The Utility of the Correctional Tour: Student Perceptions and the Propensity for Academic Growth

Abstract

Abstract The utility of taking students on tours of correctional facilities remains an unexplored topic within criminal justice. Yet, there is ample justification for reinforcing the pedagogical link between theory and practice through direct observation of criminal justice processes. This becomes particularly salient in the area of corrections, a highly isolated, self‐sustaining, and misunderstood criminal justice system. In this study, 69 students attending criminal justice classes were asked to complete pre‐visit and post‐visit questionnaires associated with tours of correctional institutions. Key themes of the study include students' perceptions of institutional punishment philosophy, and student perceptions of select facility and offender characteristics. Almost 86% of students changed their views in some manner, with a significant portion of students identifying rehabilitation and incapacitation as key philosophies following a prison tour. Stereotypes of prisoners and correctional settings were frequently based on media representations and changed following exposure to the prison tour. These findings are presented with pedagogical implications. Notes 1. While student responses were a standard component of the coursework within each class, professors verbally repeated that "submission of prison questions is strictly voluntary and will not influence your progress in the class. If you choose not to participate in the research, your responses will still be accepted and graded but will not be included in the large research project. All responses will be reported in the aggregate, and no personal identifiers will be attached to the research." An alternative assignment was offered to students who were unable to attend the prison tour. Students who consented to involvement in the research did not receive any additional benefits or compensation, and the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) found the research qualified for exemption status. To reinforce student confidentiality, only the gender of the student was coded and all assigned students were assigned a dummy identifier. 2. While most students appear to adequately understand punishment philosophies, there was a considerable degree of confusion when students were required to articulate personal estimates of the presence or absence of these philosophies within an actual correctional facility. Here, a significant portion of students initiated personal support for a specific punishment philosophy and then proceeded to rationalize their selection by introducing additional punishment philosophies into the explanation. Case in point: Female #12 presented an argument that the current correctional system is misaligned with any punishment philosophies and instead rewards criminogenic behaviors. Immediately after this argument Female #12 states, "on the other side of that, however, I do feel that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and deterrence. Unfortunately, I am almost contradicting myself." Likewise, students shared commonality in their merging of several punishment philosophies into a single domain, for example, Male #23 cited an overlap between incapacitation and rehabilitation philosophies; "incapacitating prisoners sometimes helps rehabilitate some and for others it makes them worse off." For a subset of students currently working or intending to work within the criminal justice system, the confusion surrounding punishment philosophies was further compounded by perceived conflicts with professional ethics: "As an aspiring criminal psychologist, I should pick rehabilitation, but the truth is that I really believe in prison being deterrence at first and an incarceration place second. Yes, there are some prisoners who go to jail and find God or Allah, or whoever their savior is, but for the most part, prisoners almost never change their behavioral patterns" [Male #70 male].