The Pros And Cons Of Mass Incarceration

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

There is no question that mass incarceration is a worldwide epidemic that needs to be discussed and addressed. America has five percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of the world’s prison population (Just Leadership USA, 2017) Various policies dated back centuries helped to create this problem of mass incarceration (Just Leadership USA, 2017). Today there are 2.3 million Americans incarcerated throughout the state, local, and federal jails (Just Leadership USA, 2017). New York City (NYC) houses approximately 10,000 inmates per year; 43.7% of these inmates are diagnosed with having a mental health disability (New York City Department of Corrections, 2017). 54% of the inmates on Rikers Island are arrested for a minor offense and should be able to fight their cases from home; however, in many instances the family members are of low socio-economic status and unable to post bail (New York City Department of Corrections, 2017). Minor offenses include loitering, jumping the turnstiles, unnecessary Parole / Probation violations, and trespassing. In many instances, it is the mentally ill and homeless individuals who are arrested for trespassing as they elect to sleep in the subways instead of taking residency in a shelter. Moreover, many of these offenses does not have to result in an arrest. Police officers have the autonym to let some of these individuals go with a warning, desk ticket, and/or summons.

Mass incarceration became a public policy issue in the United States in the early 2010s. Now in 2016, there is still much debate over the country’s incarcerated population and incarceration rate. The nation has the highest incarcerated population in the world, with 2,217,947 inmates, in front of China with 1,649,804. America incarcerates 693 inmates per 100,000 residents, only the African island nation Seychelles incarcerates at a higher rate, with 799 for every 100,000 residents. The problem of mass incarceration continues to be assessed in various contexts. Recent analyses are historian Elizabeth Hinton’s From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime, legal scholar Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, and criminologist Dr. Elizabeth Brown’s “Toward Refining the Criminology of Mass Incarceration: Group-Based Trajectories of U.S. States, 1977—2010.”

The United States’ ever-expanding prison and jail population has brought about many questions regarding the side-effects of mass incarceration, namely involving the effects on the children and families from which those incarcerated are removed. Regardless of the perspectives on the appropriate position of incarceration in the criminal justice system, imprisonment disrupts many positive and nurturing relationships between parents and their children. In fact, more than 1.7 million children have a parent who is incarcerated in a state or federal prison as of 2007 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). These youths are at risk for developing behavior and school problems in addition to insecure attachment relationships. Parental incarceration, which may also be coupled with economic disadvantage and inconsistent living arrangements (Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009) can be an extremely difficult experience for children. It should come as no surprise that families with children suffer economic strain and instability when a parent is imprisoned, considering how each parent in today’s world typically needs to set aside time to earn an income to support their family, and most are unable to support their homes on one income. While it may be considered intrusive to some to intervene in the lives of children and families with incarcerated parents, research has suggested that there are positive societal benefits to intervening in the lives of incarcerated parents and their

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.

Mass incarceration has been an issue in the United States since the start of the War on Drugs, because of the political agenda attached to the “tough on crime” regimen thousands of people have suffered as a consequence. The solution to this is one that can only be possibly solved by approaching through several angles. The ten steps presented by Michael Tonry, are an innovative and have merit to some extent. However, mass incarceration results from more than unjust sentencing laws, which is his main focus. If ever we are to resolve the issue, society and the criminal justice system must come together to completely reevaluate what we consider to be “tough on crime” and redefine the purpose of prisons, strictly punishment or rehabilitation. The focus has to shift from harsh sentencing, stigma, racial discrimination to a basic form of rehabilitation and reduction of the prison system in general. The criminal justice system has to do what they are actually meant to do and focus on rehabilitation measures, and when possible completely stop interaction with the prison system all together.

1. “Collateral consequences” refers to all related and seemingly unintended consequences of something. What are the collateral consequences of mass incarceration, and how do they contribute to inequality? (Chapter 33 Bryan L. Sykes and Becky Pettit: “Mass Incarceration and Family Life” In Other Words: Virginia E. Rutter: “Doing Time = Doing Gender” (Girl w/ Pen!))

Within the last four decades, the rate of incarceration in the United States has continued to increase exponentially. The Bureau of Justice reports that the inmate population in 1971 was estimated at two hundred thousand, while the current number stands at roughly 1.5 million – nearly eight times more than the number of inmates in 1971. Because of the high costs associated with prison operations, their overcrowding, and wrongful convictions, California introduced legislative measures such as Propositions 36 and 47 as well as Assembly Bills 109 and 117, in order to lessen the number of incarcerations. Not only will implementing these reforms save the state millions in revenue, they will also rightfully place truly dangerous criminals in

Mass Incarceration is a growing dilemma in the United States that populates our prisons at an alarming rate. Michelle Alexander is a professor at Ohio State University and a graduate of Stanford law school. She states in her award winning book, The new Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness “In less than thirty years, the U.S. penal population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2 million” (Alexander, 6). These young men and women are unable to afford a decent lawyer because they come from such a poverty-stricken background. Men and women are at a financial disadvantage in our justice system. Lawyers and attorneys cost a fortune and most people can just simply not afford them. Others plead to their charges because

The United States is five percent of the world’s population and has twenty five percent of the world’s people incarcerated. This is the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Mass incarceration has been a problem in this country for decades. The war on drugs has increased the odds of incarceration and the length of sentences for non-violent offenders. Ninety five percent of prisoners have plead guilty and one out of five are serving sentences for drug related charges (REF).

The imprisonment of human beings at record levels is both a moral failure and an economic

Is it mass incarceration in the United States a form of increasing profit? Since private prisons were established, English procedures as well as European’s procedures influenced the America imprisonment system. Two major systems were developed in America during the 19th century in Philadelphia. During this time, crimes were castigated with imprisonment and later with hard labor, which was seen as a more humane method of punishment for inmates than actual physical castigation. These types of prison were established in the course of industrial development. Therefore, opportunity doors were opened to private sector involvement in such industry of prisons. According to David Shichor, “ the contractor enters the prison, efficiently organizes production, industrializes the workshops, partially pays for work done, manufactures non-craft goods and personally handles the distribution of these goods on the free market”(29).

Because the California prison system is severely overcrowded, it is unable to deliver adequate resources and services to its inmates. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the system—operating at 145% of its designed capacity—violates the 8th Amendment and mandated that the state significantly reduce its prison population by 2016 (Divito). Many of the state’s GOP legislators called for expansion of the state’s correctional facilities, claiming that criminals would be a threat to communities if the state relaxed enforcement or released some prisoners early (Wildermuth). While there is merit in this argument, spending money to expand jail capacities without reducing the number of people who are incarcerated only conceals the fundamental problem, rather than correcting it. Instead, a more effective alternative is to invest resources in “mental health courts, drug treatment, mental health treatment, vocational rehabilitation, evidence-based programs [in order to] reduce the population in a more sustained way” (Siders). Recently, in Los Angeles, community stakeholders have come to agree that many of the city’s offenders do not necessarily need incarceration, but instead education and outreach programs. As a result, the local justice system has begun to promote a system of restorative justice.

Imagine being locked up in a cramped prison along side thousands of other inmates just for committing a minor crime. When you are finally liberated from the strict institution that’s been barricading you from society, you find that you’re stripped of basic rights to education, welfare, and so on. Scary is it not? Well, that’s the harsh reality behind mass incarceration. Mass incarceration has been an issue ever since the dawn of the “drug wars” back in the 80’s and 90’s. Millions of people were locked up for minor crimes, mostly nonviolent drug crimes, which resulted in lengthy prison sentences due to mandatory sentencing laws such as the Crime Bill that Bill Clinton enacted in 1994. As a result, the prison population nearly quintupled and many men went missing from society. What could fuel such motivation to lock away millions of people? In “The New Jim Crow”, Michelle Alexander holds a firm belief that the racist fictional character “Jim Crow” is secretly being kept alive and that many black men are being wrongfully locked away due to racial prejudice. Although she has some compelling arguments on the topic of mass incarceration, they’re simply not the case in today’s society. Only a small percentage of the prison population is made up of inmates serving mandatory sentences and the truth behind mass incarcerations ultimately comes down to the prevention of drug-related violence as well as improper prosecutors.

We know that drug abuse is a big problem in America and all across the world today. I feel like we could curb and maybe even stop serious drug abuse by sending these unfortunate people to a mental health institute where they can get much-needed help. Sending drug users to jail or prison is useless, it doesn't help them stop it just makes them want it more and more, so if we send them to rehab to get better they can get over their addictions. Rehab can help with addictions and help with withdrawals, it can help lives.