In the novel High Price, Dr. Carl Hart talks about the injustice caused by the war on drugs. He proclaims that the war on drugs causes more problems than the effects of using drugs. The war on drugs is racially discriminatory and punishes Africans Americans as well as other minorities more often and severely than whites. When individuals predominantly African Americans get caught with drugs they are often locked up for a significantly longer period. As a criminal justice major, I know that incarcerating drug related offenders is ineffective and can damage society. Due to the war on drugs, there is a higher than the average incarceration rate, and our prisons and jails are over populated. Instead of detaining these offenders, we should develop …show more content…
Hart talks about educating and training drug offenders instead of incarcerating them; this is a concept of restorative justice. Restorative justice is defined as the healing of the relationship between the offender, victim, and the community. The main goal of restorative justice is to right the wrongs and harms. To do this, the three pillars of restorative justice were created; these pillars are harms and needs, obligations, and engagements. The first pillar harms and needs focus on the harm of the victims and their needs. In drug-related offenses, there is no direct victim, but eventually, society can be affected. Obligations are the second pillar of restorative justice and its purpose is to hold the offender accountable and responsible for the crime committed. The community and society also have obligations in restoring the offender to society. Lastly, there is the third pillar of restorative justice engagement, which is the people who have an interest or stake in the crime. Restorative justice truly does try to balance the concerns for all by adapting the offender back into the community. It accomplishes this by educating, training, and helping the offender. The criminal justice system and restorative justice are truly as different as night and …show more content…
Carl Hart talks about the negative effects of the criminal justice systems and how programs such as restorative justice has a more positive effect. He speaks about data that shows criminal justice is not the best way to deal with these types of offense because they are not trained educators or counselors; they are trained to minimize damage and dole out punishment. On the other hand, officials in restorative justice are trained educators and counselors and our better prepared to help drug offenders. Another negative effect of the criminal justice system is the cost to incarcerate an individual. Putting someone in prison cost a numerous amount of money and restorative justice is by for a cheaper option. Through previous knowledge, I can tell you that the biggest difference between criminal justice and restorative justice is the central focus. Criminal justice focuses on the offender getting what they deserve whereas restorative justice focuses on the victim’s needs and the offender’s responsibility to repair the harm they caused. The criminal justice system can severely harm drug offenders because they are subjected to harden criminals who teach them about other crimes. It also leaves a permanent scratch on the offender’s record and it becomes almost impossible for them to retain a job. An example of the negative effects of the criminal justice system that Dr. Hart gives is with his cousin Louie. Louie had a bad reaction to the drug he was using and
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.
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
Mass Incarceration: The New Jim Crow is the direct consequence of the War on Drugs. That aims to reduce, prevent and eradicate drug use in America through punitive means. The effect of the war on drug policies returned de jure discrimination, denied African Americans justice and undermined the rule of law by altering the criminal justice system in ways that deprive African Americans civil rights and citizenship. In the “New Jim Crow” Alexandra argues that the effects of the drug war policies are not unattended consequences but coordinated by designed to deny African Americans opportunity to gain wealth, be excluded from gaining employment and exercise civil rights through mass incarceration and felony conviction. The war on drugs not only changes the structure of the criminal justice system, it also changes the ways that police officers, prosecutors and judges do their jobs.
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
A growing number of probation officers, judges, prosecutors as well as other juvenile professionals are advocating for a juvenile justice system which is greatly based on restorative justice. These groups of people have been frustrated by the policy uncertainty between retribution and treatment as well as unrealistic and unclear public expectations. As a primary mission, the balanced approach or policy allows juvenile justice systems together with its agencies to improve in their capacity of protecting the community and ensuring accountability of the system and the offenders . It enables the youths to become productive and competent citizens. This guiding philosophical framework for this policy is restorative justice as it promotes the maximum involvement of the community, victim, and the offender in the justice process. Restorative justice also presents a viable alternative to sanctions as well as interventions that are based on traditional or retributive treatment assumptions. In the policy proposal for restorative justice, the balanced approach mission assists juvenile justice system in becoming more responsive to the needs of the community, victims, and the offenders . Therefore, this paper considers how restorative justice reduces referrals of juveniles to criminal and juvenile justice systems and gives a proposal on the implementation of restorative justice in the community together with a number of recommendations. For instance, preliminary research reveals that application of restorative justice in schools significantly reduces school expulsions, suspensions, and referrals to the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice programs are an alternative for zero-tolerance policies for juveniles or youths .
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
When it comes to the topic of war on drugs,most of us will readily agree that the war on drugs is not about the drugs But about the people. Many Politicians and law enforcement will argue that the war on drugs is about our nation's wealth and safety.however they don't see the destruction the war on drugs has caused; The war on drugs has recreated this new system of discrimination among the minority community, individuals and communities are being profiled,their rights as citizen are being seized ,individuals being stripped away from their families. They’re being locked up with no hope to live the American dream in their our country.
Right now in the United States there are over 2 million people incarcerated in the country’s prisons and jails. Out of this population about one-quarter of these inmates have been convicted of a drug offense. With drug offense arrests increasing nationwide and the prison population increasing there is an alternative to incarceration has been used over the past two decades in many cities across the country. This alternative is in the form of local drug courts that are now found in most major cities in the United States. A drug court is a specialized court in which the judge, prosecutor, public defender or private attorney, probation officers, and treatment counselors work together to help chemically dependent offenders obtain needed treatment and rehabilitation in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction and further criminal offenses. Some argue that treatment rather than incarceration is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere. Research however has shown that court ordered treatment is the best option for drug offenders. Treatments through drug court has proven to be less expensive than incarceration and has also been shown to reduce crime and provide a lower relapse and re-arrest rate for offenders that are placed in drug courts as opposed to those that are not.
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.
With the rehabilitative model, correction programs are able to emphasize the provision of treatment programs designed to reform the offender. This model was formed during the 1950s. Typically this model is used to reform an inmate’s perspective and bring emphasis on conforming to norms. Prisons became places of reform where inmates could be rehabilitated and prepared for a return to society. It wasn’t until numerous criminological reports finding no significant treatment effects for prison rehabilitation programs that the rethinking of this ideology changed, leading to the rehabilitative model
When looking at the Criminal Justice system there are so many different elements make up the system to create a whole, it is sometimes hard to grasp every element. Throughout history people and governments alike have tried to figure out cost saving yet efficient strategies to keep offenders from reoffending and out of jail. Restorative justice is one of these elements; created to focus on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. Within the realm of restorative justice there are many different types of procedures and programs from alternate dispute resolution to veteran trauma courts and everything in-between. Not everyone will agree that these specialty courts and procedures
Since the beginning there has been many crimes that have had severe consequences. These crimes are crimes such as rapes, genocide, murder, and aggravated assaults (CITE). The Restorative justice system tries to help individuals that have committed some of these crimes. Some of the Restorative justice system founders are John Braithwaite, Howard Zehr, and Mark Umbret .The Restorative justice system emerged in 1970 (CITE). The Restorative justice system is a response to crime and wrongdoing that emphasizes the repairing of the harm that was created, recognizes the importance of victim, offender, and community involvement, and promote positive future behavior (CITE). Restorative justice is a response to what was considered to be an overly harsh
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and
Pros of the restorative justice system are that it brings parties together in crime. Instead of a short term goal, the restorative justice system takes a long-term approach to reducing crime and violence using different kinds of methods. In restorative justice programs, offenders work with others affected by their criminal actions. Restorative justice promotes instilling positive behaviors in young criminals and teaching long-lasting changes in behavior to prevent future crimes. There also could be negative consequences from the restorative justice system. For restorative justice to work, criminals and their victims must communicate about the crime and its consequences. Since violent crimes often leave victims feeling helpless and vulnerable, encouraging communication can result in increased anxiety and fear. Additionally, communication might breach confidentiality for victims of violent crimes, such as rape and assault, because they must discuss the outcome of the crime and how it has impacted
The link between drug use and crime is not a new one. For more than twenty years, both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have funded many studies to try to better understand the connection. One such study was done in Baltimore on heroin users. This study found high rates of criminality among users during periods of active drug use, and much lower rates during periods of nonuse (Ball et al. 1983, pp.119-142). A large number of people who abuse drugs come into contact with the criminal justice system when they are sent to jail or to other correctional facilities. The criminal justice system is flooded with substance abusers. The need for expanding drug abuse treatment for this group of people was recognized in the Crime Act of 1994, which for the first time provided substantial resources for federal and state jurisdictions. In this paper, I will argue that using therapeutic communities in prisons will reduce the recidivism rates among people who have been released from prison. I am going to use the general theory of crime, which is based on self-control, to help rationalize using federal tax dollars to fund these therapeutic communities in prisons. I feel that if we teach these prisoners some self-control and alternative lifestyles that we can keep them from reentering the prisons once they get out. I am also going to describe some of today’s programs that have proven to be very effective. Gottfredson and Hirschi developed the general theory of crime.