agger and Jensen 202). Hence, albeit the fact that the focus of the discussion should be on the Holocaust in Europe and the Dirty War in Argentina, in order to provide an appropriate overview of the concept of social reparation, Chile would initially be given emphasis.

    As above mentioned, in relation to the rituals of social reparation, Chile would be a most proper point of discussion so as to further expound on the concept. The reason for such though, is that through the analysis of Chile, means as through which society reconciles past errors through the justice system may be understood. To further expound, the five core components behind the ritual of social reparation in Chile are as follows the truth as generally known information, justice must be sustained through legal processes, compensation must be given to those detrimentally affected, reconciliation must be furthered between parties, and human rights as well as laws pertaining to such must become generally known (Agger and Jensen 202, 203). Considering that the aforementioned points are in part actualized through governance, specifically the justice system. Thus, even though certain approaches in dictatorship has in part been the cause of oppression of numerous individuals, it is for a fact that attempts of resolving the concerns caused by dictatorship would be done through alternative means of governance as well. However, even though the use of the justice system so as to establish and further human rights and lessen violations, problems regarding such an approach to the issue are still existent and difficult to resolve.

       For one, the means of having established democracy is of concern in Chile, as certain measures were made so as to provide sufficient protection to those that have previously done harm upon the masses. Specifically, albeit it is for a fact that a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy was done, the concept of attaining justice for those that have been detrimentally affected by those allied with the dictator have not been properly attained (Agger and Jensen 203). The reason for such is based on the conditions placed on and established by those in power so as to gain a level of protection from possible repercussions that may result from their oppressive actions. Specifically, despite the approaches made by the democratic government so as to appropriately subject those with human rights violations under the scrutiny of the law, given that the law is insufficient and in a sense manipulated beforehand, those that were previously in support of the dictator are still in part protected by the same justice system that is supposedly utilized to prosecute them (Agger and Jensen 203). Thus, from such, the fact that justice may not necessarily be effective, and may even be perceived as a relatively empty term or concept, is further highlighted by such examples based on real occurrences.

    As may be thought of from the above-mentioned concern regarding the appropriateness and true meaning of the term justice, problems in the use of the justice system to further pursuits in social reparation may be hindered due to the lack of specificity in certain terms used generously throughout the justice system. To further explain, the use of terms such as justice and truth may become sources of concerns and doubt in relation to the justice system since proper definitions and limitations to the use of such terms are either abstract or limited in scope (Agger and Jensen 203). Thus, the masses may also in a way form doubts and may even react in unexpected ways if such terms have been applied and yet have not been thoroughly thought of. In particular, due to excessive freedom in expressing truth, such as in the presentation of heinous and violent acts accomplished by those in power, may actually cause the masses to simply attempt to forget that such may override the need to establish means to prevent such horrible events from happening once more (Agger and Jensen 203). Therefore, the manipulation and limitations in which such terms are defined may be perceived as a vital aspect in determining whether the justice system may indeed be effective as a tool for the pursuit of attaining social reparation or would merely become a hindrance in establishing proper thoughts and realizations regarding  the importance of human rights.    
      
       Besides having discussed the rituals of social reparation to a certain degree, it is still vital to draw upon other examples in which approaches in reparation have either resulted in beneficial or detrimental outcomes. In relation to the Nazi holocaust that occurred in Europe, initial means of social reparation were through financial support for those that were affected by the destructive acts of the Nazis such an approach was made even more effective as acts of violence such as genocide became considered as an international crime so as to prevent other countries and leaders which may attempt to accomplish such a detestable act (Hassman and Lombardo 51). Despite such, and albeit the fact that such approaches in aiding the surviving Jews were in a way appropriate and even effective, further problems have surfaced which highlighted reasons as to why an approach merely based on such considerations may still in reality be insufficient and unsuccessful. The point reason of the lack of long term success was that as time passed, the individuals who were indeed detrimentally affected during the holocaust and those who were not cannot be effectively distinguished anymore hence, leading to certain individuals that have gained financial support while in fact were not at all eligible for such (Hassman and Lombardo 52).

    In addition to such, in Argentina, social reparation through financial support has also applied and provided (Bonner 96). However, it is rather evident that there is a lack of appropriate and reliable sources that discuss whether success or failure has been developed throughout the application of such methods. In general, from the discussions above, it becomes evident that effective rituals for social reparation are indeed important so as to achieve continuous progress in the pursuit for human rights and equality. Also, it has been emphasized that not all approaches in seeking for social reparation result in praiseworthy outcomes due to possible problems in planning, definition of core concepts, and the manipulation of the justice system.  Therefore, considering that appropriate and well planned rituals for social reparation is indeed important for those who have been oppressed have been violated in terms of their human rights, then if solutions to such concerns are to be strictly developed and established, a clear understanding of limitations that have brought forth undesirable and unsatisfactory outcomes should first be gained.

5. Government Justification for Human Rights Violations
    Throughout history, human rights have been violated and it is a depressing fact that the government that is supposed to be the refuge and protector of the human rights of their constituents was the primary violator. Two great examples of far-reaching human rights violations that have been the highlight of many studies are the dirty war in Argentina and the amnesty under Menem.

    The anti-communism sentiments that the people have during the Cold war was said to be the origin of the Dirty war in Argentina. In 1973, Juan Peron was elected President but his wife took over the leadership of the entire country upon his death. In 1976, President Isabel Peron was overthrown by the Argentine Military and they remained in position since 1983. The military restructured every government department and they put the local police under their control. The General Commander became in charge of all operations for neutralization and annihilation of subversive element. They also reorganized the process of death penalty, outlawed unions and the jurisdiction of the military over and above the civilians. As a result, the military detained and tortured all those suspected of doing subversive acts including thousands of students, union leaders and journalists. The military kidnapped more than 50,000 men, women and children because of suspected subversive activities by snatching them from their homes, work and even from the streets. Both the military and police denied having these people in custody and as a consequence, more than 30,000 people were considered to have disappeared without a trace. Many children were forcefully taken away from their families, activists fled the country and a number of leftists leaders have been eliminated (Lunn).

    The dictatorial government of Argentina raised people under the culture of fear and intimidation. This atmosphere prevented the family members of those who have disappeared to speak about the incidence. For instance, a woman named Herminia Severini went to the police station after her daughters disappearance and instead of receiving help, the police officers told her that she was a bad mother and that her daughter was involved in a sexually active group activity. Many parents like Herminia were too scared to make inquiries and they were forced to admit that their children disappeared.  All the powers in Argentina was consolidated in the military who was given all the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and as a result,  the nation was filled with a culture of fear. During the early 1980s, the dictatorial system in Argentina received countless of of criticisms and in order to put an end to this horrible regime. They were defeated by the British in 1983 and for the first time in many years, they held an election (Lunn).

    President Carlos Menem granted pardon to many military officers that have been accused of human rights violation in order to have a national reconciliation. According to the president, it is his intention to reconcile and put an end to the issue that caused division and strife in the country and the only way to help heal the wounds of the past is through forgiveness. As a result, the Human rights organizations launched legal challenges to hurdle the amnesty laws. Grandmothers of those who protested in Plaza de Mayo held the military officers responsible for the kidnapping and identity theft of their children who have been given for adoption to many allies of the military. They contend that since kidnapping is not covered by the laws of amnesty, they were not forbidden from pursuing justice from these crimes. In 1998, Judge Roberto Marquevich ordered ex-president General Videla to be put under preventive imprisonment for kidnapping and falsification of public instruments. Videla had been previously tried and convicted for human rights violations in 1985. At the end of 1998, President Menem returned from his Scandinavian trip and asked many countries to investigate the disappearance of two Swedish people and because of his efforts, he was considered as a human rights hero. This situation is a perfect example of how the government used the justice system to suit their advantage. The local organizations did everything they can to secure the arrest of Videla yet they still need help from international allies to put this military leader to prison. Judge Marquevich, the one who ordered the arrest of Videla, was not known for his advocacy to human rights. Instead, he was known for his strong loyalty to the President Menem for appointing him. There are strong reasons to believe that the Judge was merely responding to the political agenda of President Menem when he ordered Videlas detention.  The underlying reason behind all of these propaganda is that the warrants of arrest for the Argentina military officers caused foreign and local pressures to extradite officers to Spain for their trial. The military strongly opposed the extradition but it is an  international precept that the state must either try their accused domestically or they must extradite them and the only way to fend off some of the pressure for extraditing officers is to put high profile prisoners such as Videla in prison (Della Porta and Tarrow 166).

    Human rights are the most fundamental of all rights and freedoms which all human beings are entitled to such as the right to life, liberty, freedom, equality and due process. These rights are said to be natural or inherent to the mere existence of the people which means to say that they are not earned nor can they be denied because of race, creed or sexuality. Out of all the rights being enforced internationally, Human rights must always be given utmost premium and importance and it is an extremely devastating fact that in Argentina, these rights that many people hold dear is being blatantly abused by authorities in the furtherance of their political interest. Protecting human rights must reside first in the states themselves but as illustrated in the Amnesty of Menem and in the Dirty war, it is the public authorities themselves that are violating these rights. Their presence ensure every person that their most important rights such as their right to life and liberty are secured and safeguarded from any abuse. These universal rights make everybody human and protecting it is essential for the existence and survival of an organized society. They are inherent in each and every person and without respecting these rights, organization would be impossible.

Prisons or corrections are an important arm of the criminal justice system in the United States. They are the legal facilities which serve s the custodians, and reform or rehabilitate the criminals in our society (James, 1997). It is owing to their role as reform institutions that prisons must be given adequate concern from the government as well as the courts themselves. To be noted here is the fact that the United States appreciates the corrective role played by both public and private prisons. It has however been a heated debate in the general public terming public prisons as a great failure of the federal governments respect for human rights (Kave, 1995). It is to be appreciated here that it is the role of our legal justice courts to define the type of punishment that should be given to an offender, and how such punishments will be administered. Still clear is the fact that owing to the diversity evident in crimes, it is justly right to claim different modes of correction for the different categories of crime (Segal, 2005). Such are also reflective of age. Crime has never been extinct in fact it is always changing both in gravity and approach. It is thus logically clear that our prisons should also be constantly changing to reflect both the human civilization and technological advancements. They act as custodians for human being whose rights should be recognized and thus respected.
The author of this paper gives a discussion on the history behind the establishment of correctionprison facilities in the United States. Secondly, the paper examines the nature of our prisons both public and privately owned as well as identifying the role they play in shaping the behavior of criminals. A discussion on the correctional options available in our legal justice system for dealing with Juvenile offenders is also given.
First is a look at the history of prisons in the American nation. The history of prison can be dated back to the history of the law. It is by the law that punishment comes to play. It should however be noted that the practice was first introduced to the Americans from the Britain nation during their colonization era (Kave, 1995). Nevertheless, it should be understood that the establishment of the American constitution as well as the many American involvement in wars marked the intensified use of prisons as a way of punishing victims of military convictions. Still to be noted is the fact that our American prisons have seen many improvements over the last few decades. This is mainly due to the many critics and calls for improvement of prison living conditions by human rights activists.  The fact that the crime rates are evidently increasing in our society is also another reason behind such expansions in the prisons. The increasing numbers of inmates have necessitated for the expansion of prison facilities in our nation. It is indeed due to the overcrowding problem that we are witnessing trend of privatizing the correction arm of our legal justice system.
Second is a comparison between public and private prison as legally recognized correctional institutions. Public prisons are run by the federal government in conjunction with the state government, while private prisons are run by individuals or contracted companies. A prison is a place for overseeing the reforming of the errand members of the society. It is thus due to this reason that both public and private prisons are same since they all serve the same purpose (Segal, 2005). However, it is to be realized that the methods used and their effectiveness in ensuring sustainable corrections are quite different. It has be a common claim that public prisons lack the capacity to ensure sustainable reforms on individuals. This has greatly associated with the lacking infrastructural and human resource availability to service such duties of correcting the offenders. Statistical evidence has proved that most of the public prisons are marked with overcrowding problem (James, 1997). It is due to this fact that such prisons are seen as a major risk to outbreak of diseases, causing deaths of inmates. This is the main cause for the poor living condition that is associated with public prisons.
Still on overcrowding is the claim of rape and violence against inmates by their colleagues. Statistical data has evidently proved that over 21 percent of the public prison inmates have fallen victims of rape (McDonald, Fournier, Einhourn, Crawford, 1998). Such acts have been greatly attributed to both overcrowding and failure of socialization. It is reasonably unfair to deny a human being of his conjugal rights as such could easily result into morally unacceptable actions of satisfying ones body desires. The element of overcrowding as a contributor to rape cases in public is clear based on the sharing of facilities reason. This is unlike the case in private prisons were the facilities are enough for serving the available inmates. on the aspect of eminent acts of violence among the inmates, it is clear that changing of ones gangster way of living is quite had regardless of whether in prison or not. It has thus been established that putting inmates in the same and otherwise overcrowded prison facility will greatly increase the chances of increased violence on some of the victims. This problem is easily solved by the fact that private prisons have enough facilities and thus can afford to separate such victims for the rest.
It has also been evidently noted that the correction ability of public prison are low below the expectations of the society. This has greatly been attributed with the fact that such facilities tend to conduct their correction activities in a collective rather than on individual basis (Crews, Gillespie, Stanko, 2004). It is worth noting here that the failure by any correction center to understand, and thus correct individual problem will never yield any reasonable results. Still to be appreciated here is the fact that most of the criminals are grouped in the cells depending on the gravity of their crimes. Just to be noted is the fact that having like minded members in the society together proves hard to change their ways of reasoning. It is in fact due to this reason that most of the serious felonies offenders end up become worse upon their release from prison due to the poor additional influence they acquired from their fellow prisoners.
The other difference between public and private prisons is the health question. Private prisons have proved highly effective in providing quality health care to their inmates as compared to their public counterpart (Sigal, 2005). It has also been evidently claimed that most mentally impaired criminals are rarely assisted in public prisons. This is a great negation of the actual purpose of the prisons as correction centers. Health care is a basic human right that should never be denied.
However, both public and private prison have to a large extend succeeded in rehabilitation inmates. Apart from behavioral modifications, they have equipped inmates with skill and knowledge through vocational training and educational programs.
Third is a discussion on the correction of Juvenile offenders. It has been clearly established that most of our law courts tend to apply the law in-discriminatively to all members of the community. It is in fact due to such a reason that we have evidently witnessed an increasing number of youths in our prisons. This has been seen to be the reason behind the escalation of insecurity in our community. It is to be recognized that many youths commit crimes out of experiment of by the influence of other members of the society. Therefore, it is generally just to provide for a psychological correction rather than using the legal punishments provided by the law (James, 1997).
However, it is to be realized that our legal justice systems do have structures to ensure justice for Juvenile offenders. The first is the availability of Juvenile courts in our nation. It should also be noted that most states have put in place Juvenile prisons, all with the aim of increasing the chances of realizing sustainable reforms of the offenders. Still to be noted her is the fact that laws like capital punishment and the three strikes law have been banned for use in cases involve persons under the age of 18 years. Such a move seeks to eliminate the element of unfairness in judgment since such criminals are largely referred to as lacking the reasoning and judgment maturity in their actions.
In conclusion, it has been evidently noted that there are poor living conditions in public prisons. Still clear is the fact that our prisons are experiencing increasing population of criminal mostly the youth. This calls for the need to device other methods of correcting the youth in the community to ensure sustainable rehabilitation of such offenders.