Unfortunately, this topic affects a lot of people, taking away their freedoms. “Among them are… Zondenta McCarter, a sixty six year old woman, a first offender, poor and illiterate, suffering from diabetes, described as naive, trusting and childlike… sentenced to 8 years in prison.” (Schlosser, 4) The author explains that just because she used something once that she’s a dangerous criminal, but if she wasn’t apart of violent crimes she shouldn’t be getting such a harsh sentence. Mark Bennett interviewed some of the criminals, “18 were pill smurfers… single mothers… yet all of them face… sixty to 120 months.” (Bennett, 1-2) None of them were violent crimes, sadly, they get sentences that not only affect them but their families and the world.
Many different states have begun sending nonviolent drug offenders to various kinds of drug treatment program the state offers. By doing this, it has significantly reduced the problems with overcrowding. If an individual is arrested and charged with simple possession of a drug and no other crime is being commented, then this person is doing no harm to anyone else. They should be given the opportunity to try and make a change in their life and beat the addiction. Instead, if this person is thrown into jail, they are still going to be an addict with a criminal record now and will not be able to be a contributing member of society. (Everett 1 ).
The United States has the world's highest incarceration rate. With five percent of the world's population, our country houses nearly twenty-five percent of the world's reported prisoners. Currently there are approximately two million people in American prisons or jails. Since 1984 the prison population for drug offenders has risen from ten percent to now over thirty percent of the total prison population. Federal prisons were estimated to hold 179,204 sentenced inmates in 2007; 95,446 for drug offenses. State prisons held a total of 1,296,700 inmates in 2005; 253,300 for drug offenses. Sixty percent of the drug offenders in prisons are nonviolent and were purely in prison because of drug offenses (Drug War Facts). The question then arises,
The incarceration rate in America is high. In fact, the highest in the world (Zuckerman, 2014). But should it be? According to Bibas (2015), “Though America is home to only about one-twentieth of the world’s population, we house almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.” (para. 1). America, it seems, in its ‘War on Drugs’, has been incarcerating criminals, even non-violent drug offenders, at a high rate. As more offenders are being incarcerated, more stories are being written, including horror stories about what goes on behind prison walls. Considering the nature of some of the crimes committed by inmates, and being mixed in with the violent criminals, non-violent offenders have no place in this hell. Because of overcrowding, abuse of the inmates, and the lack
The War on Drugs is one cause for the mass incarceration that has become apparent within the United States. This refers to a drastic amount of people being imprisoned for mainly non-violent crime (“Mass Incarceration” 2016). In addition to people who are not an immediate threat to society being locked up for a substantial duration of time, the economic consequences are costing states and taxpayers millions of dollars. Specifically, every one in five people incarcerated is in prison due to some
In the documentary ‘Incarcerating US’ they discussed the issue of how the growth of incarceration is becoming extremely ridiculous. It introduced several issues with the system along with a few concepts to resolve the criminal justice system. For the US to be only 5% of the population, but have 25% of the incarceration rate, the US has the largest prison population. Throughout the documentary they allowed inmates to share their personal experiences/stories about what decision they made to make them receive time in prison. In the movie it discussed the war on drugs that was once considered to be the major issue. Instead of going against the issue head on it was decided that it would be better to attack those that are using the drug. There is
Tougher sentencing is not likely to reduce illegal drug use or serious crime associated with drugs (Alexander, 2010; Mauer, 2009; Whitford & Yates, 2009). Despite that, politicians and law enforcement personnel continue to advocate for stronger sentences for those who take or sell drugs of any kind. The jails and prisons across the United States are filling up with drug offenders, and some believe that there are better uses for those jail cells and that there are many crimes that are more severe and significant. These are the crimes that should be provided with tougher sentencing guidelines, but yet illegal drug use is still a serious crime and should not go unpunished. What should be done, and how should changes be made? Those are tough questions that have to be explored and that do not have any easy answers for those who make the laws and those who enforce them. Drug incarceration has been on the rise, with mixed results. According to King (2008), "overall, between 1980 and 2003, the number of drug offenders in prison or jail increased by 1100% from 41,100 in 1980 to 493,800 in 2003, with a remarkable rise in arrests concentrated in African American communities."
The United States incarcerates more people, per capita, than any other nation in the entire world. State and local prisons and jails account for about 80% of incarcerations. Although crime rates have decreased since the 1990s, incarceration rates have soared. According to a recent Prison Policy Initiative publication, approximately 2.3 million people are currently “locked up” in the United States. Of these 2.3 million people, 1 in 5 are locked up for a drug related offense. Statistics show that prisoners and felons imprisoned for drug related crimes are disproportionately Black and Hispanic. The mass incarceration issue in the United States derives from the many arrests associated with these “offenses” regarding drugs and the war on drugs.
In the United States, we have a culture that accepts the use of some substances over others, regardless of the negative affects of the “acceptable” drugs. For instance, it is socially acceptable to drink alcohol, eat sugar, and, while no longer as in vogue, smoke cigarettes. From a public health standpoint, these substances are also dangerous and can have debilitating affects on both children and adults. What is more, while narcotics use during pregnancy can lead to NAS at birth, there has been no conclusive evidence of lasting negative effects across the lifespan (Goldensohn & Levy, 2014; Miller, 2015). However, the use of other substances, such as alcohol, can be devastating and carry much more risk, leading some reporters to believe that the law has more to do with the people using these substances than the substances themselves (Todd, 2014). In any case, the punishment of mothers who suffer from addiction when they should be receiving support and treatment is a large moral failing on the part of policymakers. Arguments around whether the woman should be held responsible for her addiction overlook possible systemic barriers that led to her substance use as well as the fact that drug addiction is a treatable illness (Todd, 2014). In creating and invoking this law, policymakers are essentially turning their backs on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, expectant mothers, and using their resulting arrests as evidence of corrupt principles, deserving of punishment and
There are too many people in prison in our country and any people in prison today are non-violent drug offenders. The American war on drugs has targeted people in poverty and minorities, who are more likely to be involved in drug use. This has created a pattern of crime and incarceration and “...[a] connection between increased prison rates and lower crime is tenuous and small.” (Wyler). The prison system in our country today focuses on punishment for the inmates rather than rehabilitation for life after their release.
The slogan ?Three Strikes You're Out? was for a toughening stand on crime endorsed by the federal government in the '1980's. Historically speaking, this rhetoric stood as the ideology behind the War on Drugs as a logical and necessary response to a rise in drug crime and the emergence of crack cocaine in inner city communities (Alexander, 2011). The problem to be identified for the purposes of this report was the lack of an actual rise on crime. Nonetheless, the results were an increase in drug convictions. Those
The War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration have been two very well-known topics of society. While these have taken place during the Cold War, there is still a continuance in them today. The impact that has been left on society from these issues have stuck around, while mass incarceration is still of talk today.
Prominent among them is the reduction of the prison sentences for nonviolent and low-level drug crimes. However, this is not enough. “Even if we released everyone imprisoned for drugs tomorrow, the united states would still have 1.7 million people behind bars.” That massive statistic comes as a great shock to readers, as they only now realize the true urgency of the issue. The authors acknowledge that “half the people in state prisons are there for a violent crime.” However, “not all individuals convicted for a violent crime are alike.” They are convicted for different levels of violence: some are mass murderers or serial killers, while others are “battered spouses who struck back at their abusers.” Mauer and Cole also refer to studies that found that longer sentences are not better deterrents, as most serious offenses were committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The authors call for acknowledgement that excessively long sentences are merely a waste of money and totally
Critics argue that legalization of certain drugs will not end the drug war and that instead, it will cause more violence and issues for the county’s well being. In the mid-1980’s the cocaine epidemic hit and a large amount of crime, deaths from overdoses and violence came with it. The result of this was laws being placed with minimum punishment for drug trafficking to attempt to control the issue. Throughout the early 1990s crime started to slowly decrease and in 2013 the amount of crime was reduced in half. One viewpoint is that once the title of being non-violent labeled drug traffickers crime started to rise anew. Some crimes included murders of innocent bystanders and more drug flow into the U.S (Cook1). William J. Bennett and John P. Walters, Boston Globe writers, complicate matters further when they write “For 25 years before President Obama, U.S policy confronted drug
When I think of the Three Strikes Law, and how it has been in place for more than 40 years, I understand the tradition it carries with it, the “why fix what is not broken” attitude (Sutton 1). However, what may not be completely broken still needs a major renovation, especially when it comes to non-person felonies, specifically drug related crimes. Drug related crimes, still a part of the Three Strikes Law in many states come with a multitude of issues, yet I believe offering some sort of treatment option will prevent excess costs that follow the Three Strikes Law, and perhaps even prevent further crimes from happening. In order to present the best case, I will discuss the effects of safety, and costs involved with the Three Strikes Law.
Meanwhile, “the number of incarcerated adult women has jumped by a shocking 757% since 1977, at nearly twice the rate of male prisoners” (Harrison & Beck, 2006). “The number of women in prisons and jails has reached a milestone,” explains Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy for the Sentencing project in Washington, DC. One of the main reasons why women are being locked up at an alarming rate is a result of a policy of mass incarceration. “Mass incarceration is a rate of incarceration so high that it affects not only the individual offender, but also whole social groups.” (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2011) Pursuing further, another main reason of the increase of incarceration of women are the sentencing policies brought about by the “war on drugs.”