ESSAY 3 Perhaps the most common argument against mass incarceration is the cost. Weisberg and Petersilia explain a “cost-benefit” rationality surrounding mass incarceration. The public still wants to incapacitate and punish violent offenders, but are becoming more lenient towards non-violent drug offenders. This is because the societal cost to imprison non-violent offenders has reached a threshold that is no longer fully tolerated. This is due to the actual cost of the current prison system to taxpayers, the socioeconomic costs and socially stratifying effects of imprisonment, and the collateral costs of imprisonment on the country as a whole. However, in implementation knee jerk reactions that cut costs often undermine programs that are designed
Because having a felony record makes participation in prosocial society so difficult, it is unsurprising that released felons often recidivate. Having a record is often used to disqualify candidates from employment, prevents felons from receiving welfare benefits such as food stamps, and disqualifies one from living in public housing. On top of this, there are often large fees and fines to pay as part of one’s punishment. Thus, in order to make ends meet released offenders return to the criminal underworld where they have connections and prior records of financial success. The issue with the implementation of programs to address this, such as education and job skills training for felons, are that they are expensive in an already over-budget
This type of program would help offenders successfully reintegrate into their communities, as well as fostering prosocial bonds in legitimate society. It would also help felons to make ends meet and to pay the fines and fees that are owed as part of their punishment, preventing the financial incentive to recidivate. This is a way to engage the community as a part of corrections without unduly burdening them, as business owners would be compensated financially for their part in the process of
Trachtenberg, B. (2009, February). Incarceration policy strikes out: Exploding prison population compromises the U.S. justice system. ABA Journal, 66.
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.
Cohen (1985) supports this sentiment, and suggests that community based punishment alternatives have actually led to a widening and expansion of the retributive criminal justice system, rather than its abolishment. The current criminal justice system is expensive to maintain. In North America, the cost to house one prisoner is upwards of eighty to two hundred dollars a day (Morris, 2000). The bulk of this is devoted to paying guards and security (Morris, 2000).
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
Rather than removing the ubiquitous box, J.Rotondo (2014) suggests that there should be two alternative approaches. One is to expand the number and types of offenses, such as non-violent crime that can be sealed by the criminal justice system, while the second one is to invest and create a job placement firm exclusively for felonies upon serving their full sentences. By implementing these two alternative options, it is felt that the recidivism of those can be avoided much greater, and that the amount of time invested into hiring those will be less, as well as associated cost
The programs are designed to help address their problems; anger and addiction. This is the initial step of preparing inmates to succeed when they are released. Once an inmate is released from prison there should be resources available as part of their “transition” back to society. The resources should be financial, emotional, and focused on job training. The goal should be to help prevent prisoners released from prison from returning to prison. “Most ex-felons say that their greatest desire ...is to be released and given a fair chance to succeed in America. When businesses close their doors to ex-felons refuse to allow ex-felons a chance to work..”
To support reintegration, correctional workers are to serve as advocates for offenders in dealing with government agencies assisting with employment counseling services, medical treatment, and financial assistance. They argued that corrections focal point should be increasing opportunities for the offenders, to become law abiding citizens and on providing psychological treatment. This model of corrections advocates avoiding imprisonment if possible for the offender and also in favor of probation, therefore offenders can obtain an education and vocational training that would help their adjustment in the community. In the community model corrections advocated for inmates incarcerated to spend very limited time in prison before been granted parole.
The “Tough on Crime” and “War on Drugs” policies of the 1970s – 1980s have caused an over populated prison system where incarceration is policy and assistance for prevention was placed on the back burner. As of 2005, a little fewer than 2,000 prisoners are being released every day. These individuals have not gone through treatment or been properly assisted in reentering society. This has caused individuals to reenter the prison system after only a year of being release and this problem will not go away, but will get worst if current thinking does not change. This change must be bigger than putting in place some under funded programs that do not provide support. As the current cost of incarceration is around $30,000 a year per inmate, change to the system/procedure must prevent recidivism and the current problem of over-crowed prisons.
Necessary expenses to house inmates will continue to rise as the number of housed increases. More inmates requires more guards, more facilities, higher healthcare service costs, a higher support service cost, and ultimately higher taxes for the taxpayers. For ex-felons to reintegrate back into their communities, these ex-felons need strong pro-social links to society. Many ex-felons fail to create pro-social bonds with others and return to their anti-social bonds and lifestyle that these ex-felons were a part of before their imprisonment.
An issue is defined as an important topic that is up for debate or discussion. My issue discussed the alternative energy debate, and whether or not the United States should switch from traditional fossil fuels to alternative sources, remain using fossil fuels, or combine both sources for efficiency. I was able to begin connecting with Austin Heineman’s topic, which was over mass incarceration and its effects on society. Mass incarceration is defined as a large number of people in jails and prisons across the United States. Along with these presented issues, I inaugurated connecting points to Hannah Singer’s topic, vaccines in children. This presenter provided multiple statistics and weighed the costs of vaccinating children. Furthermore, I
According to the Oxford Index, “whether called mass incarceration, mass imprisonment, the prison boom, or hyper incarceration, this phenomenon refers to the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment and by the concentration of imprisonment among young, African American men living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.” It should be noted that there is much ambiguity in the scholarly definition of the newly controversial social welfare issue as well as a specific determination in regards to the causes and consequences to American society. While some pro arguments cry act as a crime prevention technique, especially in the scope of the “war on drugs’.
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.