Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages to alternatives to incarceration
Prison overcrowding and its effects
Prison overcrowding and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages to alternatives to incarceration
Nonviolent Drug Offenders Nonviolent drug offenders should not be given mandatory jail sentences because the prisons don’t have the room, it already costs a lot of money to run the prisons, and by them putting the offenders into prison they are taking a parent away from a child who may need them the most. Drugs are illegal and yes most people involved with them are or become dangerous. Those are the types of offenders that should be thrown into prison especially if they are the type that harm our Law Enforcement. But if the offenders are nonviolent there is no need to lock them up when we can’t even afford to. They could get some other type of punishment for getting involved in the illegal activity. It is becoming a problem for prisons to receive more of the dangerous inmates because there is already a limited amount of food, they are having some overcrowding issues, and the cells in the prisons are smaller than the average bedroom. “There are about 2.3 million people incarcerated and about half of them for nonviolent crimes” (Taylor 1). There are over a million inmates in a prison, and these inmates have to stay in a very small cell and sometimes have to share with one or two more of the other inmates. Drugs are illegal and by selling or using them is breaking the law, but …show more content…
Prisons are already overcrowded and by putting them into the prison, they are going to take up space, space that the prisons don’t have and taking away an opportunity to lock up and actual criminal. If we were to take out all of the nonviolent offenders, we could save so much more money, $95 dollars a day just for one inmate. By not putting them into prison, we are not going to be taking a parent away from their child. Children need their parents, regardless of the choices and mistakes that parents make. Therefore nonviolent drug offenders should not be hiven mandatory jail
Within our society, there is a gleaming stigma against the drug addicted. We have been taught to believe that if someone uses drugs and commits a crime they should be locked away and shunned for their lifetime. Their past continues to haunt them, even if they have changed their old addictive ways. Everyone deserves a second chance at life, so why do we outcast someone who struggles with this horrible disease? Drug addiction and crime can destroy lives and rip apart families. Drug courts give individuals an opportunity to repair the wreckage of their past and mend what was once lost. Throughout this paper, I will demonstrate why drug courts are more beneficial to an addict than lengthy prison sentences.
Community corrections have more advantages over incarceration and fewer disadvantages. Incarcerating people isn’t working that well and the biggest reason is the overcrowding of prisons. According to a chart in Schmalleger’s book, “prisoners compared vs. capacity” there has been overcrowding of prisons since 1980. We are putting more people in prisons than how much capacity they can actually hold. Not only has the prison population skyrocketed but it also costs a lot of money to house all of those people. Why should we send people to jail if they are convicted of a nonviolent crime when we could put them on probation so we don’t overfill prisons? 49% of convicted inmates committed a nonviolent crime. (Class 12/7/09) If we were to put nonviolent offenders on probation then that would make a lot of room for violent offenders.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
I believe that instead of incarcerating them they should be put in facilities that will help them get treatment for their disabilities, disorders, and drug addictions. If they are being rehabilitated the right way it will help prevent further crimes and also will help the offender go back into society and live a crime free lifestyle. For Christel Tribble being locked up actually helped her out to realize that she doesn’t want to be a delinquent. She was motivated by her mother to continue her education and to realize that it’s not worth being in the court system at such a young age because it will be a never ending cycle. For Keith Huff, he went to Kentucky State prison five times serving a total of 27 years in the criminal justice system. He was incarcerated for drug problems, which in the long run won’t help him. It would be more beneficial for him to receive help to prevent him from using drugs. If they sent him to a rehabilitation center where he can receive the appropriate help he need it would prevent him from future imprisonment. As for Charles McDuffie he was an addict and a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD. He was sentenced to prison, which was no help for him in his situation dealing with PTSD. He needed mental health treatment to help him deal with the tragedies that he was remembering from the Vietnam War. Luckily when McDuffie got out of prison his friends, who
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
Currently there are 80,000 drug offenders in federal prison, making up a little over 60 percent of the prisons’ population (Stewart 113-114). 94 percent of the drug offenders were sentenced under one of the four mandatory minimum statutes passed by Congress between 1984 and 1990 in an attempt to reduce drug use in the United States. Even further, it was in 1998 that “57 percent of drug defendants entering federal prison were first offenders, and 88 percent of them had no weapons.” On average, these 80,000 prisoners are sentenced to approximately 6 and ½ years in prison (Stewart 113-114). And it is due to the prohibition of mitigating circumstances that leads to these situations. The United States’ prisons are overcrowded. New York Times reported that despite the United States only is home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the country provides approximately one quarter of the world’s prisoners (Liptak). Yet some will insist that Todd must have been guilty in someway or another, or maybe he was simply an innocent who fell through the inevitable cracks in the system. On the contrary, that is the exact problem with mandatory sentencing, it’s setup allows people to not only slip through cracks, but to land face first and watch their life
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.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
One staggering number that comes up when researching mandatory minimums is the percentage of people in federal prison for drug offences now, versus before mandatory minimums for drug offences were put in place. It is reported that as of now sixty percent of the federal prison population is made up of drug defendants (prisonpolicy.org), this is twenty two percent higher than it was before mandatory minimums. Note, this only reflects a growth in inmate population, not a reduction in crime or drug use. Another number relating to the results of mandatory minimums is the amount of people in jail who desperately need help. “Some 80 percent of the men and women behind bars – some 1.4 million individuals – are seriously involved with drug and alcohol abuse.”(prisonpolicy.org). This is a sad statistic, especially considering that substance and alcohol abuse are now regarded as mental illness. It seems that instead of incarcerating these low level criminals we should help them. The cost of keeping these people in prison is not cheap either. The Vera Institute of Justice reported that forty states spent thirty nine billion dollars in one year on prisons and prisoners, a yearly average of $31,286 per prisoner (Vera.org). This is a huge amount of money being used to incarcerate people who haven’t even been involved in violent crimes. In several graphs posted
When it comes to criminal justice there are several other options to punish someone rather than incarceration, any of these options can be used in place of incarcerating someone based on the individual needs. Does the person who drinks habitually need to go to jail for their fifth DUI, or do they need alcoholism classes? At the same time sometimes incarceration is the only option. Incarceration is a very costly process, and leaves the person who is incarcerated “institutionalized” where all they know is the system, and do not know how to survive outside of it. It is all a cost versus benefit battle.
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.
Drug violators are a major cause of extreme overcrowding in US prisons. In 1992, 59,000 inmates were added to make a record setting 833,600 inmates nationwide (Rosenthal 1996). A high percentage of these prisoners were serving time because of drug related incid...
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.
Suffering from an addiction is punishment enough, sending drug addicts to jail is not the solution. Addicts are suffering already by not having a place to stay. Most of the time addicts do not remember where their family is located at and they need help to get better.That is why I am saying that addicts should go to rehab instead of prison.
Some people argue that non-violent criminals shouldn’t be incarcerated because it’s such a huge financial drain on society. Well in my opinion a non-violent criminal is still a criminal; the only difference is they weren’t violent at that particular time. Many crimes have been committed without any physical abuse. Who’s to say the next time they decide to break the law they won’t become violent or a threat to someone. Furthermore, I believe if you do the crime, you have to do the time.