Should The Prison Building A Reduced Maximum Nonviolent Criminals?

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

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.

As of 2015, 2.7% of adults in the United States were under correctional control, the lowest rate since 1994, however that is still roughly 6.7 million adults (Kaeble & Glaze, 2016). While the correctional population has declined, correctional facilities in the United States are still grossly overcrowded, with many facilities at or surpassing capacity. A report in 2010 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation showed that on average, facilities were at 175% capacity (Brown, 2010). However, as of midnight on October 31st, 2017 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that their facilities, on average, were 132% occupied (Brown, 2017). Not only is prison overcrowding a burden on the facilities themselves, but also on the inmates. Prison overcrowding, that is, housing more inmates than the facility can humanely facilitate (Haney, 2006), places a strain on all resources throughout the correctional facility, including on the healthcare that’s offered, educational programs, and most dramatically on the physical space available to house inmates (Ekland-Olson, 1983).

In any given year now, incarceration rates has tripled with approximately 13 million people introduced to American jails in any given year. This increase in the prison population far outpaced the crime rate and the US population growth. Today, America has around 5% of the world’s population but a quarter of the world’s prison population.

The current crime and incarceration trends have declined since early 1990s, which in part is due to the current reforms that takes place within the criminal justice system, such as early release dates for drug charges and non-violent crimes (Mauer, 2011). The incarceration rates in the United States are “three to four times that of other industrialized nations,” and the punishment scale is viewed as “out of proportion to that of other industrialized nation” (Mauer, 2011).

The United States has a larger percent of its population incarcerated than any other country. America is responsible for a quarter of the world’s inmates, and its incarceration rate is growing exponentially. The expense generated by these overcrowded prisons cost the country a substantial amount of money every year. While people are incarcerated for a number of reasons, the country’s prisons are focused on punishment rather than reform, and the result is a misguided system that fails to rehabilitate criminals or discourage crime. The ineffectiveness of the United States’ criminal justice system is caused by mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, racial profiling, and a high rate of recidivism.

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

Prisons are expensive facilities to operate. Each year, California prisons house more than 100,000 inmates (Graves, “Fewer State Prisoners, Higher Cost Per Inmate”). While the number of inmates has been steadily decreasing, spending per inmate has skyrocketed to about $60,000 from $33,000 in 1995 (Dean, “CA Spending Per Inmate Rising Faster Than Spending Per Child”). That is about six billion dollars spent on prisoners alone. The government is wasting more and more taxpayer money on keeping inmates inside the prisons. With about 58% of ex-convicts returning to prison within

One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections by the PEW Center offers interesting insight into the system beyond the containment of offenders inside prison walls. For quite a long time, especially after reading Punished by Victor Rios in Professor Morton’s seminar course, my views on probation and parole systems were of a negative light. I read stories of the young boys constantly targeted by police, picked up for small offenses and then immediately on probation and looped directly into the cycle; there was also no respect for the authority, by the boys, of the probation or parole system because of it’s lack of timely response to offenses and control. As a fresh perspective, the article altered my point of a view – it cited specific examples of states that have launched programs to go with community corrections over prison as a first choice and the results are seemingly positive, both in terms of crime reduction and cost benefit. Overall, I really liked this article – and I agreed with the argument which they backed up with cost and population numbers displaying the benefits of community correction versus prison, if implemented correctly. With a focus on helping those on probation and parole, and doling out money for those branches and not just prisons we are putting ourselves on the path to success – one of safety and better budgets.

Few, such as Webb, are courageous enough to describe the United States prison system as “flawed” in its approach for targeting, punishing and releasing individuals identified as criminals. Truthfully, our current prison system unfairly incarcerates people who do not belong in jail and does an inefficient job at protecting its citizens from violent criminals. It is crucial, then, to devise a way in which to tackle the issues of crime such as drug trafficking and nonviolent criminal behavior, while working towards minimizing violent crime and large-scale gang activity in order to fix the current prison system (Webb 1). Currently, the voting public is largely uniformed regarding the criminal justice system. And it is this lack of education

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

According to the graph shown above, federal and state combined in 1939 increased to a high of 137. After this period the imprisonments rate remained stable until 1972; when the rate rapidly increased annually by 6 to 8 percent through 2000. Years later, the rate of incarceration reached the peak of 506 per 100,000 people in 2007 and 2008. In 2012, “the imprisonment rate of 471 per 100,000 was still 4.3 times the historical average of 110 per 100,000. If the numbers in jail are added, the incarceration rate totaled 767 per 100,000 in 2007 and 707 per 100,000 in 2012” (Glaze and Herberman, 2013). In other words, the tremendous growth of the penal population is an astounding number of people behind bars. The U.S prisons and jails, by 2012, held

UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies reports that the California Prison system "is the third largest penal system in the country, costing $5.7 billion dollars a year and housing over 161,000 inmates." (2012, p.1) The number of prisons in the State of California is reported to have "tripled…since 1980." (UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 2012, p.1) Reported are controversies relating to expansion of the prison system, climbing costs, and poor management in addition to abuse of inmates. (UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 2012, paraphrased)

The United States government has a high mandatory minimum for first time nonviolent drug charges. Therefore, offenders stay in the prison system longer and facilities are not able to properly provide the necessary accommodations to catch up due to the increase of non-violent prisoners that fill the system. According to the article “Tests for Reducing Prison Populations” by Erik Eckholm, one of the problems is that the United States government is trying to come up with better mandatory sentencing and strengthen the crumbling rehabilitation system for nonviolent prisoners (1). The Overcrowding of prisons within the United States is an issue that needs to be addressed because there are too many tax dollars being spent, prison sentences change or do not necessarily fit the crime, and drug offenders and nonviolent criminals, who need services other than prison time, are draining the system.

There does need to be a reduction of nonviolent criminals from the prison system. The “tough on Crime” focus on nonviolent offenders does not seem so much as an act of protecting the public than finding people to imprison. Mass incarceration is an issue and “tough on crime” is not making things any better for