No matter the recent trend for politicians to be outspoken in their disapproval of mandatory minimum sentences, the issue is a complex one with both benefits and disadvantages. Prior to doing research on the topic, I didn’t have much of an opinion regarding mandatory minimums and did not fully grasp the important role they play in contributing to the United States’ overpopulated prisons. As I began my research on the topic, I found an abundance of resources presenting the negative aspects of mandatory minimums, and initially I agreed with many of the points being made, however, as I continued to research the issue I came to realize the complexity of the matter, with compelling arguments on both sides of the debate. I recognize that there are
Prisons and correctional facilities in the United States have changed from rehabilitating people to housing inmates and creating breeding grounds for more violence. Many local, state, and federal prisons and correctional facilities are becoming more and more overcrowded each year. If the Department of Corrections (DOC) wants to stop having repeat offenders and decrease the volume of inmates entering the criminal justice system, current regulations and programs need to undergo alteration. Actions pushed by attorneys and judges, in conjunction current prison life (including solitary confinement), have intertwined to result in mass incarceration. However, prisoner reentry programs haven’t fully impacted positively to help the inmate assimilate back into society. These alterations can help save the Department of Corrections (DOC) money, decrease the inmate population, and most of all, help rehabilitate them. After inmates are charged with a crime, they go through the judicial system (Due Process) and meet with the prosecutor to discuss sentencing.
It is easy to turn a blind I when there is no direct personal experience. Mass incarceration is an issue that influences other issues within the correctional system. The more people under correctional supervision means, the more individuals who can potentially be sexually victimized or placed in solitary confinement. Both are issues within the correctional system. Moreover, studies have shown that sexual victimization and solitary confinement have adverse side effects on inmates. If any of these variables are going to change for the better, then policy needs to change. Those in society, especially those with power who can affect policy in the penal system need to see these issues as a major problem. Some of the proposed solutions to reduce the incarceration rate and not new ideas, but a change in approach. Heroux (2011), suggested possible policy solutions to reduce the mass incarceration. Some of these solutions are earlier release, a change in mandatory minimums, transfer to non-institutions facilities, the diversion from institutional facilities, and doing away with mandatory minimum laws. This could be the next step towards reducing mass
The proliferation of prison overcrowding has been a rising concern for the U.S. The growing prison population poses considerable health and safety risks to prison staffs and employees, as well as to inmates themselves. The risks will continue to increase if no immediate actions are taken. Whereas fighting proliferation is fundamentally the duty of the U.S. government, prison overcrowding has exposed that the U.S. government will need to take measures to combat the flaws in the prison and criminal justice system. Restructuring the government to combat the danger of prison overcrowding, specifically in California, thus requires reforms that reestablishes the penal codes, increases the state’s budget, and develops opportunities for paroles to prevent their return to prison. The following context will examine and discuss the different approaches to reduce the population of state prisons in California in order to avoid prison overcrowding.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
“The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public” (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
The second question: What is the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the criminal justice system and jails as a whole? Are other problems being created by mandatory minimums? Finally, I’d like to know what alternatives to mandatory minimums exist, and if they are more or less effective. It is very important to be able to look at angles of this issue and reassess our approach. It would make a lot of sense to change how criminal justice system if it is using outdated and ineffective
In today's world, it seems like all too often we have woken up to another mass shooting, terrorist attack, or hate crime. However, the injustice does not end with the perpetrator. These acts of violence and hate are terrifying and receive a lot of media attention, yet there are many injustices that continue to permeate our society that are not often discussed. One of these is our incarceration system. The system is flawed and oversaturated with nonviolent drug offenders. Out of the approximately 2.2 million people in our nation’s prisons and jails, about one in four are locked up for a nonviolent drug offense (Criminal Justice Facts). According to the Department of Corrections, the largest single category of offense among prisoners is “drug
The injustices of federal mandatory minimum sentences have been present for years in the United States justice system. These laws are costly, unjust and excessive in our society. First, the most obvious effect of mandatory minimums is what it costs our nation financially. The sentences of drug offenders are now extremely long, and keeping large numbers of people in jail for long amounts of time is very costly. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones suffering because they are the ones that are forced to pay for these increasing costs.
Demands are made for harsher punishments for crimes. Elected officials give promises of making the world a better place by increasing penalties for people who break the law. People who are put in charge of prisoners are designed to break their will in the first week. It would be more productive if there was a bigger focus on rehabilitation to give people a chance when they get out of prison. Legislators are now striving to find positive solutions to overpopulation in prisons. Second-look is one such proposal. “This “second-look sentencing” provision is thought to have a number of positive effects, such as reducing incarceration and consequently decreasing governmental spending on incarceration” (Ryan 150). Other ideas are: more education, job skills training, and safe places similar to a halfway house in between prison and the real world. The halfway house could be a place for them to find somewhere to live, get a job, and be a productive
Overcrowding in our state and federal jails today has become a big issue. Back in the 20th century, prison rates in the U.S were fairly low. During the years later due to economic and political factors, that rate began to rise. According to the Bureau of justice statistics, the amount of people in prison went from 139 per 100,000 inmates to 502 per 100,000 inmates from 1980 to 2009. That is nearly 261%. Over 2.1 million Americans are incarcerated and 7.2 million are either incarcerated or under parole. According to these statistics, the U.S has 25% of the world’s prisoners. (Rick Wilson pg.1) Our prison systems simply have too many people. To try and help fix this problem, there needs to be shorter sentences for smaller crimes. Based on the many people in jail at the moment, funding for prison has dropped tremendously.
As of present prison networks across the United States have ceased being entities under the control of the government, and have gone into the hands of private, profit-seeking proprietors. Why? Put simply, overcrowding. Prisons have met carrying capacities and have exhausted their resources on individuals, many of whom, should not have been afforded the luxury of life to begin with. However, in hindsight, it is factually and numerically lowered priced to keep a death-row inmate alive rather than proceeding with the expected execution: “A death sentence costs at least twice as much, start to finish, than a sentence of life without parole, according to a Maryland study. The Bar Association study pegged the cost here of prosecution, defense and appeals at nearly $800,000 more for a death penalty. Most of that cost is borne by counties. In King County, taxpayers have spent about $10 million on two pending death-penalty cases — and neither have even gone to trial. Smaller counties have been threatened with bankruptcy by the cost of death-penalty cases. The cost of lifetime imprisonment pales in comparison, and ensures the same level of public safety. The Legislature’s fiscal staff estimated that abolishing the death penalty required adding just two prison beds” (Riley et al. 3). Whilst it may be true that keeping an inmate alive
We could always fix problems and say we can, having a plan but no action means no plan. Schlosser explained that some people’s plans are in play, “During the Bush administration, attorney General Richard Thornburgh did try to limit the freedom of federal prosecutors.” (Schlosser, 4) However there was an effort put in, the plan didn’t take action. They even went so far that Congress reacted, “Congress enacted… CCCA to provide… Federal sentencing law…” (N/A, 1-2) Even though Congress has changed laws to fit others, it doesn’t change how innocent people get harsher sentences than expected. Mandatory Minimum sentences needs to be solved but so far it all depends on the action provided not on the person or the position they are in.
During my studies, I learned that many felons were locked up for nonviolent crimes and that the high rate of recidivism turned minor offenders into lifelong inmates. These seminars were very perceptive to me as I learned that I played a large role in the reentry process. I was offered a plethora of statistics that were staggering to listen to at first, but ultimately fueled discussion. The most enlightening moment of my studies was during a seminar about mandatory minimums. I learned that there was racial bias in the justice system through sentencing for drug possession. Although crack and cocaine are chemically similar, the sentence for crack possession is equivalent to possession of one hundred times more cocaine. This is due to the fact