The Pros And Cons Of Alternative Sentencing

Historically speaking, prisons and jails were not meant as a means of punishment, but rather a holding cell to confine the accused until his/her punishment was arranged and administered. As we can see, the modern criminal justice and penal system has evolved considerably from the initial purpose of temporary confinement to a means of removing an offender from society to deliver rehabilitation and structure through confinement so that the offender may integrate back into society as well-functioning law abiding citizen. It appears however, that all too often offenders are sent to prison and forgotten about until their release day, completely by-passing any rehabilitation programs or efforts. This is likely a reason behind the United States of

America’s alarming recidivism rate, which, according to the Bureau of Justice Studies (conclusions drawn from patterns observed through the years 2005-2010) roughly two-thirds of released offenders (67.8%) were arrested within 3 years as a result of committing a new crime, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years for that same reason. This sort of happening brings me to the topic of this research paper, and one that is widely discussed and studied on a global scale: Alternative sentencing programs.

Alternative sentencing programs are best defined as substitutions to the now traditional incarceration of convicted offenders, ranging from community service obligations, rehabilitation/treatment programs, and house arrest among others.

According to an article on wisegeek.com, advocates for alternative sentencing programs believe that these programs provide a cheaper way of dealing with the already overcrowded prison system, and in some cases, the alternative punishment may be more appropriate for offenders convicted of petty crime or first time offenders of non-violent crimes. More blatantly put, “Alternative sentences allow a middle ground and create a continuum of punishments that is responsive to a range of criminality. For this reason, alternative sentences are sometimes referred to as intermediate or middle-range sanctions.” (Czajkowski, 2017) It is because of these reasons in addition to the current population of the U.S. prison system, that we see alternative sentencing programs being used more often than not. With that said, I would like to discuss several different programs that have proven to be successful rehabilitative alternatives to incarceration, these being: court ordered community service, mental-health courts, drug-courts, fines, restitution, and

probation.
Although The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bans slavery and involuntary servitude, it exempts work “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” This brings us to our first alternative sentencing program: court ordered community service. The practice of community-service as a means of punishment has been in play since the ancient romans who used criminals as laborers for tasks such as road construction and city upkeep. Although convicted offenders are not likely to be building roads in today’s society, community service offers offenders a unique perspective of the indirect injuries caused by his/her criminal offense, and the opportunity to repair said damage whilst increasing their own sense of self-worth (Bright, 2003). Completion of court mandated community service is solely based on the completion of required hours imposed by the judge, failure to complete said hours will either result in jail time or fines. As an example of the program’s success, I researched an article from Cumberland, Maryland where a judicial unit manager and 13 year veteran of the force by the name of Chapin Jewell stated that the program is about 89 percent successful with primarily positive reactions from convicted offenders who are placed into the program.
I would like to turn our attention to Barrow Counry, Georgia for our focus on Mental-Health Courts and Drug Courts. For many years substance abusers and the mentally ill were tried and sentenced the same as any other offenders, and because of this, many of them would return to the community after having completed their sentence in a much worse predicament then when they had been initially sentenced. Realizing this, a number of counties in Georgia have begun to promote the alternative sentencing method of mental-court and drug-court rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders suffering from substance abuse and/or mental disorders. As stated by the National Drug Court Resource Center, these courts allow the offenders to remain in society, but require them to report to a judge every week in what is being referred to as ‘accountability court’. These sessions help equip individuals with skills that will enable them to better cope and function in society, and this is done though counseling sessions, programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous, and case management sessions. They must submit regular urinalysis drug tests and adhere to a strict curfew among other stipulations. Seeing that Georgia ranks eighth in the nation in incarceration rates, programs such as this not only promote health and public safety, but reduce costs immensely. (Luton, 2012) Much like court-ordered community service, failure to comply with the program can result in imprisonment.
Fines and Restitution are both a form of alternative sentencing that can be imposed on an offender in itself, in addition to, or as a result of failing a program such as court mandated community service or Alcoholics Anonymous program. Mandated fines are especially popular in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands whose recidivism rates are at an all-time low and imprisonment rates continue to dwindle down. Where the United States uses fines as an accessory penalty in combination with other sanctions, our European counterparts primarily use fines as a stand-alone punishment, one that is based on an offender’s personal income; this is to ensure that the fine has the same sort of impact on offenders who may have committed the same crime, but live under very different circumstances (Subramanian & Shames, 2013). Fines are the primary alternative sentencing method in these countries, and have proven to be very successful in keeping crime rates low. Restitution is much like a fine, but the prescribed monetary amount to be payed is made by the offender directly to the victim as opposed to the court of municipality. Restitution is primarily used as a means of compensating a victim who may have suffered some sort of financial set-back as a result of the crime being committed (i.e. medical expenses as a result of an assault or repair expenses as a result of property damage). Failure to pay restitution to the victim may result in additional fines or time in jail.
Probation is a very common alternative to a prison or jail sentence in which the offender is released back into the community with limited freedom. This type of alternative sentencing program is primarily offered to low-risk and/or first time offenders but is also mandated for offenders released from prison. Exact conditions of probation may vary on a case by case basis as most conditions are at the discretion of both the court and probation officer. Some concrete examples of imposed rules are: house arrest (through the use of an electronic monitoring band), drug testing, participation in a counseling/rehabilitation program, and meeting frequently with the probation officer. Failure to adhere to the imposed probationary rules can result in fines and/or imprisonment.
Although I have discussed merely successes of different alternative sentencing programs, lest we forget the criticisms. Because alternative sentencing programs are primarily discretion based, many people question the equal protection as promised by the constitution; an example of this could be an offender that is forced to pay extensive fines and countless hours of community service, where as another offender is ordered to where a sign and stand on the street corner where he was pulled over for driving under the influence. Others criticism the programs stating that the punishments are not severe enough for convicted offenders and that such programs undermine the court system.
Regardless of which perspective you take on the issue, it is very apparent that alternative sentencing programs have been proven successful in more ways than not, and as one can clearly see, many of the different applicable methods of alternative sentencing are closely inter-woven and used in conjunction with one another to ensure the offender is given every opportunity to rehabilitate and receive the support and treatment he/she needs. Above all else, these programs provide society with a suitable and effective method in which to respond to criminal offenses, provide the courts more sentencing options, save taxpayers money, and strengthens families and communities.