More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of overcrowding prisons
The effects of overcrowding prisons
Crime as a social and political issue
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Punishment of Offenders
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
... middle of paper ...
... or appointed to their positions because of our supposed confidence in their impartial views when it comes to dispensing justice. However, the trend in the past few years has been for legislatures to minimize the discretion given to judges at sentencing, partly in an attempt to treat similar defendants more similarly and to avoid the effect of rogue judges. These policies have effectively taken some of the important discretion away from the very people who are supposed to be the most intimately involved in our due process. Legislators are too far removed from this process to be mandating broad strokes of punishment without considering each and every case on its merits. If we want to improve our criminal justice system and develop a long-term strategy for addressing the overcrowding in our prisons, then both "3 Strikes Laws" and Mandatory Minimums must be changed.
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
Since the 1980s, the federal prison population of the US has grown from 24,640 to 214,149 (Population Statistics 1). This figure may appear miniscule given the fact that there are over 300 million people residing within the United States. However, this is just one figure of many; currently, the United States holds the largest prison population total out of any country at 2,217,000 (Prison Population Total 1). This major increase in incarceration is not the product of a higher crime rate, but due to the creation of sentencing guidelines that followed the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. These guidelines require that certain federal and state crimes result in a set minimum of years in prison. The minimum sentencing guidelines
Throughout history, it has become very clear that the tough on crime model just does not work. As stated by Drago & Galbiati et al. In their article: Prison Conditions and Recidivism, although it is...
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
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...
Doubt is also cast upon the system because some conditions of parole violated constitutional rights; “…the Conservatives abolished the requirement for the Parole Board of Canada to hold an oral hearing following the suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release.” (The Globe and Mail, 2016). This leads to questioning of the fairness of the criminal justice system as whole. This message is implied by Jim Bronskill’s article titled Liberals eye exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences on the Globe and Mail website as well as Kathleen Harris’ article titled Supreme Court strikes down 2 Conservative sentencing reforms on CBC’s website. These two articles discuss the same case of mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses being stuck down by the supreme court of Canada. Both frame the situation in a way that promotes the Liberal perspective. Advocating for the use of parole to its fullest abilities and removing mandatory minimum sentences not just in the context of the drug cases that were specified, but in general. In juxtaposition to that concept the conservatives believe these mandatory minimums “…send a stern warning that some crimes carry stiff penalties.” (Bronskill, 2016). In spite of that, the Liberals recognize that deterrence is
There are better ways to punish criminals and protect society than mass incarceration. The state and local governments should be tough on crime, but “in ways that emphasize personal responsibility, promote rehabilitation and treatment, and allow for the provision of victim restitution where applicable” (Alec, 2014). The government also succeeds in overseeing punishment but fails to “…take into account the needs of offenders, victims, and their communities.” (Morris, 2002: Pg. 1 and 2). Alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing circles, victim offender mediation, and family conferences, can successfully hold criminals responsible while allowing them a chance to get “back on their feet”. Research has proven that rehabilitation has lowered the rate of re-offenders, reducing the crime rate, protecting communities and also saves a lot of
It is said that prison should be used for more serious crimes such as rape, assault, homicide and robbery (David, 2006). Because the U.S. Prison is used heavily for punishment and prevention of crime, correctional systems in the U.S. tend to be overcrowded (David, 2006). Even though prisons in the U.S. Are used for privies on of crime it doesn 't work. In a 2002 federal study, 67% of inmates that
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.
One of the many problems with the criminal justice system is the issue of mandatory sentencing. A mandatory sentence is when people convicted of certain crimes are punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing especially applies to crimes related to drugs, thus criminals who have gone to prison for rape and other violent crimes, often serve less time then drug dealers because of these mandatory laws. Many politicians view this as unfair because these harsh laws on drugs are not fixing the problem, rather they are costing tax payers millions of dollars and overpopulating prisons. To fix the problem law enforcers must convict and sentence the drug lords, rather they are harshly punishing addicts and “drug
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative party, who use their control to decide on the type of criminal punishment. The sentencing guidelines for the judges to go by can be different depending on the jurisdiction and can include different sentencing such as “diversionary programs, fines, probation, intermediate sanctions, confinement in jail, incarceration in a state or federal prison, and the death penalty” (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). In some jurisdictions the death penalty is not included as one of the punishments. Being sentenced is step one of the correction process and is in place to discourage repeat offenders (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). Depending on the crime committed the offender can be sentenced to a consecutive sentence or a concurrent sentence. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the judge can give the offender a concurrent sentence where both charges are served at the same time. If an offender is charged for committing more than one crime the offender can be giving a sentenced where he has to serve time for each crime one after the other (Siegel & Worrall, 2013, p. 210). Once the offender has been sentenced from there you will be able to determine if the sentence is indeterminate or determinate.
With the substantial increase in prison population and various changes that plague correctional institutions, government agencies are finding that what was once considered a difficult task to provide educational programs, inmate security and rehabilitation programs are now impossible to accomplish. From state to state, each correctional organization is coupled with financial problems that have depleted the resources to assist in providing the quality of care in which the judicial system demands from these state and federal prisons. Judges, victims, and prosecuting attorneys entrust that once an offender is turned over to the correctional system, that the offender will receive the punishment imposed by the court, be given services that aid in the rehabilitation of those offenders that one day will be released back into society, and to act as a deterrent to other criminals contemplating criminal acts that could result in their incarceration. Has our nation’s correctional system finally reached it’s critical collapse, and as a result placed American citizens in harm’s way to what could result in a plethora of early releases of inmates to reduce the large prison populations in which independent facilities are no longer able to manage? Could these problems ultimately result in a drastic increase in person and property crimes in which even our own law enforcement is ineffective in controlling these colossal increases in crime against society?
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.