Elective Sentencing Case Study

According to statistical data found in the Bureau for Justice Records, there are a number of problems that most prisons in the country face. The records indicate that the number of adult federal and state inmates increased from `139% in `1980 to 260% (Walker, 1999). As a natural default, the United States of America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. This in itself brings about one of the major problems that are faced in modern incarceration which is overcrowding in most prison facilities. The number of offenders in the country has increased rapidly over time while the country prison system has not really been able to cope with this rapid increase. Prisons intended for one or two inmates are now crowded with more than fifty individuals. Because of this most prisons are overcrowded and most of the facilities available are unable to cater for the needs of all the prisoners (Siegel, 2009).

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means

In prisons today, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are all elements that provide a justice to society. Prisons effectively do their part in seeing that one if not more of these elements are met and successfully done. If it were not for these elements, than what would a prison be good for? It is highly debated upon whether or not these elements are done properly. It is a fact that these are and a fact that throughout the remainder of time these will be a successful part of prison life.

The federal prison system has become an increasingly populated place. With an approximate 91% conviction rate in the federal criminal system,1 with 97% of all cases entering a plea of guilty prior to trial,2 and over 90% of those convictions resulting in a sentence of incarceration,3 imprisonments are a nearly unavoidable part of a criminal defendant ‘s experience in the federal system. According to statistics by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the law enforcement agency responsible

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

Inmates must be able to make rational choices instead of choosing to commit crimes. Inmates currently do not possess the ability to examine the various options available and then weight the potential consequences for each decision. Individuals often make decisions that have the highest pleasure reward with immediate satisfaction without bearing in mind the negative consequences they will incur. By creating an environment conducive to better decision making a prisoner will be conditioned to respond more favorably to options given. The prison environment is one where any actions not designated as legal will be

A recently released study indicates that the state of New Jersey is currently incarcerating 31% less people than its peak prison population.

In 1973, New York State passed the first harshest statewide anti-drug law in the country. Named after New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Drug laws required a mandatory lengthy prison sentences for all felony-level drug and possession offenses. The intent of lengthy prison sentence was meant to deter drug abuse and drug crimes. Between 1970s and 2000s, the Prison population tripled from 11 percent (12,579) in 1973 to almost 35 percent (70,154) in 2008 (DCJS, 2011; Feinblatt, Berman & Foxx, 2000). The overcrowding of prison in response to drug-related crime created a new opportunity for reformers to find alternative ways in treating drug offenders instead of placing them in prison. As drug courts began to grow exponentially during the 1990s, advocacy groups led the charge in coordinating efforts to lobby efforts in reforming the Rockefeller sentencing. In 2009, under Governor Paterson, the State legislature enacted legislation that shifted away from mass incarceration towards a public health model.

These types’ of sentences are considered a more severe punishment as they require the offenders to loose their liberty of freedom as they serve jail or prison time. The desired outcome of these sentences are that the offender will spend the duration of the sentence participation in correctional programs with the anticipation that upon release they have become law abiding citizens who can be a functioning member of society. The loss of liberty due to imprisonment impacts offenders and proves to them that unlawful actions have severe consequences. However, this is not always the case as there are many repeat offenders. In these cases, incarceration is benefits society by thwarting repeat offenders from committing additional crimes while serving ether a determinate and indeterminate

Alternative sentencing has always been a consent debate due to the rise of corporation run prisons; many agencies argue that with our current prison system is void of human rights, promotes detrimental social impacts and the cost of imprisonment. Since the 1970's offering parole and probation options as an alternative helped reduce prison overcrowding. Lawmakers needed to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders and enforce alternative correction programs, that would provide local courts, state departments of corrections, and state parole boards with a broad range of correctional options for offenders. When lawmakers discussed alternatives to incarceration they noted that there was a need to achieve the following goals rehabilitation,

Guilty. One word which in many cases can cost someone, his or her life. As the crime was committed there are multiple factors, which the defendant did not take into consideration when committing the crime, such as the victim, the laws and the punishment. When it comes down to it, in many cases sentencing is through, a jury, plea, or the defendant pleading guilty. Throughout the following essay we will be describing a little more about the sentencing process, how judges determine an appropriate sentence and different types of punishments an offender may receive.

The fundamentals of court administration did not until the middle 1900s, which was “decades after police administration and even centuries after corrections” (Cronkhite, 2013, p. 124). The courts were not as complex and did not appear to need specific administrators until they had to “conform to social, political, and economic trends” (Cronkhite, 2013, p.124). Sentencing remained simple until the courts had to “focus on probation, parole, and indeterminate sentences during the Community-Based Era of the 1970s and determinate, mandatory, and three strikes and you’re out during the Just Deserts Era of the 1990s to the present” (Cronkhite, 2013, p.125). These complex trends require even more duties of court administrators and many colleges

Cullen and Gendreau (2000). give us some history on the restorative incarceration. The original theory of restorative justice was based on simple human behavior regulated by incentive instead of punishment, which instituted the concept of parole as a means of reward for a prisoner for rehabilitation. Further studies in criminology proved that this idea was too simplistic and married it to the positivist theory of criminology and instituted individual assessment and treatment for each prisoner based on their specific needs for reformation.