Hammurabi Code

What was Hammurabi’s Code?
Hammurabi’s Code is known as the oldest collection of codified law ever to exist.  The Code, which was written down sometime around 1780 B.C. was created by Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon.  Hammurabi’s Code extends to all aspects of law and includes areas concerning wages; criminal law; and the rights of citizens, even slaves and women.
The laws set out the first real code for civilized society.  The laws helped to maintain order, create consistency in handing down punishments and, for the first time, allowed citizens to be aware of what actions were permissible in society.
Hammurabi’s Code was discovered in 1901 A.D. by French archaeologists working in Persia.  The object takes the form of a basalt pillar, known as a stele, about 6 feet high.  On the top of the stele is an engraving of Hammurabi receiving the laws from the Babylonian Sun-God Shamash.  Below the engraving are 42 columns describing 282 “laws” that the citizens of Babylon were required to follow, as well as guidelines for trade and penalties for violating the laws. 
The Laws
There is no organized method to the laws laid down in Hammurabi’s Code.  They seem to be strewn about in no particular order.  Hammurabi’s Code is where the term “eye for an eye” comes from.  Involving criminal matters the laws were very strict and the penalties severe.  In the area of trade, there were set guidelines involving how trade should occur and the appropriate prices that could be charged for certain goods and services.  The code can be broken up into 5 types of codes including: Legal Procedure, Household, Slavery, Miscellaneous and Trade.
From the text of Hammurabi’s Code it can be noted that there was a rigid form of adjudication involved in legal proceedings.  The code often mentions witnesses, judges and evidence.  It is definitely the first true form of legal procedure to present itself.  Some examples to show the extent of legal procedure in Hammurabi’s code include:  the putting to death of a false accuser; the idea that an individual must prove that a crime has been committed against him; the ability of a judge to enforce money judgments; penalties for certain crimes; time limits for producing evidence and witnesses; and probably the most progressive, the imposition of fines and the removal from office of judges who neglect their duties.
The laws numbered 128 – 149 deal solely with the issue of husband and wife.  Unlike legal doctrines that have come about long after Hammurabi’s Code, these laws show a surprising amount of effort towards women’s equality.  For example, law 130 states “If a man violate the wife of another man who has never known a man and still lives in her father’s house and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife blameless.” The law essentially means that if the wife of a man is raped then the offender shall be put to death but the wife shall not be held responsible.  This goes to show that Babylonian civilization treated women more as citizens than even present day Islamic countries.  Under Sharia law, which is practiced as the secular law of a number of Islamic countries, a woman who is raped is considered to be the criminal and put to death.
There are 10 laws in Hammurabi’s Code that deal exclusively with slavery.  They can be considered to be a stricter form of the Fugitive Slave laws that were enacted in the United States at various points before the Civil War.  The majority of the laws involving slavery in Hammurabi’s Code deal strictly with the return and harboring of escaped slaves.  The punishment for most crimes involving the harboring of slaves is death and there are designated rewards for the return of escaped slaves.  3 of the laws involving slavery also involve the non-payment of debts.  Law 117 strictly permits an individual who is owed a debt to take the debtors wife and/or children as slaves, as payment of the debt, for a period of 3 years at which time the debt will be forgiven.
The section on trade is the most extensive of all the laws in Hammurabi’s Code.  The laws go on to explain the conduct of all professions including builders, shipbuilders, physicians and barbers.  This section also helps to give insight into the value that the society gave to different classes of people.  Laws 221 – 223 explain this perfectly.  Those three laws outline the fees to be paid to a physician for the repair of broken bones of “diseased soft part” man.  If it is a citizen the fee is 5 shekels; a freeman, 3 shekels; and if it is a slave the fee is 2 shekels.  The trade portion of Hammurabi’s Code also gives weight to the “eye for an eye” mentality that the Code is so famously known for.  Law 229 states that “if a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.” Coinciding with that is law 230 which states “if it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.”  One more aspect of the trade laws in Hammurabi’s Code is that the idea of restitution is prevalent.  When a professional who is being paid for his services acts negligently and damages property then the laws note that that professional is responsible for reimbursement of the others loss.
The extent of the other laws deal primarily with the “eye for an eye” mentality of dealing with punishment.  There are also a few laws that deal with negligence in maintaining water rights.  These include the negligent operation of one’s dam that results in the flooding of a neighbor’s property.  In these situations the accused is forced to pay for the repairs and the losses to the other individual’s property.

3 Strikes Law

What is a 3 Strikes Law?


The 3 strikes laws, which are codified in 26 states throughout the country and the federal government, are sentencing laws that mandate a prison sentence of 25 years to life for violent offenders who have been convicted of 3 or more offenses.  
The State of Texas was the first State to enact such a law in 1974.   It is referred to as the Texas Habitual Offender Statute and states that “a defendant convicted of a felony is subject to a sentence of 2 to 20 years if (1) he has two prior felony convictions, and (2) the conviction for the first prior offense became final before commission of the second.”
The exact application of the 3 Strikes Law is different among the 26 States that recognize it.  Some States require that all three of the crimes be felonies where others, like California, require only that the first two crimes be violent, or serious, felonies in order to garner an enhanced sentence upon the defendant.

There are a number of theories that have gone into rationalizing the reasons for a 3 Strikes Law. The rationale that the State Legislature of California took in deciding to enact the 3 Strikes Law was that sentence enhancements restrict the ability of repeat offenders to commit additional crimes by removing them from the population, and the threat of long time incarceration discourages some offenders from committing new crimes.  There is also the mentality that those individuals who are repeat offenders are not capable of reform and should therefore be removed from society. 
Most 3 Strike Laws came about through concerns of increasing crime rates in many States.  Where Texas’ version is not considered a “true” 3 strikes law the first law categorized as such was passed in Washington State in 1993.  California adopted its 3 Strike Law in 1994 after the murder of a two minor children by men with criminal records.  A California ballot initiative approved the new law by 72% and became law in March of 1994.  Since the passage of the California law 24 States had followed suit within a two year period.
What are the penalties under the 3 strikes law?

What penalties are associated with the 3 strikes law?

The 3 Strikes Laws of every state vary a little differently from one another.  California, by far, is the strictest of them.  The law in California states that if an individual has committed two previous felonies then he/she will be subjected to a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life.  In California the nature of the third crime is irrelevant as individuals have been sentenced to life based on a third crime of petty larceny such as stealing videotapes.  The California law does not just pertain to third offenses.  The law also requires that a when an individual has been convicted of a previous felony and is subsequently convicted of a second, the sentencing for the second offense shall be doubled.  In short, this means that if an individual is convicted of a crime with a two year prison sentence, but it is his second felony, he may be sentenced to four years in prison.
What prior convictions are considered strikes?

Under the California Penal Code a strike is considered a “serious” or “violent” felony.  The “violent” crimes include, but are not limited to: murder, mayhem, battery, rape and felonies where an individual has used a firearm.  The “serious” crimes include: robbery, arson and kidnapping.  A list of all of the crimes that are applicable to California’s 3 Strikes Law can be found in California Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and 1192.8(a).  In summary, if an individual is convicted of two of these crimes in the State of California that person can be imprisoned for life upon the happening of a third crime whether it be a felony or misdemeanor.
Other States differ in what they qualify as a felony worthy of the 3 strikes rule.  In the State of Pennsylvania an individual can only have the 3 strikes rule applied to them if the first two crimes are considered “violent.” The elimination of the term “serious” takes a number of possible felonies out of the equation and has resulted in less sentencing under Pennsylvania’s 3 Strikes Law.
What about juvenile convictions?

In 2009 the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of applying the 3 Strike Law to felonies that were committed by juveniles in the case of People v. Nguyen.  Prior to that decision it was unclear whether judges could consider the 3 strike law when one of the felonies occurred while the defendant was a juvenile.
The case stemmed from Nguyen’s possession of a gun as a convicted felon.  The California trial court sentenced him to 32 months in prison, twice the allotted penalty in the sentencing guidelines.  The court rationalized that because he had been convicted of assault in 1999, in a juvenile court proceeding, this was his second offense and as such California prescribes a mandatory sentence doubling.    
The case of the People v. Nguyen went from all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the decision was upheld.  The defenses argument was that it was a violation a 2000 Supreme Court decision that required a jury trial in situations where sentences beyond the maximum term could be instituted.  The Supreme Court ruled that because he plead no contest to the 2005 charge he waived his right to have the 1999 conviction considered by the jury.
Are 3 Strikes Laws constitutional?

Can 3 Strikes Laws be considered violative of the 8th Amendment?

The 8th  Amendment to the Constitution states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Even though this is from the Bill of Rights and applies to the federal government, the 14th Amendment’s due process clause subjects the Constitution to the States as well.
The California law is very broad with the sentencing factors that may be considered by a judge.  The law allows for consecutive sentencing.  In the case of People v. Casper the Supreme Court of California ruled that concurrent sentencing could be applied to the 3 Strikes Law.  In its holding the court noted that in instituting sentencing there was no statutory requirement that a judge was forced to consider consecutive or concurrent sentencing.  In summary this means that if an individual was convicted of a 3rd and 4th crime it is in the judge’s discretion to allocate a doubling of the minimum sentence.  This means that instead of a 25 year to life sentence an individual convicted of a 3rd and 4th offense may be sentenced to 50 years to life.

In the Supreme Court decision in Lockyer v. Andrade the decision was upheld.  The case involved a man, Andrade, who had been convicted of numerous crimes in the past.  In 1995, on two separate instances, Andrade stole a total of 10 videotapes from two different K-Mart stores.  Upon his conviction for the crime his sentence was deemed to run concurrently, meaning that instead of 25 years to life, under 3 Strikes, he would serve 50 years to life because the two crimes would be compounded.  Andrade argued that the sentencing was a form of cruel and unusual punishment that violates the 8th Amendment.  The case went to the Supreme Court and the Justices held that in order to be cruel and unusual punishment the penalty must be “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” In holding against Andrade the Court justified its conclusion that because Andrade had the opportunity for parole it would not be a violation of the 8th Amendment; even if he wasn’t eligible for 50 years.

A similar case brought to the Supreme Court, which was decided on the same day, is Ewing v. California.  This case stemmed from the theft of 3 golf clubs from a country club pro shop in California.  The man who was arrested, Ewing, had been convicted on numerous occasions of crimes ranging from petty theft, to assault, to burglary.  Upon his conviction for the grand theft of the golf clubs the trial judge sentenced Ewing to 25 years to life under California’s 3 Strikes Law.  Ewing appealed this through the California appellate system claiming, like Andrade, that is was a form of cruel and unusual punishment.  Upon reaching the Supreme Court Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion stating “These laws respond to widespread concerns about crime by targeting the class of offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety: career criminals.”  She went on to note that such laws were a “deliberate policy choice” on the part of the State to remove those members of society who “repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior.” The Court, in its holding, ultimately rationalized the sentencing as not violating the 8th Amendment by claiming that the purpose of such laws is to respond to individuals who partake in repeat criminal behavior and that as long as there is a rational basis for the 3 strikes sentencing then it will be upheld.
These two Supreme Court cases essentially eliminated the 8th Amendment argument involving the 3 Strikes Law.
Does the 3 Strikes Law violate Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto?

In a 1996 case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit the appellate court answered both these questions.  United States of America v. Farmer is a case that came about after the defendant was convicted of 4 counts in a United States District Court.  The counts stemmed from attempted robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence and being a felon in possession of a firearm.  For the first two counts the jury sentenced the defendant to life in prison based on the federal 3 Strikes Law.  The jury also added additional sentencing for the latter two counts.
On appeal the defendant made a number of arguments.  The ones relevant to this topic are Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto.  Double Jeopardy is a violation of the Constitution as found in the 5th Amendment.  The pertinent part of the Amendment states that “no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The defendant’s argument in this case was that by using the 3 Strike Law for sentencing he was being sentenced for crimes that he had already served time for.  Although it is a valid argument to claim that a defendant brought to court to stand charges on a 3rd crime is being punished for the 1st and 2nd crime as well it was not persuasive on the court.  In upholding the constitutionality of the 3 Strikes Law the Appellate Court went on to hold that he “is not being punished again for previous offenses. Rather, these offenses are being taken into account in fixing his punishment for the instant crime” and “a recidivism provision does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
In the same case the Appellate Court was asked to rule again on the constitutionality of the 3 strikes law.  This time the question was whether this law violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.  The Ex Post Facto Clause is one of the few clauses in the Constitution that specifically applies to both the federal and state governments.  It can be found in Article 1, section 9 and 10 of the United States Constitution.  The clause specifically states that Congress’s powers are limited in that “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”  An ex post facto law is a law that is passed after an individual has committed a crime and instead of being subjected to the law at the date of the offense he is instead held accountable to the new provision; despite the non-existence of it when the crime was committed.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, in his landmark opinion in Calder v. Bull cited four instances where an Ex Post Facto law violated the constitution.  These were “criminalizing actions that were legal when committed; or may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.” 
So one would logically come to the conclusion that the 3 strike law would, as Chase put it, “change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime.” The defendant’s argument was on par with this statement, alleging that the 3 Strikes Law  increases the punishment of crimes committed before enactment.  This was not the holding of the Court in United States of America v. Farmer.  The Court, in upholding the 3 Strikes Law stated that “so long as the actual crime for which a defendant is being sentenced occurred after the effective date of the new statute, there is no ex post facto violation.
What can be gathered by these two decisions in this landmark case is that a court will find the constitutionality of a 3 Strike Law based on the idea that the sentence is imposed for the third offense and that the individual is not being punished for previous crimes.  The court merely looks at the previous crimes to aide in the evaluation of sentencing for the current crime.  
Is the sentencing under 3 Strikes Laws mandatory?

People v. Supreme Ct. (Romero)

The issue of how much discretion a judge has in imposing sentences came about in a 1998 case called People v. Supreme Ct. In this case the defendant, Romero, was convicted of possession of 0.13 grams of cocaine, a felony that would grant 3 years imprisonment.  However, because Romero was twice convicted of violent felonies, including two burglaries, he was subjected to the mandatory 3 Strikes Law.  The trial judge found that this was excessive punishment for the crime and in his discretion, struck the two felonies from consideration and imposed a sentence of 6 years for the 3rd offense.  The case was appealed by the Attorney General and went to the California Supreme Court where the Justices found that the judge’s discretion may be used “in the interests of justice” but they may not be abused and must have proper basis for the decision.  The factors that are applicable in determining whether a judge has discretion include: the rights of the defendant and the interests of society; and whether the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit given the defendant’s present felonies and past convictions.  
People v. Goode

In People v. Goode the Court of Appeals for the State of California made clear that the 3 Strike Law is not a discretionary sentencing measure.  This case stems from an incident in a prison where a two time convicted felon, Goode, assaulted a prison guard during his incarceration for one of the previous two crimes.  Goode argued, on appeal, that the court committed abuse of discretion by declining to strike either of his priors before imposing the mandatory 25 years to life sentencing authorized by the 3 Strike Law.  The court in Goode looked at the legislation that went into enacting the law to determine if 3 Strikes was mandatory.  The Court held that “the intent of the 3 strikes law was to restrict the discretion of the trial courts in sentencing repeat offenders.  The three strikes law does not offer a discretionary sentencing choice, as do other sentencing laws, but instead establishes a sentencing norm, carefully circumscribes the power of the trial courts to depart from the norm, requires an explicit justification of any ruling that departs from the norm, and creates a strong presumption that any sentence conforming to the norm is rational and proper.” Although this seems to contradict the 1996 ruling in Romero the court was quick to point out that the discretion to vacate prior strike “in furtherance of justice” is acceptable but must explain the reasons for doing so and the decision is reviewable.  The court went on to state that this defendant, due to his criminal history and violent nature, was within the “spirit of the 3 Strikes Law.”

There are differing opinions on the success of the 3 Strikes Law.  Many argue that it is too harsh of a punishment and at the very least should be applied to those individuals who have committed “violent” crimes, as Pennsylvania law applies, as opposed to “violent” or “serious”, as the California law stipulates.  Studies have shown that it has led to overcrowding in the prison population and that roughly half or the 3rd strikers are individuals who received life sentences for non-violent or non-serious crimes.  
The opposite side of the argument is the deterrence and the societal issue.  Many advocates for the 3 Strike Law favor its mandatory position, getting behind the theory that an individual who has committed two or more violent crimes is a habitual offender and should be taken out of society.  They also point out that crime, in the States that have 3 Strike Laws, has dropped since the inception of the law.  Detractors from this point of view will not that crime in the State of California began to drop as early as 1990.  Either way, the 3 strikes law is codified and although there have been many attempts to repeal or alter its effects it seems like it’s going to be here permanently.

Stearns County Jail

Stearns County Jail

The Stearns county jail of Minnesota has been around since 1921; however, in 1987, the jail went through a much needed remodeling, in order to break up the living sections in a more effective manner. 
Furthermore, with the remodeling, there can an increase in the number of beds that could be provided, making the Stearns county jail more accessible to an increase in inmates.
The increase in bedding and area separation has helped to make the jail more organized and accessible. There are a total of 108 beds that can be found shared throughout 6 different housing units. 
There are 12 holding cells for individuals who have been booked but need further processing, 8 separation cells, and a couple of medical cells for individuals who are injured or are ill. There is also a section of the Stearns county jail which is for the housing individuals who have been admitted into the work release program.
The Stearns county jail is used as a holding facility for those who are awaiting transfer into another detention facility; it is also an facility used for inmates who are serving sentences that are a year or less in duration of time; and is even used as a holding place for individuals who are awaiting their trials and subsequent ruling. It is broken up into the two basic types of jail setting: maximum and minimum security sections. 
The minimum security sections hold those who are under the work release program, and those who have been convicted of lesser offense crimes. For those who have been charged with more violent crimes, or are considered dangers, the maximum security section provides ample security.
Furthermore, one of the most utilized aspects of the jail is the Stearns county jail roster. The Stearns county jail roster is a log that is updated frequently to provide information about those who have been booked in the Stearns county jail. 

New York Man Hacked into AT&T’s Servers

New York Man Hacked into AT&T’s Servers

On November 20, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced Andrew Auernheimer was convicted for breaching AT&T’s servers and stealing email address and other personal information of 120,000 iPad 3G users.  Auernheimer gave the stolen information to an Internet magazine.  

Court documents indicate that AT&T linked all iPad 3G user’s email addresses to an Integrated Circuit Card Identifier (ICC-ID) number when a person registered their iPad.  When AT&T’s website recognized the number and email address, the person was directed to a faster and more user-friendly website.  

Hackers soon discovered that AT&T’s website was displayed in the plain text of the site URL.  The hackers then wrote a script called “iPad 3G Account Slurper” and used it in AT&T servers.  The website was attacked for several days, and from June 5, 2010 to June 9, 2010, the hackers stole about 120,000 ICC-IDs and email addresses.  

The information was immediately sold to the website called Gawker, and the information was published in a dedacted form.  Famous people’s email addresses were hacked including Diane Sawyer, Harvey Weinsten, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Rahm Emanuel—the former White House Chief of Staff.  

Auernheimer was convicted of accessing AT&T’s servers without authorization and disclosing the information to Gawker.  He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000 for each charge.  The co-defendant, Daniel Spitler, was convicted of the same charges and is currently awaiting sentencing as well.  

Special agents with the FBI under the direction of Michael B. Ward, Special Agent in Charge in Newark, led the investigation.  Numerous other agencies helped during the investigation and prosecution.  Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez and Assistant U.S. Attorney Zach Intrater with the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Section under the U.S. Attorney’s Economic Crimes Unit led prosecution.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Man Receives Life in Prison for Role in Murder of Witness

Man Receives Life in Prison for Role in Murder of Witness

On November 9, 2012, the Department of Justice reported that Frank Marfo was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy to murder a bank fraud investigation witness.  He was convicted on the following counts: one count of conspiracy and committing murder for hire, one count of conspiracy and murdering a witness, one count of using a gun that resulted in death, and one count of conspiracy and committing bank fraud.

Court documents show that Marfo, Tavon Davis, Bruce Byrd, and others were involved in a bank fraud scheme from May 2009 to November 9, 2011.  The scheme let the defendants collect over $1 million in money orders.

Cortez Callaway worked with Davis during the scheme, but Cortez was arrested by the Baltimore County Police on December 29, 2010 for possessing counterfeited documents and theft.  He admitted his role in the bank fraud scheme and told the police he was hired by Davis and others.

Between December 29, 2010 and January of 2011, Marfo, Davis and Byrd discussed the possibility of murdering Callaway to prevent him from testifying during the bank fraud trial.  Marfo was going to commit the murder himself, but he and Davis eventually hired Byrd to commit the murder.

From April 5 to April 11 in 2011, Davis called Byrd 68 times and many of the calls discussed the murder.  Davis finally told Callaway that Byrd wanted to meet with him on the 1700 block of Crystal Avenue in Baltimore on April 11 to discuss the testimony.  Byrd shot Callaway when he was in his driver’s seat with a 10mm handgun, and Davis met with Byrd shortly after.

The two men traveled to Marfo’s residence and Davis paid Byrd $2,000.  Byrd and Davis have since pleaded guilty to the crime.  Byrd was sentenced to 40 years in prison, and Davis currently awaits sentencing.

Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Field of Penology

Field of Penology


Penology is a field of criminology. One of the primary concerns of penology is prison reform. Prison reform addresses many concerns, such as the proper practice of re-socialization, reducing recidivism, protecting prisoners’ rights, how to balance deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, and helping felons find jobs after their release.

Re-socialization refers to the process by which individuals are helped to adapt to life in a new environment. Re-socialization for to jail involves teaching individuals how to abide by the rules of the jail.

Jobs for convicted felons

Finding jobs for convicted felons is a challenge. Some jobs for felons cannot be held due to a previous arrest. Jobs for ex-offenders may be permitted if the individual is cleared by a licensing board to hold a job the convicted felon would otherwise be unable to hold.

Recidivism is the chance of a repeat offender committing another offense. Recidivism typically refers to when a repeat offender commits an offense that is similar to the act they were previously convicted of, although recidivism may also occur if a shoplifter commits murder.

Prisoners rights
Prisoners’ rights refers to the rights that are retained by prisoners even after they have been convicted of a crime. Much of the prisoners’ rights movement is concerned with helping prisoners make sure that their rights are not violated.

Deterrence is the aspect of penology that aims to prevent an individual from deciding to pursue a course of action that will result in them becoming a felon in the first place. Deterrence can be specific or general.

Retribution is the attempt to make sure that a convict receives a punishment that is appropriate to the crime the convict has committed. Modern practices of retribution means ensures that a convict will not receive a punishment that is identical to their crime, but is simply proportionate.


Rehabilitation of felons is the goal of much of the American penal system. Rehabilitation of felons has become the guiding principle in penology over the last century.

Dupage County Jail

Dupage County Jail

The Dupage county jail in Wheaton, Illinois is considered to be one of the best jail/correctional facilities throughout the United States. It has received high ratings from the Illinois Department of Corrections, along with praise from the American Correctional Association. 
The Dupage county jail is used as a detainment center for individuals who are awaiting their trial time, for those who have been sentenced to less than a year of imprisonment, individuals who are serving a periodic imprisonment.
Various types of programs are provided by the Dupage county jail, in order to provide detainees with the option for the betterment of their life. Programs, like G.E.D courses can be found in the Dupage county jail. 
During the year, there are anywhere between 30 and 50 individuals who graduate from a G.E.D program in this jail. These programs help the individual develop marketable skills, to help them acquire jobs and to give them a basis for furthering education. There are also spiritual groups which mean throughout the week; these groups are open to all individuals and are a way for the detainees to reconnect with themselves and their beliefs.
For individuals who have suffered from substance abuse, the Dupage county jail has a number of substance abuse courses and groups that can help the inmates vent their issues with substance abuse, and give them the proper tools to straighten out their addictions. The Dupage county jail boasts a great facility with impeccable programs for helping their detainees to a better life once they are out of the jail. 

Hopkins County Jail

Hopkins County Jail

The Hopkins county jail of Kentucky is a facility that is dedicated to enriching the lives of the inmates and giving the opportunities to restart their lives, and to create a better path for them and their families. 
The Hopkins county jail is a facility that has all the same goals of other jails; it is a facility for detaining inmates who have been given a sentence shorter than a year, for those awaiting their trials, and transfers who are only there until they can be sent to a detention center. It is a facility to house those who are being tried or have been convicted of criminal acts.
Many of programs offered in the Hopkins county jail are focused around the needs of the individuals. These courses help the inmate to critically think about the choices that they have made, and the consequences of their actions. Thus, giving them indications as to when their thoughts and behaviors are becoming inappropriate and helping them to intervene before they can act on these thoughts/emotions.
Courses like: Criminal Thinking Errors and Rational Behavior Training are programs that were created to help these inmates walk through the actions or emotions that landed them in jail, to think about them, and to find alternate methods of dealing with them, instead of committing criminal acts. 
Another program that is also used on an emotional and critical level is an anger management course; this is yet another program based on the individual and the emotional triggers that caused a serious reaction. This helps provide new methods for channeling anger into a more productive and expressive medium.
Other courses that are used are WorkKeys which is a critical assessment of the inmates’ skills and abilities. This is an assessment tool that is used for job placements and future endeavors. By identifying what an individual is strong in, the Hopkins county jail can help to redirect the individual into an area of work that they will find fulfilling, and hopefully keep them on the non-criminal path. 

Anoka County Jail

Anoka County Jail

County jails are an important resource when it comes to county and state safety issues; the purpose of a county jail is to hold the criminals after they have been apprehended for numerous crimes. 
Because county jails tend to be on the smaller side, these are facilities often used for the holding of individuals until a hearing or as inmates of the facility serving a year or less duration of a sentence. These facilities, like the Anoka county jail, are facilities ran by a smaller group of correctional officers and can be both minimum and maximum security facilities
The Anoka county jail of Minnesota is an example of the average type of county jail facility. It is a place of detainment for criminals who are serving a shorter duration of time. In instances where and individual is sentenced to several years in prison, they might be held at the Anoka county jail until the ability to transfer to another facility comes along.
A county jail like the Anoka county jail has to be run under the strict adherence to the guidelines set forth by the American Correctional Association. These guidelines were set forth to provide and maintain a standard of rights and regulations that have to be looked after. 
Within these guidelines, the Anoka county jail must provide certain amenities for the inmates. This includes 3 meals a day, showering facilities, laundry service, and the ability to contact family while in the jail.
There are certain restrictions on the items that can be given to an inmate in the Anoka county jail. These restrictions can be limitations on the type of photographs; inmates are allowed to have photographs, as long as they do not display gang affiliation or nudity. 
If a family member wants to give the individual a book or other publication to read, it has to be purchased through a distributor and mailed directly to the jail; this is to ensure that no weapons, drugs, or various other contraband were slipped in. Overall, the Anoka county jail is the average, accommodating, law enforcement facility. 

Nobles County Jail

Nobles County Jail

Nobles county jail in Nobles County, Minnesota is an efficient and organized jailing system provide for the safety of the citizen of Minnesota. This facility is used for holding individuals until they are processed; it is a facility for individuals who have been sentenced to imprisonment for less than a year. 
The Nobles county jail allows for basic conveniences for those who are detained within their walls. This means that individuals are allowed to have items like photos and various other comforts, as long as they are provided for and adhere to the guidelines set for.
For example, individuals who are the Nobles county jail are allowed to have photographs as long as they are not Polaroid pictures, do not have nudity, and there are no signs of gang affiliation. 
Individuals who are detained in the Nobles county jail are also set up with an account, in which loved ones are allowed to deposit money through online deposits, or during visitation hours. The mediums used for money deposit are cash, money orders, and cashier’s checks. This money can be used by the individual for various purposes.
When it comes to being able to call home; individuals are given the option of having their family set up a collect call account, which then can be used to make calls back home. Or the individual can purchase calling cards and call the family using the specific calling cards offered by the Nobles county jail. 
Though an individual can be in jail for a couple of months or the entirety of the year, they are not deprived of amenities that they would have at home. Furthermore, the inmates of Nobles county jail are also provided with leisure time, various program options, and are supplied with 3 meals a day.