More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of punishment in society
Reason in favor of using alternatives to incarceration
Alternatives to incarceration benefits
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
The strategy Clear and Frost mainly use throughout
…show more content…
the book is explaining the Punishment experiment, considering if it was effective or not, and giving solutions to fix it. Clear and Frost begin to argue their point by explaining that the Punishment Imperative was a part of a grand social experiment. The United States began to experiment with governmental powers to attempt to control an increasing crime rate. Not much planning took place to begin incarcerating masses of people: “This is what makes the Punishment Imperative a particularly insidious social experiment – the goal was never articulated, the full array of consequences was never considered, and the momentum built even as the forces driving the policy shifts diminished” (Clear & Frost 57). Clear and Frost argue that politicians began to take advantage of increased crime to gain popularity since they could then jail more criminals and be seen as a type of hero. They focus slightly on the way the government took advantage of public alarm throughout the nation in order to gain popularity. Clear and Frost continue their argument by fully explaining the growth in prison populations that took place in the 1970s.
Increased tensions during the 1960s in the context of the Civil Rights Movement started to cause an increase in crime, sparking a newfound belief in incarcerating the masses to prevent more crime from occurring. During the 1970s, the likelihood of being incarcerated increased for nearly every citizen, especially low-level offenders. Clear and Frost thoroughly explain that the Punishment Imperative in the 1980s was caused by changes in government “policies and practices associated with the increasingly ubiquitous War on Drugs” (31). Changes in sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and three strikes legislation were though to be initially helpful in decreasing the rate of incarceration, but they proved to do the exact opposite. Policies also regarding reentry into society, access to education, public housing, and child custody for ex-convicts continued to play a major role in the increase in incarceration because newly released convicts had an extremely difficult time reintegrating into society. Clear and Frost continue to argue their point as they reach incapacitation in the 1990s, where they discuss how the government focused generally on increasing the lengths of stay within prisons instead of increasing the amount of people being incarcerated. Clear and Frost use quantitative data to explain the government policy called …show more content…
truth-in-sentencing: “Truth-in-sentencing laws… required that violent offenders serve a substantial portion of their court-imposed sentence (usually 85 percent) before even becoming eligible for parole” (86). Clear and Frost’s strategy of explaining the problem in detail serves a purpose of giving the audience a basis to then choose their personal opinion on the matter at hand. Clear and Frost finish their argument by providing solutions to the Punishment Imperative.
They explain three agendas that they believe will work in fixing the problem of mass incarceration, brought about by the Punishment Imperative. The first solution they offer is to make changes to minimum sentencing, especially for drugs, and to create structured sentencing systems to guide judicial discretion. The next agenda is to reduce the length of stay in prisons through parole, early release, and changes in sentencing strategies. The final agenda that Clear and Frost provide is to reduce recidivism by attempting to make it easier for released convicts to reintegrate into society. This is an effective way of supporting their argument because they are proving that the Punishment Imperative was ineffective and that their solutions will reverse the consequences brought about by
it. Clear and Frost asserted their opinions on the Punishment Imperative in a clear and precise manner. Their explanations were filled with useful information that carried the audience along throughout the book and directly supported their argument. Clear and Frost make a significant point in their book, which can impact the way sociologists and criminologist view mass incarceration. The Punishment Imperative taught the audience that mass incarceration is ultimately a failure and a waste of money spent by the government in an attempt to control crime rates, although it has been observed that crime rates and incarceration are in no way related.
In the 21 first Century, the United States still has an extremely large number of individuals in the penal system. To this day, the American country still contains the highest prison population rate in the world. Although mass incarceration rates are extremely high, decreases in this number have been made. Since the first time since the 1970s, the imprisoned population has declined about 3 percent. This small step seemingly exemplifies how a vast majority of individuals who becoming aware of these issues and performing actions to decrease these numbers. In the Chapter 13 of James Kilgore’s Understanding Mass Incarceration: A People's Guide to the Key Civil Rights Struggle of Our Time, he asserts how individuals who oppose mass incarceration
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
For years now, incarceration has been known to be the center of the nation’s Criminal Justice Center. It’s no secret that over time, the criminal justice center began experiencing problems with facilities being overcrowded, worldwide, which ended up with them having to make alternative decisions to incarceration that prevent violence and strengthen communities. These new options went in to plan to be help better develop sentencing criminal offenders.
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
Davis begins her argument by stating that larger number of people were incarcerated during the nineteen eighties known as the Reagen era and politicians argued that “tuff on crime” stances including certain imprisonments and longer sentences would keep communities free of crime. Sadly this practice had either little or no effect at all on crime rates in neighborhoods.
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’.
As the current prison structures and sentencing process continues to neglect the issues that current offenders have no change will accrue to prevent recidivism. The issue with the current structure of the prison sentencing process is it does not deal with the “why” the individual is an social deviant but only looks at the punishment process to remove the deviant from society. This method does not allow an offender to return back to society without continuing where they left off. As an offender is punished they are sentenced (removal from society) they continue in an isolated environment (prison) after their punishment time is completed and are released back to society they are now an outsider to the rapidly changing social environment. These individuals are returned to society without any coping skills, job training, or transitional training which will prevent them from continuing down th...
Trachtenberg, B. (2009, February). Incarceration policy strikes out: Exploding prison population compromises the U.S. justice system. ABA Journal, 66.
Criminal punishments are ideally set in place to maintain social order. While it is designed to maintain the social order, there is no single vision of who should actually be punished, how the punishments should be given, or the goals of the punishment. Society has always had the challenge of dealing with crime and violence. The world can be viewed as a violent place to live in. Violence is all around us. In today’s society, all a person has to do is turn on their televisions and are able to see the latest murder story for the day. Punishment can be seen in the form of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or
For many years, there have been a huge debate on the ideal of reform versus punishment. Many of these debates consist of the treatment and conditioning of individuals serving time in prison. Should prison facilities be a place solely to derogate freewill and punish prisoners as a design ideology of deterrence? Should prison facilities be design for rehabilitation and conditioning, aim to educate prisoners to integrate back into society.
“The history of correctional thought and practice has been marked by enthusiasm for new approaches, disillusionment with these approaches, and then substitution of yet other tactics”(Clear 59). During the mid 1900s, many changes came about for the system of corrections in America. Once a new idea goes sour, a new one replaces it. Prisons shifted their focus from the punishment of offenders to the rehabilitation of offenders, then to the reentry into society, and back to incarceration. As times and the needs of the criminal justice system changed, new prison models were organized in hopes of lowering the crime rates in America. The three major models of prisons that were developed were the medical, model, the community model, and the crime control model.
Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail? The use of prison as a form of punishment began to become popular in the early 19th century. This was because transportation to colonies had started to decrease; transportation was the removing of an individual, in this case an offender, from its country to another country; usually for a period of seven to ten years and in some cases for ever. During this time prison was now being used as a means for punishment, this was in response to the declining of transportation to colonies. Thus, instead of transporting offenders to other colonies, they were now being locked away behind high walls of the prison.
This paper explores six basic principles of effective punishment in which are most relevant for consideration when using procedures that may function as punishment to change any child's given behavior and if these factors influence whether a given contingency functions as a punisher.