With the concern for public safety a dominating issue in American politics, mass incarceration of individuals has become increasingly common. More and more politicians are endorsing the imprisonment of nonviolent criminals in order to deter crime and prevent larger offenses, ignoring the effects of incarceration on the individuals and the society. With the focus of this prison system being the separation of criminals from the general public, the government has condoned lengthy sentences for petty crimes while also releasing unreformed violent criminals, who have completed their sentences, back into the community. Despite the government’s effort to curb the growing prison population, their methods have proven to be ineffective in decreasing extreme rates of imprisonment. In order to effectively ensure public safety and reduce the number of incarcerated people, the government should provide therapeutic and rehabilitative services for inmates while simultaneously decreasing prison sentences for nonviolent criminals.
Throughout the years, the number of incarcerated people has surpassed that which American prisons can hold. “Currently, about 2.2 million individuals are incarcerated in the nation's federal prisons, state prisons, and local jails” (Bessette). Known as the “Incarceration Nation” (Dreisinger), the United States has the highest imprisonment rates and the longest prison sentences in the world (Suk). An excessive amount of people have been placed in prison for minor crimes such as attempted burglary or stealing as little as three dollars. Supported by the school of thought that claims longer prison sentences “will teach offenders that punishment is certain and severe,”(Gendreau, et al. 3), states such as California imprison individuals for the years at a time for trivial offences. The Three Strike Law, a policy that mandates criminals to serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison for a three felonies, is the primary culprit for the extreme number of incarcerated citizens. Because the Three Strike Law does not distinguish among the types of felonies, low-risk individuals are often sent to prison for an unreasonable period of time (Gendreau, et al. 3). Furthermore, the current prison system does not particularly differentiate between violent and nonviolent criminals when housing them, many “low risk offenders may be adversely affected by greater lengths of incarceration through exposure to an environment typically dominated by their higher risk, more hard core peers” (Gendreau, et al. 1).
Incarceration states, when faced with criticism over their overly harsh policies, “maintain that incarceration imposes direct and indirect costs on inmates (e.g., loss of income, stigmatization)” so that when released and tempted to recidivate, inmates “would choose not to engage in further criminal activities” (Gendreau, et al. 5) This theory, however, proves to be false as explained by Jaman, Dickover, and Bennett, editors of the British Journal of Criminology, stating “the inmate who has served a longer amount of time, becom[es] more prisonised [sic] in the process, has had his tendencies toward criminality strengthened and is, therefore, more likely to recidivate,” (7). The current practice of incarcerating has not done anything to minimize crime rates, in fact, criminal activity has increased by 270% since 1960 when the prison boom began. Without rehabilitation, many convicts return to the same life of crime and continue to be a threat to the public.
The issue of mass incarceration has not gone unnoticed by the American government, and although they have attempted to fix the situation, they have been unsuccessful. In 2011, the case of Brown v. Plata was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States as a lawsuit against California prisons. The lawsuit claims that the lack of mental health care provided by federal prisons was so poor that it violated the Eighth Amendment and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of change and addressed overpopulation as the primary factor for insufficient treatments in prisons. In order to remedy the system, the Court required states to cut prison populations within a time limit, allowing premature release. After the ruling, California, with its prison population double the prison capacity, “faced a mandatory reduction of 10,000 inmates in less than six months” (Horne and Newman 5). Because the Supreme Court’s ruling was flexible, states often discharged inmates without rehabilitation to meet the deadline.so that they could meet the deadline. As of today, those measures have improved neither prisons nor the public safety.
According to policy analysts Harris Kenny and Adam Summers, “70 percent of offenders will be locked up again within three years of their release” in California (2). The high recidivism rate results from the Golden State concentrating more of its fundings on its penal institution. The Orange County Register reports, that California only spends about five percent of the $43,000 prisoner housing budget on rehabilitation (“Rehabilitation Program” 1). Without access to proper reconstructive services, the offenders are being stripped off of an opportunity to reform their character and strive for a better life. This contributes to high recidivism rates and requires the public to increase their social awareness, so that they may not be a victim of crime. One year after the ruling of Brown v. Plata was enacted, the FBI revealed that auto theft drastically increased by 15% and burglary by 7.9% in California (Tabo 3), registering even more offenders into prisons. The Supreme Court’s decision to mandate the release of prisoners, neglects the overall safety of the community and potentially increases prisons prison population in the future, and is, therefore, an ineffective solution.
The simplest solutions are often the best, and reducing the time inmates spend in prisons is the best way to reduce the prison boom in America. However, as seen through the government’s attempt to reform the system just releasing inmates without a form of reform, is counterproductive. Germany has proven that shorter prison sentences paired with rehabilitation efforts are highly effective. German prison systems allow prisoners to work for their release through work, progress, and good behavior. In order for the mass incarceration to effectively be reduced then, the biggest contributor must be controlled: Three Strike Law. 23 states have added the Three Strike Law since 1993. If the simple solution would be to outlaw the law. Obviously, that’s asking for quite a bit, so the other solutions would be to change the law. California’s 40,000 convictions compared to Alaska’s 1 can be related to their three strike law difference, not all felonies in Alaska count towards the Three strike, rather than all of the felonies in California’s case. California by far has the harshest version of the law and an average of 39,000 more convictions than all the other states with the law. Another change to be added to the law is the reduction of the minimum sentence of 25 years in prison especially for non-violent related felons. The US is the number 1 leader in rates of incarceration per year. Norway, on the other hand, isn’t even on the list. Norway has a maximum sentencing (for any crime) of 21 years, that’s less than the US Three Strike law. Norway focuses on rehabilitation rather than increasing time spent in jail, although if they think that their prisoners aren’t ready to leave, then their sentence can be extended to no more than 5 years. This proves the fact that reducing the time for both maximum and minimum sentences can lead to the reduction of mass incarceration as we’ve seen in countries like Norway. Instead of focusing on the harsh punishments we use as deterrents to crime which have been proven to not work, we should focus on the changing of our present laws, such as the reduction of time and focusing on rehabilitation.
Along with appropriate sentencing, the government must prepare for the reentry of prisoners back into society. In 2007, the California’s Expert Panel on Rehabilitation, found that 50 percent of prisoners in California released in 2006 had not been through a single rehabilitation program, and two-thirds of all prisoners that finish their sentence are arrested again within the next 3 years: (Petersilla 54). Rehabilitation behind bars, if used correctly, has proven to reduce recidivism rates around the world. Rehabilitation would help to decrease the probability of offenders being arrested again and face harsher punishments; thus lowering the population circulating in and out of prison. Studies show that inmates that receive a high school diploma or vocational skills training while incarcerated are more likely to get jobs when they are released. Similarly, inmates that participate in drug addiction treatment are statistically less likely to relapse after release. Joan Petersilla, the author of Beyond the Prison Bubble, argues that “If we could implement effective programs, we could expect to reduce recidivism by 15 to 20 percent” (54).
Community involvement is imperative to achieving this goal. One example would be the Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI, a city inter-agency that utilizes law enforcement, social services, and religious organizations to begin interaction with individuals while still incarcerated.) The day they are released, a mentor is waiting on hand to meet with the inmate and prepare them for a safe reentry into society with a fresh start. Research from Harvard University found that participants in BRI had a recidivism rate 30 percent lower than a compared group (Petersilla 55). These rehabilitation efforts will not only positively affect those directly involved but also future generations, by affecting the society these offenders inhabit.
Works Cited
Gendreau, Paul, et al. The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism. Solicitor General Canada, 1999.
Jaman, Dorothy R., et al. “Parole Outcome As A Function Of Time Served.” The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 12, no. 1, 1972, pp. 5–34., doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a046355.
Suk, Jeannie. “'Incarceration Nations,' by Baz Dreisinger.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/books/reviewincarceration-nations-by -baz-dreisinger.html.
Bessette, Joseph M. "More justice, less crime." Claremont Review of Books, Summer 2017, p. 15+. Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A502119079/SUIC?u =j101907052&xid=4a5b01d8. Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.
Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/ incarceration.aspx.
“39% Of Prisoners Should Not Be in Prison.” Google, Google, www.google.com/amp/amp .timeinc.net/time/4596081/incarceration-report.
“Criminal Justice Facts.” The Sentencing Project, www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice- facts/.
News, CBS. “This Is Prison? 60 Minutes Goes to Germany.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 31 Mar. 2016, www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-to-germany/.
Enns, Peter. Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Petersilla, Joan. “Beyond the Prison Bubble.” National Institute of Justice, The Wilson Quarterly, 3 Nov. 2011, www.nij.gov/journals/268/pages/prison-bubble.aspx. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017.
“Rehabilitation Programs Can Cut Prisons Cost, Report Says.” The Orange County Register, http://www.ocregister.com/2007/07/01/rehabilitation-programs-can-cut-prisons-cost-report-says/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.
Tabo, Tamara. “The Consequences of Brown v. Plata are Nothing to Dismiss: The California Prison Case Continues.” Above The Law, 17 Oct. 2013, https://abovethelaw.com/2013/10/the-consequences-of-brown-v-plata-are-nothing-to-dismiss-the-california-prison-case-continues/?rf=1. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017.
Three strike law test
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/3strikes.pdf
Horn, Christopher, and William Newman. “Updates Since Brown v. Plata: Alternative Solutions for Prison Overcrowding in California.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Mar. 2015, http://jaapl.org/content/43/1/87. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017.
Kenny, Harris, and Adam Summers. “Brown v. Plata Ruling Highlights Need for Reform (Not Tax Increases).” Reason Foundation, 2 Jun. 2011, http://reason.org/news/show/ca-prison-brown-v-plata. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017.