ESSAY 3 Perhaps the most common argument against mass incarceration is the cost. Weisberg and Petersilia explain a “cost-benefit” rationality surrounding mass incarceration. The public still wants to incapacitate and punish violent offenders, but are becoming more lenient towards non-violent drug offenders. This is because the societal cost to imprison non-violent offenders has reached a threshold that is no longer fully tolerated. This is due to the actual cost of the current prison system to taxpayers, the socioeconomic costs and socially stratifying effects of imprisonment, and the collateral costs of imprisonment on the country as a whole. However, in implementation knee jerk reactions that cut costs often undermine programs that are designed
Because having a felony record makes participation in prosocial society so difficult, it is unsurprising that released felons often recidivate. Having a record is often used to disqualify candidates from employment, prevents felons from receiving welfare benefits such as food stamps, and disqualifies one from living in public housing. On top of this, there are often large fees and fines to pay as part of one’s punishment. Thus, in order to make ends meet released offenders return to the criminal underworld where they have connections and prior records of financial success. The issue with the implementation of programs to address this, such as education and job skills training for felons, are that they are expensive in an already over-budget
This type of program would help offenders successfully reintegrate into their communities, as well as fostering prosocial bonds in legitimate society. It would also help felons to make ends meet and to pay the fines and fees that are owed as part of their punishment, preventing the financial incentive to recidivate. This is a way to engage the community as a part of corrections without unduly burdening them, as business owners would be compensated financially for their part in the process of
Land of the Unfree: Mass Incarceration and Its Unjust Effects on Those Subjected To It and American Taxpayers
Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion of the retributive criminal justice system, rather than its abolishment. The current criminal justice system is expensive to maintain. In North America, the cost to house one prisoner is upwards of eighty to two hundred dollars a day (Morris, 2000). The bulk of this is devoted to paying guards and security (Morris, 2000).
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
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.
Mass incarceration has put a large eye-sore of a target on the United States’ back. It is hurting our economy and putting us into more debt. It has considerable social consequences on children and ex-felons. Many of these incarcerations can be due to the “War on Drugs”. We should contract the use of incarceration.
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
According to the Oxford Index, “whether called mass incarceration, mass imprisonment, the prison boom, or hyper incarceration, this phenomenon refers to the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment and by the concentration of imprisonment among young, African American men living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.” It should be noted that there is much ambiguity in the scholarly definition of the newly controversial social welfare issue as well as a specific determination in regards to the causes and consequences to American society. While some pro arguments cry act as a crime prevention technique, especially in the scope of the “war on drugs’.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
The “Tough on Crime” and “War on Drugs” policies of the 1970s – 1980s have caused an over populated prison system where incarceration is policy and assistance for prevention was placed on the back burner. As of 2005, a little fewer than 2,000 prisoners are being released every day. These individuals have not gone through treatment or been properly assisted in reentering society. This has caused individuals to reenter the prison system after only a year of being release and this problem will not go away, but will get worst if current thinking does not change. This change must be bigger than putting in place some under funded programs that do not provide support. As the current cost of incarceration is around $30,000 a year per inmate, change to the system/procedure must prevent recidivism and the current problem of over-crowed prisons.
Rather than removing the ubiquitous box, J.Rotondo (2014) suggests that there should be two alternative approaches. One is to expand the number and types of offenses, such as non-violent crime that can be sealed by the criminal justice system, while the second one is to invest and create a job placement firm exclusively for felonies upon serving their full sentences. By implementing these two alternative options, it is felt that the recidivism of those can be avoided much greater, and that the amount of time invested into hiring those will be less, as well as associated cost
The programs are designed to help address their problems; anger and addiction. This is the initial step of preparing inmates to succeed when they are released. Once an inmate is released from prison there should be resources available as part of their “transition” back to society. The resources should be financial, emotional, and focused on job training. The goal should be to help prevent prisoners released from prison from returning to prison. “Most ex-felons say that their greatest desire ...is to be released and given a fair chance to succeed in America. When businesses close their doors to ex-felons refuse to allow ex-felons a chance to work..”
The second step is commitment. An ex-felon needs to be committed to conformity. A person is committed to conformity by having something to lose. Also known as “stakes in conformity.” For example, a better future that can be helped by having a higher education, increased freedom by staying out of jail/prison, and the ability to have a normal life, are all examples of stakes in conformity. Social Bonds Theory states that people are pro-social because the person has something to lose. Society does a lot to push people away from conformity because society destroys most ex-felons previous stakes in conformity such as causing divorces, people to lose their jobs, their homes, most of their stuff, and anything that tied the ex-felon to the community. By providing an opportunity to achieve a college degree and gain a higher paying job society gives ex-felons something to lose as well as the opportunity to gain back what was previously lost. Under the current system, most likely the only thing an ex-felon will lose if the ex-felon is rearrested is their freedom. That loss of freedom is little deterrent if that is the only stake an ex-felon has. In fact, for some ex-felons their loss of freedom is a relief as incarceration brings them a sense of family and conformity. Society can increase the number of stakes a person has by giving that person something to lose. An opportunity for a
An issue is defined as an important topic that is up for debate or discussion. My issue discussed the alternative energy debate, and whether or not the United States should switch from traditional fossil fuels to alternative sources, remain using fossil fuels, or combine both sources for efficiency. I was able to begin connecting with Austin Heineman’s topic, which was over mass incarceration and its effects on society. Mass incarceration is defined as a large number of people in jails and prisons across the United States. Along with these presented issues, I inaugurated connecting points to Hannah Singer’s topic, vaccines in children. This presenter provided multiple statistics and weighed the costs of vaccinating children. Furthermore, I
To support reintegration, correctional workers are to serve as advocates for offenders in dealing with government agencies assisting with employment counseling services, medical treatment, and financial assistance. They argued that corrections focal point should be increasing opportunities for the offenders, to become law abiding citizens and on providing psychological treatment. This model of corrections advocates avoiding imprisonment if possible for the offender and also in favor of probation, therefore offenders can obtain an education and vocational training that would help their adjustment in the community. In the community model corrections advocated for inmates incarcerated to spend very limited time in prison before been granted parole.
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.