In the last 40 years, incarceration in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world; we hold 5% of the world’s population, but house 25% of the world’s prisoners (Kelly 2015). The use of incarceration has gradually become a more acceptable and more used form of punishment. As a result, our prison population is overflowing with offenders ranging from petty theft criminals to violent offenders. As cited in the textbook, purposes of our justice system should be retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, (Clear, Reisig, & Cole 2016, p.72-73) but we focus far too much on punishment first and rehabilitation second, if ever. This is largely due to societal pressure to punish
…show more content…
The creators of these policies took into account what society wanted, not what actually worked. Many of those released go back to the same crime ridden lifestyle they previously had because resources are lacking, and they don’t know how to be self-sufficient. These strategies increased sentences, limited releases, and expanded prison capacities (Campbell, Vogel, & Williams 2015), restricting their chances for …show more content…
crime rate has dropped. Since the 1990s, homicide, burglary and theft have all dropped; violent crime has dropped 40%, and motor vehicle theft by 60% (Farrell, Tseloni, Mailley, & Tilly 2011). Now, the growth in incarceration can be attributed to “increases in decisions to incarcerate and increases in time served, rather than increases in offenses or arrests.” (Schoenfeld 2012, p. 323) This shows that mass incarceration has not contributed to reducing crime; in fact it may have more negative effects than positive ones.
Policies enacted in this movement include mandatory minimum sentencing laws like three strikes and truth-in-sentencing. Three strikes laws take away judicial discretion, giving more sentencing power to the prosecutor because they decide what to charge the defendant with. Mandatory minimums often require life sentences for many offenders who are nonviolent and non-serious. These include many drug offenders, where a life sentence will take away any chance they have of getting better. Our current system doesn’t offer any help with addiction; the real reason why many are
The creators of these policies took into account what society wanted, not what actually worked. Many of those released go back to the same crime ridden lifestyle they previously had because resources are lacking, and they don’t know how to be self-sufficient. These strategies increased sentences, limited releases, and expanded prison capacities (Campbell, Vogel, & Williams 2015), restricting their chances for …show more content…
crime rate has dropped. Since the 1990s, homicide, burglary and theft have all dropped; violent crime has dropped 40%, and motor vehicle theft by 60% (Farrell, Tseloni, Mailley, & Tilly 2011). Now, the growth in incarceration can be attributed to “increases in decisions to incarcerate and increases in time served, rather than increases in offenses or arrests.” (Schoenfeld 2012, p. 323) This shows that mass incarceration has not contributed to reducing crime; in fact it may have more negative effects than positive ones.
Policies enacted in this movement include mandatory minimum sentencing laws like three strikes and truth-in-sentencing. Three strikes laws take away judicial discretion, giving more sentencing power to the prosecutor because they decide what to charge the defendant with. Mandatory minimums often require life sentences for many offenders who are nonviolent and non-serious. These include many drug offenders, where a life sentence will take away any chance they have of getting better. Our current system doesn’t offer any help with addiction; the real reason why many are