Should The Prison Building A Reduced Maximum Nonviolent Criminals?

1733 Words Dec 11th, 2014 7 Pages
Most taxpayers and residents of communities aren’t aware of how beneficial it can be to lock up a reduced amount nonviolent criminals. The argument of incarcerating less nonviolent offenders originated in the 1970s, with increasing public concern about the threat of crime and many becoming skeptical about how effective rehabilitation is, Americans started focusing on some other goals of the prison system, such as retribution and public safety. They argue crime measures, such as mandatory minimum sentences and truth in sentencing laws, are keeping minor offenders in prison for too long and at great expense to the taxpayers. Advocates of harsh sentencing laws counter that they are necessary as a solution to lenient judges. David Masci, a CQ Researcher staff writer with a law degree that specializes in social policy, provides a synopsis of both political sides of the argument when he says, “Conservatives argue that while regrettable, the prison-building boom has helped to bring down the nation 's high crime rate. But liberals and others say the United States is building prison cells when it should be combating crime by spending more money on education and drug treatment” (Masci). Currently, prisons have become severely overcrowded and policy makers are reevaluating rehabilitation and alternative corrections programs. For most of the 20th century, society was more oriented with rehabilitating criminals than punishing them. It’s still up for debate and there are many sides to the…
Open Document