McBride 1
Daniel McBride May 9, 2016 SOC 345 Final Paper
1. How has the punishment imperative led to racial disparities in incarceration rates?
In the Punishment Imperative, by Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, the authors describe many instances where racial disparities led to the increase in incarceration rates. At first, the author starts out by telling the reader that it mainly began when the government began to target drug offenses and offenders. The punishment imperative targeted mainly crack users, this consisted of the poor and impoverished minority communities. The government made crack seem like the worst drug to ever exist, but due to the fact that white people did not usually smoke crack, their powdered cocaine was left alone. …show more content…
The first suggestion focuses on rehabilitation, “Advocates of this approach argue that research has demonstrated that rehabilitation programs can reduce recidivism rates by 20 percent or more” (Clear 161). Twenty percent is a big number. With twenty percent of the released population not coming back to prison, the prison system would most likely begin to decline, slowly, every single year. McBride 3 This would dismantle a good portion of the punishment imperative being recidivism rates would decline dramatically. Throughout this page, Clear and Frost discuss who in the prison system actually get the rehabilitation they need. Clear and Frost give examples from a California Prison System and Faye Taxman and her colleagues. They discuss that a low percentage of prisoners get the treatment they need, the authors come to the conclusion that, “...under current programmatic levels, only about 10 percent of those who need treatment can receive it” (Clear 161). This obviously means that 90 percent of inmates do not receive the treatment they need. If we got almost all of them their treatment, then they could possibly undo the effects of the punishment imperative. Lastly, a program that benefits prisoner recidivism is the HOPE model. On page 174, Clear and Frost discuss the program that gives constant drug tests and if they go against their probation, “...short-term jail stays when people either fail to make their appointments or turn in dirty urine samples” (Clear 174). This would give people who will most likely go back to prison an incentive to not do drugs. The authors then begin to discuss three items that could eventually reduce mass incarceration, “...repealing mandatory penalties...reducing length of stay, and...reducing rates of recidivism” (clear 163). In the previous paragraph the authors talked about one way to reduce recidivism rates and that would be rehabilitation.
Daniel McBride May 9, 2016 SOC 345 Final Paper
1. How has the punishment imperative led to racial disparities in incarceration rates?
In the Punishment Imperative, by Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, the authors describe many instances where racial disparities led to the increase in incarceration rates. At first, the author starts out by telling the reader that it mainly began when the government began to target drug offenses and offenders. The punishment imperative targeted mainly crack users, this consisted of the poor and impoverished minority communities. The government made crack seem like the worst drug to ever exist, but due to the fact that white people did not usually smoke crack, their powdered cocaine was left alone. …show more content…
The first suggestion focuses on rehabilitation, “Advocates of this approach argue that research has demonstrated that rehabilitation programs can reduce recidivism rates by 20 percent or more” (Clear 161). Twenty percent is a big number. With twenty percent of the released population not coming back to prison, the prison system would most likely begin to decline, slowly, every single year. McBride 3 This would dismantle a good portion of the punishment imperative being recidivism rates would decline dramatically. Throughout this page, Clear and Frost discuss who in the prison system actually get the rehabilitation they need. Clear and Frost give examples from a California Prison System and Faye Taxman and her colleagues. They discuss that a low percentage of prisoners get the treatment they need, the authors come to the conclusion that, “...under current programmatic levels, only about 10 percent of those who need treatment can receive it” (Clear 161). This obviously means that 90 percent of inmates do not receive the treatment they need. If we got almost all of them their treatment, then they could possibly undo the effects of the punishment imperative. Lastly, a program that benefits prisoner recidivism is the HOPE model. On page 174, Clear and Frost discuss the program that gives constant drug tests and if they go against their probation, “...short-term jail stays when people either fail to make their appointments or turn in dirty urine samples” (Clear 174). This would give people who will most likely go back to prison an incentive to not do drugs. The authors then begin to discuss three items that could eventually reduce mass incarceration, “...repealing mandatory penalties...reducing length of stay, and...reducing rates of recidivism” (clear 163). In the previous paragraph the authors talked about one way to reduce recidivism rates and that would be rehabilitation.