Part A
1. The theory of taking away a criminal 's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A stipulation called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a restriction on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most standpoints of it were finally abolished, resulting in only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. Each state has their own approach to felon disenfranchisement that differ greatly. Maine and Vermont do not deny felons the right to vote, even during incarceration. Felons and ex- felons lose their right to vote forever in Florida, Iowa,
…show more content…
The good time credit is extremely beneficial for the criminal justice system. At least 31 states currently offer these incentives— called “earned or good time”—that reduce the costs of confinement and help offenders thrive when they return to society and rejoin their communities. Perks of the good time credit consist of reduced costs and decreased chance of relapse. Although some earned good time credit amounts to a rather small cut in ones prison sentence, even a few days can create a sizable amount of savings over hundreds or thousands of inmates. Studies of the earned time credit have examined the effect on crime rates, regression, and associated costs. For example, the Department of Correctional Services in New York, analyzed the states merit time program throughout the years 1997-2006. In that time, 24,000 inmates had been granted six-month reductions to their minimum sentence terms, generating $369 million in savings. We can account for another $15 million in savings over a three-year span, due to the need for less capital …show more content…
Should inmates be granted the reward of earning the good time release credit? Good-time programs, such as those in Washington offer the chance at reducing overcrowding in prisons and costs to taxpayers by advancing the release dates of those inmates who showed good performance in prison, indicating therapeutic progress and little risk of relapse. Good time may also implement stronger rewards for inmates to take advantage of programs and employment opportunities while in prison, and may boost the discipline and safety, furnishing important benefits to inmates and the correction officers. For example, the New York Legislature introduced a new good-time program, allowing certain inmates to earn at maximum a one-sixth reduction to their sentence term. As a result, by the year 2006 this program had saved taxpayers approximately $387 million. Furthermore, these early release inmates were found to have less of recidivism rates than nearly all other groups compared
Some people in our country can’t vote because they have felons for the same reason. They aren’t violent criminals, they just made a small mistake or two and now can’t have a voice in our political system because of it. You are in a sense taking away their voice and they think they no longer matter, they may even commit more crimes if they feel unwanted or left out. When released felons are released and have paid their debt to society denying them the right to vote it is essentially taxation without representation(3).
In the United States 2.2 million citizens are incarcerated on felony charges. Laws in America prohibit felons from voting. As a result, on Election Day 5.3 million citizens of America are disenfranchised because of crimes they once committed. Though they once broke the law, they have served their time and have been punished adequately in accordance with the American Justice System. Felons should regain full voting rights after their stint in prison.
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).
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
Prisons and correctional facilities in the United States have changed from rehabilitating people to housing inmates and creating breeding grounds for more violence. Many local, state, and federal prisons and correctional facilities are becoming more and more overcrowded each year. If the Department of Corrections (DOC) wants to stop having repeat offenders and decrease the volume of inmates entering the criminal justice system, current regulations and programs need to undergo alteration. Actions pushed by attorneys and judges, in conjunction current prison life (including solitary confinement), have intertwined to result in mass incarceration. However, prisoner reentry programs haven’t fully impacted positively to help the inmate assimilate back into society. These alterations can help save the Department of Corrections (DOC) money, decrease the inmate population, and most of all, help rehabilitate them. After inmates are charged with a crime, they go through the judicial system (Due Process) and meet with the prosecutor to discuss sentencing.
Drago, F., Galbiati, R. & Vertova, P. (2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American law and economics review, 13 (1), pp. 103--130.
...he right to vote. I made a ten question survey that asked questions about letting convicted felons have the right to vote in major elections throughout America. Thirteen out of thirty high school students said that convicted felons should have the right to vote because they are American citizens. The other seventeen people I surveyed said that they should not have the right to vote because they had their chance to perform correctly in society and failed miserably. As you can now see, I have given you many reasons to see that convicted felons should not have the right to vote. They cannot be trusted with such a responsibility as voting for this country’s next leader.
More than half of prisoners reoffend within at least three years of leaving prison. Those who reoffend tend to have more severe and more aggressive offenses than previously. A man by the name of Brandy Lee has shown that by having a very strict program in prisons, violent offenders in San Francisco jails reduced the amount of violence in jails. The program also helped to reduce the rate of violent re-offences after leaving the jail by over 50 percent.
Throughout the nation there are 5.3 million Americans who are denied their right to vote because they have a criminal conviction on their record (“Felon Voting Rights”). In the state of Florida, a felon can’t apply for his right to vote to be restored until at least five years after he has completed his sentence, with no guarantee of his rights being restored. Violent and repeat felons haven’t proved they are good citizens; however non-violent felons, who have committed victimless crimes, should be allowed to have their rights restored when they have served their time and paid off their fines. Non-violent felons would have a better chance of readapting into society because they would be able to vote in elections, be rehabilitated, and return to fully contributing members of society.
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
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.
In the United States of America’s criminal justice system, both violent and non-violent offenders are imprisoned. This imprisonment has led to overpopulation of our prisons, both federal and state-owned. Overpopulation and overcrowding can cause stress on the average, everyday tax-paying citizen as it becomes very expensive to house the over one-hundred and fifty thousand sentenced prisoners each year (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). That number adds up, because even with the over six hundred thousand offenders released each year, there are even more that remain in the prison system (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). The total number of prisoners in the U.S. state and federal correctional facilities, which includes prisons, rehabilitation centers, and juvenile detention centers, is 1,574,700 (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This cycle of overpopulation needs a long-term fix, not some cookie-cutter solution that will only alleviate the problem temporarily. Due to the
Meanwhile, with the pressure of budge shortfalls, rehabilitation increasingly becomes to be one of the most effective way to place offenders. Restorative justice is a criminal rehabilitation system that aims to reduce recidivism rates. In Minnesota and Vermont, restorative justice programs have been implemented as a rehabilitation tool, rather than abolishing imprisonment. The main idea is that offenders could benefit from reduced sentences by completing programs (Immarigeon, 1995). Drug rehabilitation is one of the programs that have been proved to be effective on reducing recidivism rates. The programs include the “in-prison treatment” , “the work release program” and aftercare program. It is reported by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that drug offenders accounts for a large part of prisoners housed in federal prisons, which is about 52.2 percent (Rosansky, n.d.). In the study, it is found that more than 75 per cent of offenders who complete the programs do not recidivate. The reason why this program succeeded is that the policy makers target the potential collateral consequence that it is difficult for prisoners to reintegrate into society after the
The data gathered in the Teplin, Abram & McClelland (1994) research was conducted in the Cook county jail in Chicago during a six year period, using interview techniques during the intake process of 728 inmates. They then tracked the participants over the six years by monitoring their rap sheets. What sets this research apart from the others is that they utilized the population of a jail versus a prison. Typically, once in prison, the time spent there is long whereas in jail, the incarceration time is usually much shorter as the inmates are in jail for lesser crimes or are awaiting trial. In any case, there is a larger turnaround and more opportunity to obtain diverse long term data.
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.