The justice system should not use the length of a prisoner’s sentence as punishment but rather strive to educate and rehabilitate prisoners to help successfully introduce them back into society and reduce recidivism

The regime of being tough on crime by relying on length of sentence has been ineffective. Since the 1970s, prison populations in the United States have been growing exponentially. For three decades, policy makers believed that giving harsher, lengthier sentences would reduce crime. Total state expenditures for state corrections grew from twelve billion in 1987 to fifty-two billion in 2011, and the prison population nearly tripled. The length of sentence has increased 36% since 1990 (Bandara et al. 34). Although lengthier sentences have little to do with stemming crime, “They are rather a product of a series of policy choices” (Clear 6). Three aspects determine the length of a prison sentence. The first is the legislature’s decision that determines criminal penalty, relative funding, and alternatives to prison. The second is the decision made by the court that determines the sentencing policies. The third is the release contingencies set by parole boards and correction departments (Bandara et al. 42). While good rehabilitation programs would improve the reentry process of inmates, the most important means of changing the current regime is reevaluating our policies. The causation for mass incarceration will remain unresolved if we do not address the very core of our penal system - stemming these aggressive policies and draconian sentencing laws.

Present society controls crime through two means. The first way is incapacitation (imprisonment), and the second way is deterrence, which is hindering the prospect of future criminal involvement. The logic for three decades was that the longer the stay of convicts in prison, the safer communities would be. Albeit research shows that incarceration does play a factor in mitigating crime rates, that factor has considerable restraints. According to the Vera institute, a 10% increase in incarceration is associated with a 2 to 4% drop in crime (Stemen). Moreover, experts are unequivocal on the fact that continued growth in incarceration will prevent significantly fewer, if any, crimes than past increases did and will cost significantly more to achieve (Stemem). The “tough on crime” policies have made little impact on crime but have had profound consequences for American society (Nellis 5). Few experts would argue against the judgment of imposing tougher sentences for chronic violent offenders. However, many would argue against lengthier sentences for nonviolent offenders. Some study cases suggest that an increase of non-violent imprisonment rates even fosters non-violent crime rates (Liedka, Piehl and Useem 245). Furthermore, a recent report shows that the deterrence benefits to society are unlikely to outweigh the explicit monetary costs of twenty-four hour housing and maintenance for an additional inmate (Johnson and Raphael). The high costs would be well worth it if crime rates had been plummeting with the correlating cost, but this is not the case. The main question is not the amount of money directed into lengthier sentences, but whether increasing time served is the most cost effective and beneficial public safety policy (Warren).

The increase of incarceration time is leading to prison overpopulation and has cost 10.4 billion nation wide. This is over a period of nine months. The United States, while consisting of only 5% of the world population, houses 25% of the world’s criminals (High costs: Inforgraphic). Currently, the United States is the country with the largest inmate population (Bandara et al. 9). One in every 104 American citizens is behind bars. “With so many of our citizens in prison...there are only two possibilities. Either we are home to the most evil people on earth or we are doing something...vastly counterproductive” (“Why We Must Fix Our Prisons”).

Additionally, prison construction is growing annually. More than 2000 prisons have been constructed in the last two decades and prisons were incarcerating more prisoners than they were releasing (Davis 7). Along with this, 90% of U.S. prisons are over crowded, resulting in an overpopulated, inefficient, unsanitary and even inhumane environment. For example, “A prisoner in a federal Atlanta penitentiary was held in restraints for five days, chained by his wrists, ankles, and back, forced to urinate and defecate on himself before he received legal help” (Lewis). Cases like this are common and many prisoners have their legal rights taken away even if they have been brutally mistreated. Building more prisons and mass incarceration have not been contributing to our public safety or rehabilitating the convicts (“Jailhouse Blues”). It is an illusion that is taking away opportunities from more proficient public safety programs to rehabilitate prisoners.

Because of instances like this, the justice system must be adjusted. The best tool to measure the success of a justice system is to evaluate its recidivism rate. According to a census in 2012, approximately 1 in 2 inmates return to prison within 3 years (High costs: Inforgraphic). Inmates are charged for either a new crime or for violating the terms of their release (State of Recidivism). In face of this sky-high recidivism rate, it is only natural to question the efficiency of America’s correctional facility policies. One study was unable to find strong correlation between longer sentences and recidivism rates (Johnson and Raphael). One would assume going to prison would teach the consequences of breaking the law. In all actuality, it is not abnormal for inmates to take a while to readjust to society and remain legally correct. In fact, 70% of the recidivism rate is simply because of technicality issues, such as a parolee missing a check up appointment or being fired from his/her job. Twenty five percent of released prisoners return to prison before the termination of their parole (“Theory”). This is why inmates need constructive programs to prepare them for reentry into society. One successful program is the Swift and Certain HOPE probation program in Hawaii that provides post-release randomized drug check-up services, and supervises inmates. Before it was introduced, parolees were dismissive of drug tests and failed them regularly because they thought it would not lead to any serious consequences. As a result, parolees were sent to prison for serious sentences because of their criminal efforts to acquire drugs. The swift and certain tactic, in turn imposes swift, certain and appropriate punishment right after a parolee has failed a designated drug test. By doing so, the HOPE program has proven to decrease recidivism up to 55% (“Four Communities”). Eventually 95% of inmates eventually return to society. It is more beneficial and cost effective that they receive rehabilitation assistance, and hopefully a correction in behavior, mitigating the probability of their return to prison. This is why the emphasis of public safety policies should be on corrective programs rather than just imposing lengthier sentences.

The fact that we need community programs to help prisoners re-enter society does not mean we do not need prisons. We need strong systems for both. We need to create enough space to house the truly dangerous and also to offer help to less violent offenders. Incidences of nonviolent incarcerations have jumped significantly, 60% of the prison population currently in the United States is made up of nonviolent offenders. Simultaneously, the number of inmates serving time for drug offenses has increased 550% over the last twenty years (Petteruti, Walsh and Tuzzolo). Alternatives such as drug courts for these people would be more reasonable. These courts provide supervised drug treatment and community supervision for offenders with substance abuse problems before it becomes necessary to incarcerate them (“Adult” 44). Simply throwing these people behind bars is ineffective because they are easily replaced in society, and without aid they have a higher chance reoffending.

In 2009, 10.4 billion was spent in 50 total states for keeping offenders in prison longer. This number can be derived from Figure 1. As stated earlier, 60% of the prison population is made up of non-violent offenders. Many of who wound up in prison because of minimum mandatory sentencing. “America’s justice system has cast a wide net for prisoners which has created a vexing fiscal policy” (Warren), resulting in forced cuts in the government for other vital programs such as higher education. Between 1987 and 2007, the amount of money for correction increased by 127% while in higher education it only increased by 21% (Benker et al.). We are throwing all these people behind bars, but not actually making a difference in the root of the problem of helping them reenter as a productive member of society. There are smarter and more economical policies to fight injustice instead of locking up one in every 104 of our citizens.

Bandara, Sachini, Peter Gehred, Sean Greene, Sarika Gupta, Samantha Harvell, Emily Lando, Aleena Oberthur, and Denise Wilson. "Pew Report: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms."Jomurnalists Resource RSS. Pew Charitable Trusts, 6 June 2012. Print. 12. Dec. 2012.

Presently, many prisons employ long periods of absolute solitary confinements as added punishment. Studies show that such confinements create physical along with psychological issues for inmates (Bauer). In Angela Davis’ book, Are Prisons Obsolete, Davis states, “Prison Inmates are 9 times more likely to suffer psychotic illness than people outside” (Davis 45). A lack of psychological aid and a tough living environment within cell walls does not help rehabilitate inmates into better individuals (“Emotional Literacy”). There are programs such as House of Healing in Boston that specifically deal with the emotional well being of inmates, helping them control their impulses better. A prison should be a place to help correct people both physically and psychologically, not exacerbate their ill behaviors.

According to the Pew States Trust, a good rehabilitative pubic policy consists of research driven, economically smart policies that lower the cost of recidivism, and science based state strategies for reducing prison terms accompanied by community corrections dealing with a prisoner’s emotional, psychological, physical, educational, and vocational aspects. Ideally, to prevent these re-entry approaches from failing, Dr. Listwan from University of North Carolina at Charlotte states, “Re-entry (programs) should be conducted in several phases, and begin before the inmate transitions back into the community”. Three examples are Houses of Healing for emotional therapy; motivational conversations for convicts (giving encouraging talks during parole that increase inmates’ incentives to achieve); Swift and Certain programs such as the HOPE probation program that offers post drug check ups, preventing convicts who were drug offenders from abusing substances again.

As numbers previously show, “We should be aware of alternatives for incarceration of less serious offenders.” This is becoming a central truth states Dr. Clear in his book, Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Clear maintains that, “The prison population is produced by sentencing policy, and the problem of mass incarceration cannot be addressed without changing sentencing law and practice” (16). In making this comment, Clear argues that before we initiate good programs with great potential we need to look at the structure of the justice system as it is now. No great deal of change can be achieved before we adjust policies. A state can reduce prison terms by reclassifying offense types. For example, South Carolina had done so in 2010 by increasing the financial value threshold that induces a felony charge for certain property offenses. This resulted in lower costs for that state (South Carolina). In 2006, Missouri amended the minimal sentencing and devised meticulous risk assessment plans for technical violations such as failure to pay court fees. Since then, recidivism has dropped by 10% (“Missouri”). Deciding whether one inmate stays in prison or receives alternatives such as parole or probation through risk assessment ensures that convicts are getting what they deserve without over punishing those less dangerous. This plan has cut recidivism up to 30% and has saved taxpayers’ money (Petteruti, Walsh, Tuzzolo). Utilizing resources for parolees is cheaper than twenty-four hour regulation inside prisons. Setting up drug courts that offer drug treatments for convicts suffering drug addiction also works. The psychologically unstable inmates are in need of the most therapeutic care. When their illness is not properly addressed, blindly throwing them behind bars might easily aggravate their state of mind.

Granting more aid to vocational training programs and educational opportunities in prison has shown to decrease recidivism rates. By helping a convict acquire a General Educational Diploma, or some other form of education degree, shows that convicts can develop work ethnic. It greatly boosts the inmates’ work resume and makes them more likely to be hired and incorporated back into communities (Gaes 7). “The inmate is more readily prepared for readjustment back into society, and states benefit from the lower recidivism costs” (United States: Public). All these alternatives stem from closely revaluating our penal system and getting smarter rather than tougher with policies.

As far as good policies go, non-prison resources available to convicted adults and adjudicated juveniles can cut recidivism up to 20%. A Motivation conversations set incentives for convicts to achieve reduce parole breaking by 13% (Four Communities). New fiscal policies that monetary incentives reward agencies for improved results have also shown to improve parole results. One case study in California 2011 showed a 600-parole violation decrease out of 1000 recidivists in the first 5 quarters of progress (Impact). One more idea is to impose stronger offender-supervision programs that produce a reduction in crime, recidivism and probation-revocation rates (Shames et al. 8). With the use of these methods, states can reduce the cost of building and operating expensive prisons without compromising public safety.

Forty years ago when policy makers started the tougher policies war by making sentences longer and harsher, they had little evidence to support their actions. Today, equipped with comprehensive data, we are able to devise scientific and more humane solutions to help inmates. Being strategically smart does not mean being soft on crime. As numbers reveal, a longer prison stay does not produce a lower crime rate. The need for housing the violent offenders still exists, but the assessment of those who have not yet become irrevocably corrupted needs to be available. For many less serious offenders, throwing them behind bars is neither helpful in fixing the problems in societies nor fixing the behavioral problem in these inmates. It has become apparent that direct and beneficial alternatives should be tried before and during incarceration. These efforts not only benefit those incarcerated, but also save money for the United States and make our communities safer.

Works Cited

Bandara, Sachini, Peter Gehred, Sean Greene, Sarika Gupta, Samantha Harvell, Emily Lando, Aleena Oberthur, and Denise Wilson. "Pew Report: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms."Jomurnalists Resource RSS. Pew Charitable Trusts, 6 June 2012. Print. 09, 34-42. Dec. 2012.

Bauer, Shane. “Cruel Isolation.” Los Angeles Times. 18 Oct 2012: A. 21. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Dec 2012.

Benker, Karen M., Marcia A. Howard, and Brian Sigritz. State Expenditure Report Series (1987-2007). 10 Dec. 2010. Raw data. National Association of State Budget Officers, Washington DC.

Clear, Todd R. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. 1-6, 16, 49. Print.

Davis, Angela Y. Introduction. Are Prisons Obsolete? an Open Media Book. New York: Seven Stories, 2010. 6-8, 45. Print.

Four Communities Recieve Funding For Court-Based Program To Prevent Reoffending. Rep. no. 202.307.0703. Washington D.C.: OJP, 2011. Print.

Gaes, Gerald G. "The Impact of Prison Education Programs on Post-Release Outcomes." Reentry Roundtable on Education (2008): 7, 12. Web. 10 Dec. 2012. .

Hard Time: Hustle. Dir. Gregory Henry, David Shadrack Smith, and Eric Strauss. By Courtney Thompson. Perf. Thurston Moore. National Geographic, 2011. DVD.

“Jailhouse Blues.” Economist (London, England) Vol. 394. No. 8669. 13 Feb 2010: 37. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 Dec 2012.