Category: Mass Incarceration

Executive Summary

This report reviews research on mass incarceration or imprisonment. Its anticipated outcome is to help in reforming Florida and the American justifications with reference to the number of incarceration times for wrongdoers within the criminal justice system. The State of Florida falls in the 10^th position in terms of incarceration. It falls below Louisiana, which has the highest incarceration rate.

Louisiana has significantly higher rates of incarceration compared to States such as Minnesota and North Dakota, which are the only similar-sized regions that have been found to record the lowest incarceration rate (Wagner, Sakala, & Begley, 2016). Incongruence is obvious between the States with lower incarceration rates and the ones that have recorded higher incarceration levels. This report evaluates this divide.

Through concrete research, it brings the political issue to light. The audiences being sought are lawmakers, the legislative body, and state governments. Calls are made for the audience to consider bringing the number of incarceration to similar levels throughout the United States. It advocates for the necessity to bring the rates down beginning with states with the highest rates of incarceration, namely, Louisiana and Florida. It also proposes the need for obtaining accurate rates of incarceration, for instance, parole and mental illness reports (Florida Commission on Offender Review, 2014).

Introduction

Do states with the highest rates of incarceration have higher levels of crimes that lead to a conviction? Even though the response to such an interrogative cannot be put forward explicitly, different policy frameworks and disparities in the dominant political views of any state may contribute to the witnessed variations in incarceration rates among States. This hypothetical position underlines the ultimate significance of this paper. It suggests the need for a policy that harmonizes the political and ideological positions from Republicans or Democrats across different states to bring down the rate of incarceration.

Thus, a reduction of the incarceration rates attracts the development of the appropriate policy framework that embraces alternative mechanisms for punishing some crimes, which are currently handled and/or rehabilitated through incarceration. All States in America, especially those that have recorded a high rate of incarceration, for instance, Florida and Louisiana, should embrace such a policy. Felony and other offenses that contribute to mass incarceration may be addressed using alternative strategies such as community rehabilitation through an intermediate sanction policy framework.

Policy Options and Research

The term incarceration refers to the state of one being locked up in prison. In the US, incarceration is deployed as the mechanism for punishing and/or rehabilitating offenders who are found guilty of felony crimes coupled with other offenses. The term mass incarceration implies a high number of people who are confined in prison compared to the total population of any State (Taibbi, 2014). Tasliz (2011) asserts that America relies heavily on incarceration to rehabilitate or punish felony crimes, a fact that cannot be questioned. He further argues that the phenomenon is explosive to the extent that the vocabulary mass incarceration has been coined to describe it.

Different nations and States have different rates of incarceration. The US possesses the largest population of incarcerated citizens (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016; Mahapatra, 2014). In terms of incarceration per capita, it falls in the second position after Seychelles. Although the nation (Seychelles) has a population of about 92,000, about 785 people were incarcerated in 2014 (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016). In the case of the United States, for every 100,000 people, 698 were incarcerated in 2013 (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016). Louisiana has the highest rate of incarceration. Indeed, the statistical findings on the incarceration rate in the US vary according to States.

The most reliable source of data that can demonstrate the significance of the problem of mass incarceration in the United States is the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BSJ). In 2013, the organization reports, 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in the US federal and state prisons and county jails in 2013 about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the US resident population (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014, p.10).

The organization further indicates that in the same year, 1 out of 51 citizens were on parole or placed on probation. The implication of these statistics is that 1 out 35 residents in the US were either on parole, serving a jail term, were in detention centers, or placed on trial. Hence, the high prevalence of mass incarceration in punishing or rehabilitating felony convicts may call for the need to establish other policy alternatives, for instance, putting petty offenders on community-based correctional facilities.

Indeed, Glaze, Kaeble, Anastasios, and Minton (2015) inform that the number of young offenders placed on correctional systems reduced by more than 52,000 with reference to the 2013 and 2014 data. However, this finding does not imply that crime rates reduced during this period. Indeed, Glaze et al. (2015) argue that the number of incarcerated adults was on the rise in 2014 compared to 2013.

In 2013, the number of juveniles held in youthful detention facilities stood at 54,148 (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2014). The problem of mass incarceration in the USA is amplified by the fact that the US residents can still be incarcerated because of debts, even though debtors prisons were scrapped off (Genevieve & Adrienne, 2012). Driven by this concern, Timothy (2015) observes that various jails in the US serve the role of warehousing the poor, drug addicts, mentally ill persons, and people with financial challenges, a situation that limits their capability for posting bail.

Human Rights Watch (2014) echoes similar concerns by noting that laws labeled tough-oncrimes that found their way into the US judicial criminal system in the 1980s have led to the filling of American jails with a large number of nonviolent people. It indeed suffices to establish an alternative policy that can reduce mass incarceration, especially of nonviolent offenders.

Different states have recorded a history of specific political views or inclinations. For example, Minnesota has a history of democratic political inclination while Republicans dominate Louisiana (Croockett, 2016). Such inclinations have had ramifications on mass incarceration in the US. Chettiar (2015) supports this view by arguing that Republicans have now shifted their policy from leaning toward President Regans staunch support for policies aimed at fighting drugs to now supporting Democrats in a call for judicial reform.

Indeed, States such as Minnesota, which traditionally voted for autonomous political views, have lower rates of mass incarceration compared to Louisiana that has an incarceration rate of 867 for every 100, 000 individuals (Archambeault & Donald, 2009), yet the two States are almost the same in terms of their population sizes.

Maintaining a high population in prisons requires heavy expenditure. Taslitz (2011) suggests, The sheer cost of maintaining this prison state may indeed be making it buckle somewhat under the weight of the incarcerates fiscal burden (p.332). However, Wolff and Gottschalk (2008) counter this argument by positing that amid the different prevalence levels of mass incarceration in different states, the reformatory state continues to survive in the USA. Hence, a mechanism for reducing it requires the involved parties to address its key drivers. One such driver is the availability of funds to run prisons in the USA as shown in Figure 1 below.

The need to increase such funds was supported by policies that campaigned for tough responses to crimes. For example, in 1992, during his presidential campaign, President Clinton promised to react toughly to crimes. He delivered his promise through legislation facilitating the flow of billions of dollars to different States. This plan would help in increasing and managing the large population of inmates in American prisons.

Conclusion

An obvious incongruence exists between American regions with lower incarceration rates and the ones that have elevated imprisonment levels. The paper has argued that political-ideological positions from Democrats and Republicans have implications on the prevalence of incarceration rates in any State in the US. Republicans have history-supported policies for increasing incarceration as a mechanism for punishing felony crimes coupled with other offenses, despite todays change of support to such policies.

The paper suggests that this situation may explain why States such as Louisiana, which have traditionally upheld the Republican political views, have the highest incarceration rate in the US. While the phenomenon of mass incarceration persists in the US, the issue is a necessary cause of alarm that requires urgent attention by lawyers, the legislative body, government, human rights entities, and policymakers in all states across the US, especially those with high incarceration rates, including Louisiana and Florida.

Policy Recommendations

Option 1: Releasing Wrongfully Convicted Persons

A policy initiative aimed at reviewing determining cases in which the probability of wrongful conviction is high can incredibly help in the reduction of incarceration rates in the United States and consequently a decrease in mass incarceration in Louisiana and Florida. Such implications depend on the evidence concerning the success of such a policy. Norris, Bonventre, Redlich, and Acker (2011) argue that the number of people identified as wrongly convicted increases as more cases continues to be revisited.

Since the 1989 successful prosecution of the first case involving DNA testing in the US, Innocence Project, an advocacy group that fights for the rights of wrongly convicted persons, reveals that 272 people were exonerated in 2011 (Norris et al., 2011). The organization only considers cases where DNA evidence has been retained after conviction to permit re-testing. It estimates that such cases only account for about 10% of all criminal convictions in the US (Norris et al., 2011).

According to Acker (2013), advocates of reform in judicial systems argue that DNA testing only encompasses a conclusive approach to a successful conviction in a few criminal cases. The observation suggests many more wrongfully convicted people in prisons whose ability to prove their innocence is void due to the inexistence of any retained DNA evidence. Indeed, DNA testing is only important in crimes involving DNA exchanges such as murder and rape.

In most cases, it is only reliable where murder preceded a rape. In this case, sufficient DNA testing becomes available. Nevertheless, this claim does not imply that DNA must always be preserved even in these two classes of crimes. It does not give valid results in all situations in terms of identifying the crime perpetrators (Garrett & Neufeld, 2010).

The prevalence levels of wrongful convictions may be more than the figures cited by the Innocence Project. In 2007, Risinger, a law professor at Seton Hall, studied 328 different cases of exoneration involving convicts of felonies such as murder and rape from 1989 to 2003. In his study, he also compared these cases to various other incidents that involved rape or murder, in which DNA was a crucial factor in their successful prosecution (Radley, 2014).

He deduced that the total number of people convicted to death accounted for 1% of the entire prison population in the US and 22% of all exonerated people. Hypothetically, assuming that persons who are wrongly convicted to life imprisonment also account for 1% similar to the case of those convicted to death as Resinger suggests, a 2% (about 46,000) of US prisons population would have been wrongly convicted to either life imprisonment or death penalty by 2008.

The above hypothetical figures of wrongful convictions in the US attract high criticism with commentators arguing that they are too high. For instance, Joshua Marquis, Clatsop Countys DA, criticizes the arguments raised by Resinger and statistics from the Innocence Project. He maintains that although wrongful convictions may occur, they are uncommon. He further suggests that he would even consider resigning if he, for sure, knew 2 to 5% of all prisons population was innocent (Radley, 2014).

However, whatever the actual number of wrongful convictions, they are a necessary cause of alarm, especially by noting the upwards trend of the number of cleared cases of wrongful convictions (Radley, 2014). Hence, a review of all wrongful convictions can incredibly reduce the problem of mass incarceration, especially in States with harsh crime policies.

Option 2: Community-based Rehabilitation

Justice is delivered to match the threshold of the committed offense. Therefore, incarceration in States such as Florida and Louisiana can be reduced using a policy directive for putting petty offenders into community rehabilitation facilities through intermediate sanctions. Indeed, for a state interested in seeking to reduce incarceration rates, an intermediate sanction or prisons are more appropriate depending on the crime committed.

For example, a terrorist who bombs 1000 people leaving them dead while he or she narrowly escapes death can only be an aggravated source of national and international security when an intermediate sanction is deployed to punish him or her. Such a person needs not to be in contact with other people who he or she can potentially harm or citizens who he or she can conspire to commit another deadly crime.

Depending on the threshold of the crime, intermediate sanctions for selected groups of offenders can be effective in reducing high incarceration rates in Louisiana and Florida. Instead of bringing petty offenders in contact with hardcore criminals who can train them to commit serious crimes when released to the communities, an intermediate sanction is effective since it reduces the chances of recidivism (Shalev, 2009). There should be no worry that intermediate sanctions can expose communities to risks. The exercise can be done in a manner that offenders are monitored for them not to cause safety challenges to the communities that integrate them. This way, high incarceration rates also become possible to reduce.

The State of California provides an important benchmark for the effectiveness of a community-based correctional policy directive. California Welfare-To-Work-Act, enacted in 1997, led to the creation of the Comprehensive Youth Service Act, which was meant to provide Country Probation Departments (CPDs) with federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds to be used to help attain overarching federal TANF goals by providing services to youths and their families (Turner, Davis, Steinberg, & Fain, 2003, p. 11). Services provided at the juvenile halls influenced the youths in various ways. Through the CYSA/TANF, many counties argued that they experienced observable changes with real impacts on persons who were seeking services from the juvenile halls.

In terms of collaboration, mental health and drug abuse programs were implemented in various counties. Such programs were instrumental in helping to provide mechanisms for reforming juveniles since substance abuse is one of the major drivers of youths engagement in a felony (Grady, 2012). CYSA/TANF curriculum also provided funds that were deployed to enhance activities, which were pivotal in the achievement of other goals of juvenile service as intended by the CYSA/TANF legislation.

The goals included the investment of CYSA/TANF funds in teaching at-risk youths subjects such as anger management, counseling, and even educational advocacy mechanisms among others. This strategy is desirable and appropriate in reducing the probability of increased mass incarceration in the State of California. Such success will influence the situation in Louisiana and Florida, which have a high rate of mass incarceration.

References

Acker, J. (2013). The flipside injustice of wrongful convictions: When the guilty go free. Albany Law Review, 76(3), 1629-1672.

Archambeault, W., & Donald, D. (2009). Cost effectiveness comparisons of private versus public prisons in Louisiana: A comprehensive analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn correction centers. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4(1), 1-10.

Chettiar, I. (2015). Republicans and Democrats agree: End mass incarceration. Web.

Croockett, Z. (2016). How your state voted in the past 15 elections. Web.

Florida Commission on Offender Review. (2014). Year end summary statistics. Web.

Garrett, B., & Neufeld, P. (2010). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1-97.

Genevieve, L., & Adrienne, R (2012). Confining social insecurity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the 21st century debtors prison. Politics and Gender, 8(1), 2549.

Glaze, L., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional population in the United States. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L., Kaeble, D., Anastasios, T., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Grady, S. (2012). Civil death is different: An examination of a post-Graham challenge to felon disenfranchisement under the Eighth Amendment. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 441-470.

Human Rights Watch. (2014). National behinds bars: A human rights solution. London: Routledge.

Institute of Criminal Policy Research. (2016). Highest to lowest- prison population rate. Web.

Mahapatra, L. (2014). Incarcerated in America: Why are so many people in the US prisons? New York, NY: International Business Times.

Norris, R., Bonventre, C., Redlich, A., & Acker, J. (2011). Than that one innocent sufferer: Evaluating state safeguards against wrongful convictions. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1301-1364.

Radley, B. (2014). Wrongful convictions. Web.

Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk by solitary confinement. Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. New York, NY: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Taibbi, M. (2014). The divide: American injustice in the age of the wealth gap. New York, NY: Spiegel and Grau.

Taslitz, A. (2011). The criminal republic: Democratic breakdown as a cause of mass incarceration. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9(1), 133-193.

Timothy, W (2015). Jails have become warehouses for the poor and addicted, a report says. New York, NY: New York Times.

Turner, S., Davis, L., Steinberg P., & Fain, T. (2003). Evaluation of the CYSA/TANF program in California: Final report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Wagner, P., Sakala, L., & Begley, J. (2012). States of incarceration: The global context. Web.

Wolff, N., & Gottschalk, M. (2008). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Journal of Health Policy, 33(1), 332-337.

John Pfaff in his book, Locked In, uses charts and figures to explain the mass incarceration in America. Highlighting and dismissing the common wrong opinions on reformation in the system for 200 pages. The already over-populated prison and jail system has to look at prosecutorial power instead of the publics focal point, of drug laws, sentencing reform, and private prisons. Although, there are real issues in all of these divisions the real demon lies in your local government. In reading, one will realize there is deep structural problems behind America’s mass incarceration not just the set few that are thrown to the public eye.

“The War on Drugs”

As an American living in this country, born in the 90’s, I’ve seen the movement of militarizing law enforcement in means of stopping drugs. Now, 2019, we are in the largest opiate epidemic the world has seen going on for now 10 years. This, “War on Drugs” started well after Nixon and by the time Reagan became President America’s mass incarceration was well on its way. It is myth that ending the drug war would free up resources and prison space. Many people arrested for drugs are put in jail or prison because of increased penalties for violent offenders. A police officer could believe that the drug abuser was involved in some sort of violent crime this, in turn, pushes for the official arrest. John Pfaff states, ‘Violence is a phase, not a state’ because it’s not how most individuals are born, so it rather nurtures then nature. More than one factor determines someone to be violent, like age, family status, employment opportunities, and ultimately. demographics. When convicting someone of a violent crime most of these factors are simply dismissed by the public. Pfaff avoids this and seeks to explain violence as inherent to the person, not the circumstance of their action. Prison and Jail does not deter someone who has grown up in a violent environment, John explains this further with plenty of graphical data to support his claims.

Complex System Driven by Lost Data

Understanding the way, the United States Criminal Justice system works starts with learning who the real decision makers are. The head of the snake, is the prosecutors that decides whether an individual will be brought to trial, what charges are going to be given, and of course, plea deals. Except at the federal level, these decision makers in charge of the law are elected rather than appointed. What is alarming to the public and myself is, John mentions there is tiny supervision, and regulation on these decisions by these individuals. If you or anyone you know goes into a courtroom you will always here the term, plea deal. The scary part is in the book it mentions 95% of cases will never see trial in America. This may be one of the fastest drivers for mass incarceration in America. These elected officials and wielders of the law will be elected by the whiter communities, and crime-scared suburban cities. It’s troublesome to watch the poorer mostly urban population that are more life threatened by crimes deal with these real-life effects. All because of random ignorant votes that don’t see day to day effects of ‘tough on crime’.

This book will teach any individual from any walk of life what news of the criminal justice system is highlighted and brought to the so called ‘lime-light’. The United States has widespread ignorance and plagues the criminal justice system with negative convictions. Pointing fingers at symptoms and not the root of the illness in the correctional system. Voters are often times completely ignorant of actual crime trends and focus on shocking cases. Starting with your community, it’s very important to educate individuals on the importance of voting in proper prosecutors. Small working changes in your community and will be data driven with solutions costing nothing but your time to go vote.

It’s hard to ignore the division rising as mass incarceration takes over almost every community in America. The alternative framework for what true justice means and what it looks like for each individual is causing separation in communities. Resulting in misunderstanding from both the left and right political parties that have an effect on the criminal justice system. Instead of focusing on the Correction Facility of America and all the positions that are in it and their importance, alternative efforts are being made, what I’d call a wild goose chase for the users of the drugs. Deterring your undivided attention from people being wrongfully incarcerated all over America, in your own community. Under the influence of drugs does not help you when facing a prosecutor with more than one offense, but having a high paid lawyer does. This is disproportionate when I think about the effects on the rich drug dealer. That being said the rich drug dealer can pay off a high paid lawyer but a heavy drug abuser has no money and will go with a court appointed, or in some cases, no one. This system is unfair to someone who is mentally incapable of decisions but fair to what they are publicizing they are going after? The true hypocrites of society sit behind the law and think others do not notice.

John Pfaff, and other individuals revealing these truths, as myths, of the criminal justice system is needed to educate communities. When we do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, we enter insanity and that is where America has unfortunately landed. The return rate and over-populated prisons reveal cracks in the system and it’s only a matter of time before it all collapses. It can be saved but it’s up to us to not pass judgements and truly apply ourselves for Correctional Reform.

References

1. Pfaff, J. F. (2017). Locked in: The true causes of mass incarceration–and how to achieve real reform. New York: Basic Books.

The American dream has always applied to the superior race. Historically speaking white people have proven superiority through various practices. Throughout history, black people were never meant to benefit from what America has to offer it was quite evident that we did not meet the criteria of equal treatment. As history progressed it has come to a realization that African Americans do not have to try twice as hard to maintain a decent living and even come close to what our white counterparts have been benefiting from since the start of the middle passage. Therefore, through policy, Black people are looked at as something less than human, which then has an impact on how society sees our value just as people. African Americans are in a system where race is intertwined within every aspect of life. Racial bias has manifested into an experience that black people are still going through. Whether it is the criminal justice system, jobs, schools, neighborhoods, you name it. “The war on drugs” has constructed unequal outcomes across racial groups specifically African Americans and Latinos. This paper will examine the events leading up to the criminalization of black and brown people and how the use of marijuana has been negatively associated with minorities as well as how that association manifested into the social construct of black criminality we see today. In addition to that, I will touch on the black family dynamic and how the criminalization of marijuana has impacted said dynamic in a way that will take the black family a significant amount of time to come back from. Also, I will talk about the struggles of black individuals who come out of prison and have trouble adapting back into society post-incarceration.

Before getting into the relationship between marijuana and mass incarceration within the black community, it is important to talk about the history of African Americans which plays a major role in the manifestation of mass incarceration. Black and dangerous have been synonymous since the first ship filled with slaves landed on American soil. Our worth as people were diminished before we had the opportunity to show our true value. Slavery was an apparent racial caste system that used laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution also known as the Supreme law of the land. Codes were placed to confirm that blacks were a separate group. Maintaining white supremacy was the underlying goal of all discriminatory laws. After Slavery was over in 1865, after the end of the civil war, and with the implementation of the 13th Amendment, one would think that the Racist caste system was over. The Reconstruction era surfaced and its success regarding blacks was short-lived. While it introduced progress, it also introduced fresh challenges. Under the administration of President Johnson, Black codes were established. The systems were implemented to control the labor of freed black slaves due to the preconceived notion that we were lazy. A few years later, newly enfranchised blacks under radical reconstruction possessed political voices. However, this didn’t last long due to the Ku Klux Klan dismantling policies and regaining its control under white supremacy. Unfortunately, the question of what to do with the Negro was on the minds of many politicians and the white population in general. During this time, black people are incompetent and unable to be productive members of society. This ideology is something people in today’s world still hold onto.

Jim Crow was the next policy introduced as a way to maintain white supremacy. Jim Crow consisted of laws that hindered blacks from being actual members of society. Procedures such as separate but equal which included segregation in education and professional settings. In addition to that policy, there were also literacy tests to block black voting. Jim’s crown brought even more racial divide. Individuals who supported Jim Crow believed that people of African descent were inferior. After the Jim Crow era, white people needed a new way to maintain the racial structure of America. Politicians who were devoted to keeping racial hierarchy, were on the search for a new system to achieve their goal. Moreover, this brings us to the rise of Mass Incarceration. Before the rest of the population can be utterly reliant on the Mass Incarceration of blacks, white politicians had to provide proof that it was justified. Instead of basing incarceration solely on race, they associated criminality with race, which would lead to the imprisonment of that specific race. Under the Administration of President Nixon, blacks being the face of what is wrong in America reached new heights. Michelle Alexander, author of ‘The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,’ quoted a statement from one of President Nixon’s key advisers. In relation to Nixon’s plan, which said ‘ you have to face the fact that the whole problem is ‘really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to’ (NJC 43-44). This specific statement is alarming and explains how mass incarceration was able to manifest, into other disproportionate findings on the quality of life of black people. Polarizing race, allowed associations of crime with blacks to increase. President Regan takes a similar approach in his campaign. Regan’s approach emphasized black women being welfare queens, due to our ‘lazy ‘characteristics.

Regan associated black men with being criminal predators According to Jelani Jefferson Exum, Author of ‘The influence of Past Racism on Criminal Injustice: A review of ‘The New Jim Crow and the Condemnation of blackness.’ These practices bring us to The War on Drugs, which affected the black community only. The American people did not see drugs as an epidemic. Regan ignited a war on drug users and dealers that were racially defined. The War on Drugs was a gateway for the mass incarceration of blacks. During Clinton’s presidency, the number of prison inmate’s number skyrocketed, because of his harsh approach to crime. The war on drugs was allegedly on race-neutral and colorblind terms, but everyone knew according to casualties, that this was racial. The majority of those admitted into prison institutions were of African and Hispanic descent. Minorities were sent to prison for an extensive amount of time, for non-violent offenses. The staggering increase in both the prison population and racial disparity contributed to aggressive tactics of street-level enforcement of drug laws, as well as mandating unnecessary sentences to keep prison populations at high levels during this era. Black people were given life sentences for marijuana offenses. According to NORML: “Racial disparity in Marijuana effects” the article includes a report which states that on average “a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession.’ This quote from the article speaks volumes about the overall message of what being black in America means. Marijuana convictions in the black community lead to other consequences that for most, last a lifetime. The consequences the black community endures from the practices explained above are constantly ignored by our white counterparts. Furthermore, the arrests and convictions of marijuana alone wreak havoc on the community. Some of the consequences include the inability for student loan assistance, job opportunities, child custody, as well as immigration status. The war on drugs and its association with the black community has hindered people from progressing socio-economically as supposed to our white counterparts who most of the time don’t see jail time. According to Lawrence D. Bobo and Victor Thompson, Authors of ‘Unfair by Design: The war on Drugs, Race, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System.’ They stated that There were 154, 3461 more offenders sentenced to prison in 1995 than in 1985, an increase of 84%. The vast majority increase consisted of nonviolent drug and property offenders; drug offenders alone accounted for over half the increase. Less than one in four of the increase involved a violent offense’ While the war on drugs was running its course through black communities across the nation, Local law enforcement had to show some increase in their crackdown on crime. Law enforcement saw this as an opportunity to over-police the already disadvantaged community. By over policing increases the chances of coming across crime amongst poor ethnic groups. Furthermore, the more arrests you make, the more the public thinks that it’s doing more good than harm. The outcome of policing poor neighborhoods is indeed predictable. Non-minorities who are not affected by this, can’t seem to grasp what is taken from several black families. Further, due to the police and federal government ripping our communities apart to paint their picture of social disorder, there is a disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated compared to whites. Being that minorities make up most of the prison system, there is no doubt that mass incarceration is targeted at specific races, despite how government officials wanted the rest of the world to view it.

When it comes to the effect the targeted conviction of black people and its effect on the black family, it is no secret that it causes detriment to the dynamic of what a family is supposed to be. As previously stated, black people are incarcerated disproportionately compared to their white counterparts on marijuana charges. The sentences these black men face are extreme and as a result, drive a wedge in the family dynamic which then causes a domino effect of everlasting poverty and criminality. In addition to the impact it has on families, it is extremely difficult for those imprisoned to come back home and be of value to society when their means to provide are limited.

The effects of Mass Incarceration paint an adverse representation to the media, and members of the majority. White people get used to the marginalization of blacks that they don’t think close-knit African American families, and African-Americans with no criminal record exist. In addition to that, the black family dynamic is diminishing because of mass incarceration. The African American man is considered a necessary factor when it comes to the black family having a strong foundation. Black men hold the title of being the provider, as well as being an example of a person with substance. Black men have a substantial influence on their children. The idea of not having your father around in the black community means that you may go through mental roadblocks because of it. Children desperately need their fathers, because they are supposed to instill discipline in them as well as be an example of how a man should conduct himself. Black fathers who do get the chance to come back to a family struggle to get back to their role as providers. Due to his criminal status, his options for making legitimate money are minimal. The system does not allow black men to come home and be conductive members. Instead, they come home and are forced to adjust to their new title of an ex-con. These men must deal with probation, any simple mistakes they make can cost them the duration of their lives behind bars. Most of the time, these young men don’t feel like they have what it takes to live comfortably and provide for their families financially, so they result back to criminal activity. By resulting in criminal activity, the racially induced statistics of blacks being nothing but trouble is alarming. When these negative connotations are given a chance to manifest, the majority starts to believe that their racial bias is accurate. Furthermore, it leads to people justifying mass incarceration.

Having an economic crisis can put a strain on everyone in the household, which could lead to conflict, and ultimately a dysfunctional black family home. Dealing with a formerly incarcerated family member can be incredibly frustrating. The burden of keeping things together falls on the black woman. The black woman tries to balance being two different attributes to their family. In addition to that, the family may break up and become another statistic of a single-family home. Due to mass incarceration, black families are put even more at a disadvantage than they already are. Families in these situations have to deal with the disadvantages of already being black and in poverty. The mass incarceration of these men allows the cycle to continue with their children. Black young men who continuously see black people linked with crime, and having their parents be one, impact them negatively. As I mentioned before the role of a father is vital, especially in a young man’s life. Being raised by a working single mother leaves less time for the mother to stay on top of their children’s personal and academic lives. According to Dorothy E. Roberts, Author of the social and Moral Costs of Mass Incarceration in African American Communities She states that’ separation from imprisoned parents has serious mental consequences for their children, including depression, anxiety, feelings of rejection, shame, anger, and guilt and problems in school.’ The absence of fathers, cause some black children to do poorly academically. Which results in them dropping out. Dropping out of school only leaves these men with a few options. They either join the working class which they already feel disadvantaging effects, or they could engage in illegal activities in which people think they are already partaking. The incarceration of their parents allows room for them to think negatively about their own lives and what they will be able to accomplish.

The self-esteem of black young men is already low due to their parent’s imprisonment. Further, seeing the way blacks are being tarnished in the media, as well as already living a disadvantaged life, these young boys think that all they are capable of is a life of crime, and being In and out of jail. Internalizing negative associations with their racial group is very dangerous for the black man. Most of the time if young black boys don’t have the necessary social support such as a father, they may start to believe all of the stigmas that are in relation to the color of their skin. All of what I stated, is how Mass Incarceration manages to get back into play with a younger generation. Mass incarceration Is seen to be normalized now. The normalization of mass incarceration infers that young black people are attracted to the idea of being a criminal. Groups of young men who have absent fathers are trying to make it look cool to engage in a life of criminal activity whether violent or nonviolent.

Moreover, the transition from inmate to citizen can be a treacherous one for minorities. Mass incarceration has stripped away the necessary tools and resources for blacks to sustain a decent living in America. In addition to that, the social effects mass incarceration leaves behind to disadvantage further blacks goes beyond the issue of imprisonment. Black people on a daily basis will face discrimination while searching for a job, especially those with little skill. Black people who have a criminal history are always exempt from the working-class community. The stigma on people of color with a record hinders them from contributing positively to society. Secondly, white people who have criminal records experience privileges, far from what their black counterparts can deem relatable. According to Authors, Bobo and Thompson, they retrieved a study that only 5 percent of blacks with criminal history received a callback. The study went on to explain that those numbers are rather depressing when comparing the already low chances of blacks getting a call back who had no criminal record at 14%. The study is comparative to whites without a criminal history who was called back 34% of the time. The results show that even whites with a criminal record had a better chance of getting a call back with a percentage of 17%. It is no secret that there are whites also in jail, but the problem arises when there is a noticeable difference in their lives post-incarceration. Most white people don’t have to worry about incarceration affecting how their community looks as a whole. White people who don’t commit crimes don’t have to worry about being misrepresented due to the color of their skin, and the negative character traits pushed on them. The study to me says that white people have more of an opportunity to pick their life up after jail if they even are convicted. In addition to that, black men are forced to be lower-class citizens. Mass incarceration brought back the disenfranchisement of blacks. In most states inmates are not allowed to participate in elections.

Moreover, because black men make up most of the prison population, they are affected by this disproportionally. Government officials take advantage of them not being able to express political wants. Less black voters mean fewer black votes, which indicates less concern for getting the black vote. Not being concerned about retrieving, the black vote means that there is no intent for implementing policies that could help advance the black communities. Convicted black men don’t have the opportunity to vote for local offices like mayor, governor, or even District Attorney. These people play a very small role in creating laws and making decisions that affect their everyday lives. Failing to participate in things of this nature actively helps lead to their downfall.

To the Majority, America has progressed when it comes to racial inequality. Most white people think that blacks have no justification to complain. The truth is that over time, America has come up with ways to mask its racial intent. To be seen as progressive, they have come up with ideas that keep marginalized groups suppressed without looking discriminatory. Mass Incarceration has outlined the characteristics and capabilities of all black people. In addition, it has taken a mental toll on minorities all over America. The mass incarceration of minorities dramatically minimizes the participation of African American Communities, in different elements of traditional American life, mostly because they cannot. We do not have a criminal justice system free of racial bias. Time and time again through different policies we are reminded as black people, that we aren’t valued. To be free in this country is to be of anything other than a minority. Most people think that Mass incarceration only affects the person institutionalized. People with that mindset fail to realize that it is a problem for everybody black whether they have a criminal history or not. There is a need for reform in the criminal justice system. Without proper change, the elevation of black people in this country is in jeopardy

In contrast to white people, minorities are overrepresented in the United States penal system. Despite being of the lesser portion of the general population, Black and Latino’s people comprise the larger part of the prison population for various reasons. First, minorities are more likely to be arrested for drug possession and other drug offenses. Communities of color are disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. Second, people from minority communities also serve longer sentences. Since they are in prison for a longer time than the average white convict, the number of incarcerated minorities is disproportionately high. Third, the cycle of incarceration also tends to occur mostly within minority populations. This is because the juvenile prison population consists mainly of people of color. Juvenile convicts are highly likely to re-offend and consequently, get stuck within the penal system for the majority or all of their lives.

The disproportionate number of people of color within US jails has several effects. On an individual level, a person released from prison could experience delusions, PTSD, depression, and other mental health problems. On a communal level, minority people have lost faith in the criminal justice system. They have become disillusioned with a system that oppresses them. Another effect is that minority communities are economically disadvantaged from having many of their members in prisons. Poverty is a risk factor for higher crime levels and poor mental health. Since these communities become poorer, the people experience negative conditions such as lack of access to healthcare and homeless. In social work, the effects of the incarceration of one person reverberate within the family from which they were uprooted. Consequently, it is safe to assume that mass incarceration of minorities will affect, not just the imprisoned people, but also the communities of color.

Introduction

The United States is known for its massive prison population, which has emerged as a result of harsh sentencing laws. It is substantially easier to argue for increasing the punishment for a criminal offense than for reducing it since the person has acted immorally, and the punishment systems used by humans generally act as deterrents rather than reformation attempts. As a result, the argument that the crime keeps occurring because the deterrent for it is not strong enough will almost always sound convincing. However, this situation has escalated to an unprecedented degree in the United States, harming society as a result.

Recent administrations have begun reversing the trend, but the change is a slow process. This essay will discuss the current mass incarceration situation in the United States and analyze the potential changes that the sentencing reform may bring.

Sentencing Policies and Mass Incarceration

The emergence of harsh sentencing laws in the United States was not without a rational reason. Reitz (2018) claims that in the middle and later parts of the 20th century, the country developed substantially higher violent crime rates than most other Western countries, to which the government proceeded to respond with increases in punishment severity. The action was intended to make violence a less attractive option and stop potential criminals from committing offenses.

The success of the initiative is a matter of another discussion that is not the topic of this essay. However, once the law was put into effect, it would be challenging to scale its provisions back. If it were effective, it would be unreasonable to end such a successful initiative. If not, then, in the absence of other cost-effective options, further increases would be the only path likely to be approved.

Moreover, increases in punishment severity are an effective political tool, a fact that partially explains their lasting popularity with both the Republican and Democratic parties. In the public mind, criminals as a whole were typically seen as dangerous aggressors and an overall harmful category that should be isolated from other people. As such, whenever people were concerned about crime, politicians could gain popularity by talking about being ‘tough on crime’ and retaliating against those who would endanger public peace. They offered a solution that would be easy to implement and effective from the voters’ viewpoint.

The success of the strategy led to a continuous increase in the sentences for various crimes throughout much of the 20th century. Moreover, the focus on criminals as a distinct category of people who are separated from the general population created problematic legal situations.

The War on Drugs is an excellent example of how the politicization of criminal justice has created potentially unfair sentencing systems. As the name indicates, the policies associated with the initiative were intended to eradicate drug usage from society, a task at which they have failed. However, as Barkow (2019) notes, drug-related sentencing laws do not take the broad range of culpability in the matter into account, considering only whether the individual possessed or distributed the substance as well as its type and quantity. Drug users are seen as a separate and immoral part of society, and most or all of them are treated equally poorly. Judges and politicians are uninterested in looking into one’s circumstances and pronounce everyone equally guilty. Many of the same considerations apply in the cases of other crimes, such as sexual offenses or theft.

The existence of private prisons in the U.S. has contributed to the problem further, creating a substantial lobby that wants harsher sentences. According to Eisen (2018), the nation’s incarceration industry is worth approximately $80 billion, a substantial amount that would lose a considerable part of its value if there were fewer prisoners. Private prisons are not the only enterprises that form it, with food, clothing, and other necessities also often being outsourced to companies and corporations. All of these diverse actors are interested in retaining the status quo of punishments that either stays the same or escalate with time.

On the other hand, a lobby that pushes for the opposite does not exist because there are almost no companies that benefit directly from lower prisoner numbers. Overall, the presence of motivations for introducing harsher sentences without any significant drawbacks explains the emergence of the mass incarceration phenomenon.

However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the prison population grew to the degree that began concerning the population. The U.S. has one of the largest prison populations in the world with no discernible benefits to it. As a result, harsh sentencing policies have become less popular than they had been before. However, there was no strong support for reducing sentences, either, and the Bush and early Obama administrations made little effort to address the mass incarceration problem. Ultimately, President Obama began making some changes in his second term, which President Trump has continued. However, sentencing policy reform is still in its early stages and requires substantial refinement before it can remedy the current situation.

Sentencing Policy Reform and the Criminal Justice Landscape

As mentioned above, American criminal law does not give sufficient regard to the specific circumstances behind the offense and treats all criminals in the same category similarly. As such, reform would likely focus on differentiating these cases and ensuring that circumstantial criminals do not receive the same degree of punishment as people who do what they do with full awareness of the consequences.

There will not necessarily be fewer convictions and prison sentences, but the average period a prisoner spends in a correctional facility may become substantially shorter. As a result, the prison population would fall over time, with current inmates finishing their sentences and new ones spending less time there. As a result, the mass incarceration problem would be at least partially alleviated, with lower prisoner numbers and, consequently, less space and resources needed for their management.

The incarceration industry would suffer as a result, which may affect other parts of the economy. However, this effect may ultimately be beneficial to the nation rather than harmful to it. According to Suprenant (2018), private prisons are currently using the overcrowded state of state and federal prisons to extract money out of the government without any competition. They are effectively less regulated arms of the government that drain resources and are only concerned with generating profits. A reduction in prison populations would force them to fight each other and the government for the dwindling supply of prisoners.

As a result, the prices would fall while the quality of treatment at the facilities would increase. Ultimately, after the initial period of turbulence, the private prison situation would improve from all perspectives other than theirs.

One may argue that crime will increase as a result of the reduction in the average prison sentence. Because of the lower deterrence factor associated with it, offenders should be more likely to decide to commit offenses despite knowing the consequences. However, Spurr (2019) claims that the benefits of harsh sentencing policy and a high prison population are partially counteracted by the side effects of such an arrangement, such as the rising number of single-parent families, and that in the end, the reduction in crime does not justify the cost. Moreover, with the changes discussed in this paper, serious offenders would remain in prison for a long time while people with extenuating circumstances may have their punishment reduced. The circumstances of such people may be improved through a reduction in the side effects mentioned above, making them less likely to re-offend.

With that said, crime may not be a concern comparable to that of the period which saw the initial sentence increases. Punishment is not the only factor that affects the incidence of crime in an area or nation, and others may be contributing to an overall reduction. Barkow (2019) lists several examples of states that have seen their crime rates keep falling despite introducing sentencing reform that lightened the punishments.

If the same trend is taking place across the United States, sentencing reform may only contribute a small influence to it. As a result, punishments, along with the burden on the criminal justice system and the taxpayers, will be lighter while achieving their intended results. However, to confirm this hypothesis, it would be prudent to analyze the examples of the states mentioned above and experiment with sentencing policy to see the results.

Lastly, the people who remain in prisons will be treated more fairly than before as a result of the reduction of the prison population. Currently, American prisons are often overcrowded, which tends to worsen the circumstances of each inmate. It is possible to argue that this arrangement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, as people are forced to use facilities that were not designed to handle such a high number of users.

Moreover, they continue doing so for years without any substantial change instead of having to handle occasional sharp increases in activity due to how prison arrangements work. A lower prison population will return the situation closer to the intended arrangement and make it easier for inmates to live out their punishment as intended by the courts that sentence them.

Conclusion

Overall, the current mass incarceration situation in the United States is not the result of the application of criminal justice paradigms. Instead, it has arisen from political expediency and lobbying by companies that are interested in maintaining a high prison population. As such, the efforts of the Obama and Trump administrations to improve sentencing policy and reduce the average prison term by differentiating different degrees of offenses should be commended. These alterations should contribute to the reduction of the prison population, which would reduce criminal justice spending and, consequently, the profits of the incarceration industry.

However, crime will likely not increase substantially as the result of such a change, as it has been becoming less frequent in recent decades for unrelated reasons. As such, the criminal justice landscape should not suffer substantially and may even improve due to the elimination of prison overcrowding and the associated issues.

References

Barkow, R. E. (2019). Prisoners of politics: Breaking the cycle of mass incarceration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eisen, L.-B. (2018). Inside private prisons: An American dilemma in the age of mass incarceration. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Reitz, K. R. (ed.). (2018). American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Spurr, S. J. (2019). Economic foundations of law (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Suprenant, C. W. (ed.). (2018). Rethinking punishment in the era of mass incarceration. New York, NY: Routledge.

Abstract

Mass incarceration in the United States of America is considered one of the most important problems and the number of prisoners continues to increase. This country has the biggest imprisonment rate out of any country in the world more than even Russia, Cuba, Rwanda, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. The study will be conducted through the use of incarceration analysis. Some of the sources are based on how prisoners have had a hard time adjusting after prison and how it relates to the communities of color. All of this research is relevant in working toward understanding why it happens and what to do to decline its rise in the United States. What is more, mass incarceration has been a topic of interest in the research world for many years.

Introduction

Today, the United States possesses the highest place in incarcerating more people than any other country. One prime example would be Jim Crow who is more than just a series of severe anti-black laws but it became a style of life. Michelle Alexander, in her book Jim Crow, argues that a mass incarceration is a form of social control, and the only way to make a change is by the massive social change and the Civil Rights Movement.

This control of people should be viewed as a crime itself, targeting groups of people stripping them of basic rights and freedom leaves them in a discriminated social class destroying lives and creating an unethical infrastructure. She also hits on many significant points concerning the criminal justice system and the systems on racial elements that have been perpetuated through various laws, which will be looked at in-depth.

In summary, there is a need for a better understanding of the phenomenon of mass incarceration on the whole. Particularly, the following research questions need to be addressed:

1. What are the premises of the mass incarceration in the country of Americans from a political standpoint?
2. What are the main problems facing the prisoners after releasing them from jail?
3. What are the results of the imprisonment?
4. What are the differences in treating African Americans and White ones?

The US accounts for approximately five percent of the world’s population and about 25 percent of all prisoners in the world (Clear and Frost 21). Mass imprisonment in the United States is the result of many years of punitive punishment, involving life sentences without parole, severe criminal repression, and three-strike law that implies long-term imprisonment for those who committed three crimes.

The importance of researching the chosen topic is enormous since it is a great issue for all the people, particularly for the Americans. Despite the numerous works concerning this problem which lack the deep understanding along with logical, ethical, and appeal to pathos. The research work includes all these spheres of influence and aims to investigate the problem of mass incarceration from different points of view.

In this literature review, it is expected to discuss the fact that politicians, policymakers, social activists, and other interested parties are constantly debating over the need for the decriminalization of certain acts and modernization such as humanization or liberalization of criminal legislation. These efforts are faced with the opposite trend as many government officials and legal scholars demand a toughening of criminal liability. Understanding the causes of such phenomena, looking at them from different views, and analyzing the arguments can help in developing options suitable for solving the problem of mass incarceration.

Literature Review

Premises of Mass Incarceration in the US

The 70s of the previous century is the beginning of the mass incarceration firstly, during the Nixon administration and then it heightens during the Reagan administration but scientists have found some connections with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. According to the former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman, the administration of Nixon in 1968 had two foes: the antiwar left and black people and getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily there could be a disrupt of those communities (Dan Baum).

Since the mid-1970s, the United States has seen a continuous rise in the rates of incarcerations. There is an extreme prison population growth as a result of the drug laws and more rigid sentences enacted in the 70s, the U.S prison population has grown by 500 percent over the past thirty years. According to Radio Times, Keith states “Over 2 million Americans are in jail today, about half of them for non-violent crimes” (Keith Reeves, Jane Siegel). These overcrowded U.S prisons have devastating effects on poor families and communities and they are more vulnerable to economic stress and adverse interpersonal issues such as lack of trust, shame, instability in family relationships, school behaviors, and academic performance of fear of getting close to anyone.

The described issues reflect the views held in public opinion that criminal justice can effectively solve emerging socio-economic problems. Many researchers accuse the Congress of such a situation, but the great contribution to mass incarceration has been made by courts that prefer an extensive interpretation of the federal criminal law. Even if there is a special federal law that applies to a particular criminal act, courts often broadly interpret a general law that allows a more severe punishment for the same act.

American researchers conclude that society fell into dependence on deprivation of liberty as the conviction that it can control any behavior substitutes the facts (Simon 56). In general, this idea is quite relevant to US society as a whole, which in many ways predetermines the activities of politicians and courts.

Problems Occurring after Release

A lot of sources that have been looked up tell more about mass incarceration generally in the United States. Ex-prisoners have a very hard time adjusting to life after being released from prison. The United States remains a considerably racially segregated nation residentially. For instance, a white person could do something worse than an African-American, but the African will still have more problems in getting a job once getting out of prison.

They consider things just in terms of the race, 2.3 million people have lost their family connections, jobs and freedom left their homes and the like. Not only the children faced with the trauma of loss, but they are also faced with a myriad of other challenges both in the economic and social realm. As the number of children whose parents are incarcerated increased so does their needs. These needs are varied from having a safe and stable environment to having an appropriate caretaker to care for them in the absence of their parents. All in all, when parents are incarcerated, many things that happen to the children becomes a major concern.

Among the most characteristic features in prisons, there is their overcrowded nature, widespread physical abuse, poor nutrition, and inadequate access of prisoners to medical care. Long prison terms have led to the imprisonment of more and more elderly people, and this creates serious medical problems for the prison administration, which is poorly prepared to handle the problems of the aging prison population.

For example, more than 26,000 people aged 65 and over got into state prisons and federal prisons in 2011 that is equal to a 62 percent increase over the past five years. Such lamentable conditions negatively affect prisoners’ physical and psychological health, thus reducing their chances of adaptation after the release. The issue of the fate of former prisoners who are deprived of society has been repeatedly raised before the President and the US Congress, but the problem of finding a place to live for the former prisoners and their families has not been solved. On the contrary, the punitive bias of criminal justice continues to grow.

Results of Imprisonment

Furthermore, in one of the articles by Petersilia, an interesting idea is discussed, it is how inmates are not ready to join the rest of society when they come out of prison because everyday life has changed by the time they are released (Joan Petersilia). They often find themselves back when they were before they went to prison, but they are not getting them ready to function back in society. Therefore, they do not know how to continue life and where to go.

Life in prison is very boring. In the article “The Mass Incarceration Problem in America” Grace used mainly logical appeals in her argumentations that incarceration in America is an issue that needs to be more readily discussed in public discourse. Also, she mentions “the US is the habitation to nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite the amount of just 5 percent of the overall global population” (Grace Wyler).

Moreover, the most horrible thing is that the people in prisons are not guilty. In many American high-security prisons, inmates are constantly in a state of complete isolation. They are fed in special boxes, allowed to exercise only half an hour a day, and even forbidden to decorate the concrete walls of their cameras. There are official conclusions that such conditions of detention have driven many of them to profound mental disorders.

From a broader point of view, unjustifiably severe criminal repression is manifested primarily in the excessive criminalization of acts and excessive penalties mainly with the widespread use of long periods of liberty deprivation. This creates serious negative consequences for the economy, demographic situation, and other processes. The prevalence of excessively severe punishment causes overcrowding in prisons, as a result of which conditions for violation of the basic human rights and citizens are created. In 2015, the US Supreme Court recognized that excessive criminalization as well as excessive penalties are a great problem for the country, as stated by Judge Kagan in connection with the Yates v. the United States (2015) case.

Namely, this case was sued after US President Donald Trump removed the acting Attorney General from office after she pointedly refused to support his executive order closing the US borders to refugees from Muslim countries. Such a situation shows that the problem exists and needs to be resolved immediately to prevent more complicated consequences.

Speaking of the state and the regimen of the correctional institutions, it should be noted that there is a great economic and social burden. The total cost of keeping inmates in places of liberty deprivation in the US is about $ 39 billion per year. The largest number of funds spent in California ($ 7.9 billion), New York ($ 3.5 billion), and Texas (3.3 billion dollars) (Orrick and Vieraitis 404). The rise in the number of prisoners significantly increases the burden on the budget of both states and the government. As a result, mass imprisonment negatively affects commerce, enterprise, and innovation as well as undermines public confidence in the justice system. At the same time, the levels of mass incarceration remain high.

Differences in Treating African Americans and White ones

In a country that boasts about equality, African Americans are treated very differently than whites and often are giving a lesser chance for succeeding in life. According to Eli Hager, “Black people in this country are imprisoned at more than 5 times the rate of whites; one in 10 blocks children has a parent behind the bar, compared with about one in 60 white kids” (Eli Hager). This is a terrible state that proves the point that whites and African Americans are not treated the same in American society.

The issue of race is something that they have seen going on with prisoners for a long time. In Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow she states one in three young African American men will spend time in prison, in some cities, more than half of them are incarcerated on parole, or probation (Michelle Alexander). Alexander’s main point is that this is the New Jim crow of “colorblindness” disguises the reality of a new racial caste system.

There are still areas of predominantly African American population residence, where the standard of living on such parameters as crime, the quality of housing conditions, access to education and medical care are much inferior compared to those with the White population. Thus, African American citizens of the United States fall into a vicious circle, where an unemployed or homeless, a member of a criminal group becomes a drug trafficker, yet it is difficult to get an education and a good job.

Almost half of the prisoners are convicted of non-violent crimes related to property, public order, and drugs. About 95 percent of all cases are disclosed as part of a deal with justice (“World Report 2015: United States”). People agree to take the blame to get a shorter period than the conviction of the court. For example, among those accused of drug cases, those who refuse to plead guilty in the investigation receive an average of three times longer sentences (“World Report 2015: United States”).

This practice is directly related to another transparent phenomenon in the US criminal justice such as the release of a suspect on bail. Initially, a pledge was introduced to allow suspects to be at large while preparing for trial. Now, it is rather a mechanism aimed at speeding up the resolution of court cases. Thus, in the course of pre-trial detention, those who are not able to obtain bail are inclined to accept an offer to plead guilty. Considering that among those with low income, there are more African Americans, they become more prone to imprisonment.

One of the destructive consequences of mass imprisonment is the devastation of the lives of children whose parents are imprisoned (Wakefield and Wildeman 42). A new study by Child Trends found that the problem has reached alarming proportions – every 14th American child has a parent in prison (Murphey and Cooper 8). This data is a direct consequence of the system of mass imprisonment. According to the organization of the mentioned study, more than five million American children’s parents were imprisoned, while among African Americans, these numbers are the highest. The study says that every 9th African American child under 18 years has a parent in prison. Also, a large percentage of deprived parents are noted in the poor and rural families without education.

Crutchield and Woek mention how people of those races are more prone to getting into trouble with the law by doing something out in public. While trying to find solutions to the problem for mass incarceration in terms of colored people Crutchield and Woek say that the best way to decrease the collateral results and the criminogenic effects of high rates of incarcerations and their following unfavorable effects for people of different races is to diminish the number of people going into prisons and to construct a more just society.

Solution

An alternative to incarceration can give courts more options to decline mass incarceration in the United States. For instance, the majority of the growth in prison populations in this country is due to slamming people in jail because they were caught using drugs. So much of the much crime of the streets of our country is the country is a drug-related crime that would largely disappear. If the massive profits brought on by drug criminalization were eliminated. “A grant was filed in 1995 that offered monetary rewards to prisons that increased their prison population” (13703, violent offender incarceration grants, 42 USCA),” so if many prisons were not for profit the numbers of incarcerated would lower.

Furthermore, you can reduce drug usage more efficiently, and at a lower cost, through treatment would prevent crimes before they happen to eliminate the initial cause. Another solution could be law enforcement should be identified problems that are the utilization of the SARA model, which involves, analyze the problem by collecting or other relevant information and scanning the social environment to identify problems, which could have been a solution to help decline the mass incarceration.

The movement against mass incarceration has a rich history, while its most prominent feature is the absence of political and ideological coloring. It is attended by Democrats and Republicans who act in a united coalition. Today, this movement attracts wide attention and becomes massive. The society is gradually realizing that the adoption of new criminal and legal prohibitions cannot solve this urgent problem. Instead, to solve the identified issue, it is, first of all, necessary to change judicial practice.

Federal judges should be aware of the negative results that may be produced by mass imprisonment and the associated broad approach to the interpretation of federal criminal law. At the same time, the most important role is played by changes in public awareness. Simon points out that people need to understand the devastating impact of mass imprisonment (98). For example, a survey conducted in Minnesota showed, that four out of five residents would prefer to invest in education, training, and community programs aimed at reducing crime than spending it on correctional facilities.

Methodology

The primary research method for this study is a literature review. This study first reviews the background issues about mass incarceration in the United States. To determine the results of that phenomenon, the critical analysis of some articles is implied. This study is conducted at the beginning of 2018.

Conclusion

Mass incarceration is a big issue in the United States. There are far more people imprisoned in the United States than in any other country. The articles give a lot of information about the topic chosen on mass incarceration and everyone realizes how big the problem of mass incarceration is in the United States its consequences and possible solutions. Thus, the opposition to mass incarceration in the US attracts more and more supporters, including scientists, public activists, official authorities, etc. The goal is to make this problem sound and clear to wide populations, thus promoting change in the very system of judicial practice.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle, “The New Jim Crow”, 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L7, 2011.

Baum, Dan “Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs?”, 2016.

Clear, Todd R., and Natasha A. Frost. The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America. NYU Press, 2015.

Cole, David, “Turning the Corner on Mass Incarceration?” 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L.27, 2011.

Crustchield, Robert D, and Gregory A Woek, “The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Communities of Colors” Issues in science and technology Vol. 32 issue 1, 2015.

Eli, Hager, “A Mass in Incarceration Mystery,” The Marshall Project, 2017.

Keith Reeves and Jane Siegel, The History and Legacy Of Mass Incarceration In The US, Radio Times. 2013.

Murphey, David, and P. Mae Cooper. “Parents behind bars: What happens to their children.” Child Trends, vol. 42, no. 1, 2015, 1-22.

Orrick, Erin A., and Lynne M. Vieraitis. “The Cost of Incarceration in Texas: Estimating the Benefits of Reducing the Prison Population.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 40, no. 2, 2015, 399-415.

Petersilia, Joan, “Prison Can Be Cages or Schools”. Los Angeles Times. 2005.

Simon, Jonathan. Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America. The New Press, 2014.

Wakefield, Sara, and Christopher Wildeman. Children of the Prison Boom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality. Oxford University Press, 2013.

“World Report 2015: United States.” Human Rights Watch, n.d. Web.

Wyler, Grace, “The Mass Incarceration Problem in America”. 2014.

Executive Summary

This report reviews research on mass incarceration or imprisonment. Its anticipated outcome is to help in reforming Florida and the American justifications with reference to the number of incarceration times for wrongdoers within the criminal justice system. The State of Florida falls in the 10^th position in terms of incarceration. It falls below Louisiana, which has the highest incarceration rate.

Louisiana has significantly higher rates of incarceration compared to States such as Minnesota and North Dakota, which are the only similar-sized regions that have been found to record the lowest incarceration rate (Wagner, Sakala, & Begley, 2016). Incongruence is obvious between the States with lower incarceration rates and the ones that have recorded higher incarceration levels. This report evaluates this divide.

Through concrete research, it brings the political issue to light. The audiences being sought are lawmakers, the legislative body, and state governments. Calls are made for the audience to consider bringing the number of incarceration to similar levels throughout the United States. It advocates for the necessity to bring the rates down beginning with states with the highest rates of incarceration, namely, Louisiana and Florida. It also proposes the need for obtaining accurate rates of incarceration, for instance, parole and mental illness reports (Florida Commission on Offender Review, 2014).

Introduction

Do states with the highest rates of incarceration have higher levels of crimes that lead to a conviction? Even though the response to such an interrogative cannot be put forward explicitly, different policy frameworks and disparities in the dominant political views of any state may contribute to the witnessed variations in incarceration rates among States. This hypothetical position underlines the ultimate significance of this paper. It suggests the need for a policy that harmonizes the political and ideological positions from Republicans or Democrats across different states to bring down the rate of incarceration.

Thus, a reduction of the incarceration rates attracts the development of the appropriate policy framework that embraces alternative mechanisms for punishing some crimes, which are currently handled and/or rehabilitated through incarceration. All States in America, especially those that have recorded a high rate of incarceration, for instance, Florida and Louisiana, should embrace such a policy. Felony and other offenses that contribute to mass incarceration may be addressed using alternative strategies such as community rehabilitation through an intermediate sanction policy framework.

Policy Options and Research

The term incarceration refers to the state of one being locked up in prison. In the US, incarceration is deployed as the mechanism for punishing and/or rehabilitating offenders who are found guilty of felony crimes coupled with other offenses. The term mass incarceration implies a high number of people who are confined in prison compared to the total population of any State (Taibbi, 2014). Tasliz (2011) asserts that America relies heavily on incarceration to rehabilitate or punish felony crimes, a fact that cannot be questioned. He further argues that the phenomenon is explosive to the extent that the vocabulary ‘mass incarceration’ has been coined to describe it.

Different nations and States have different rates of incarceration. The US possesses the largest population of incarcerated citizens (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016; Mahapatra, 2014). In terms of incarceration per capita, it falls in the second position after Seychelles. Although the nation (Seychelles) has a population of about 92,000, about 785 people were incarcerated in 2014 (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016). In the case of the United States, for every 100,000 people, 698 were incarcerated in 2013 (Institute of Criminal Policy Research, 2016). Louisiana has the highest rate of incarceration. Indeed, the statistical findings on the incarceration rate in the US vary according to States.

The most reliable source of data that can demonstrate the significance of the problem of mass incarceration in the United States is the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BSJ). In 2013, the organization reports, “2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in the US federal and state prisons and county jails in 2013– about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the US resident population” (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014, p.10).

The organization further indicates that in the same year, 1 out of 51 citizens were on parole or placed on probation. The implication of these statistics is that 1 out 35 residents in the US were either on parole, serving a jail term, were in detention centers, or placed on trial. Hence, the high prevalence of mass incarceration in punishing or rehabilitating felony convicts may call for the need to establish other policy alternatives, for instance, putting petty offenders on community-based correctional facilities.

Indeed, Glaze, Kaeble, Anastasios, and Minton (2015) inform that the number of young offenders placed on correctional systems reduced by more than 52,000 with reference to the 2013 and 2014 data. However, this finding does not imply that crime rates reduced during this period. Indeed, Glaze et al. (2015) argue that the number of incarcerated adults was on the rise in 2014 compared to 2013.

In 2013, the number of juveniles held in youthful detention facilities stood at 54,148 (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2014). The problem of mass incarceration in the USA is amplified by the fact that the US residents can still be incarcerated because of debts, even though debtors’ prisons were scrapped off (Genevieve & Adrienne, 2012). Driven by this concern, Timothy (2015) observes that various jails in the US serve the role of warehousing the poor, drug addicts, mentally ill persons, and people with financial challenges, a situation that limits their capability for posting bail.

Human Rights Watch (2014) echoes similar concerns by noting that laws labeled ‘tough-on–crimes’ that found their way into the US judicial criminal system in the 1980s have led to the filling of American jails with a large number of nonviolent people. It indeed suffices to establish an alternative policy that can reduce mass incarceration, especially of nonviolent offenders.

Different states have recorded a history of specific political views or inclinations. For example, Minnesota has a history of democratic political inclination while Republicans dominate Louisiana (Croockett, 2016). Such inclinations have had ramifications on mass incarceration in the US. Chettiar (2015) supports this view by arguing that Republicans have now shifted their policy from leaning toward President Regan’s staunch support for policies aimed at fighting drugs to now supporting Democrats in a call for judicial reform.

Indeed, States such as Minnesota, which traditionally voted for autonomous political views, have lower rates of mass incarceration compared to Louisiana that has an incarceration rate of 867 for every 100, 000 individuals (Archambeault & Donald, 2009), yet the two States are almost the same in terms of their population sizes.

Maintaining a high population in prisons requires heavy expenditure. Taslitz (2011) suggests, “The sheer cost of maintaining this prison state may indeed be making it buckle somewhat under the weight of the incarcerates’ fiscal burden” (p.332). However, Wolff and Gottschalk (2008) counter this argument by positing that amid the different prevalence levels of mass incarceration in different states, the reformatory state continues to survive in the USA. Hence, a mechanism for reducing it requires the involved parties to address its key drivers. One such driver is the availability of funds to run prisons in the USA as shown in Figure 1 below.

The need to increase such funds was supported by policies that campaigned for tough responses to crimes. For example, in 1992, during his presidential campaign, President Clinton promised to react toughly to crimes. He delivered his promise through legislation facilitating the flow of billions of dollars to different States. This plan would help in increasing and managing the large population of inmates in American prisons.

Conclusion

An obvious incongruence exists between American regions with lower incarceration rates and the ones that have elevated imprisonment levels. The paper has argued that political-ideological positions from Democrats and Republicans have implications on the prevalence of incarceration rates in any State in the US. Republicans have history-supported policies for increasing incarceration as a mechanism for punishing felony crimes coupled with other offenses, despite today’s change of support to such policies.

The paper suggests that this situation may explain why States such as Louisiana, which have traditionally upheld the Republican political views, have the highest incarceration rate in the US. While the phenomenon of mass incarceration persists in the US, the issue is a necessary cause of alarm that requires urgent attention by lawyers, the legislative body, government, human rights entities, and policymakers in all states across the US, especially those with high incarceration rates, including Louisiana and Florida.

Policy Recommendations

Option 1: Releasing Wrongfully Convicted Persons

A policy initiative aimed at reviewing determining cases in which the probability of wrongful conviction is high can incredibly help in the reduction of incarceration rates in the United States and consequently a decrease in mass incarceration in Louisiana and Florida. Such implications depend on the evidence concerning the success of such a policy. Norris, Bonventre, Redlich, and Acker (2011) argue that the number of people identified as wrongly convicted increases as more cases continues to be revisited.

Since the 1989 successful prosecution of the first case involving DNA testing in the US, Innocence Project, an advocacy group that fights for the rights of wrongly convicted persons, reveals that 272 people were exonerated in 2011 (Norris et al., 2011). The organization only considers cases where DNA evidence has been retained after conviction to permit re-testing. It estimates that such cases only account for about 10% of all criminal convictions in the US (Norris et al., 2011).

According to Acker (2013), advocates of reform in judicial systems argue that DNA testing only encompasses a conclusive approach to a successful conviction in a few criminal cases. The observation suggests many more wrongfully convicted people in prisons whose ability to prove their innocence is void due to the inexistence of any retained DNA evidence. Indeed, DNA testing is only important in crimes involving DNA exchanges such as murder and rape.

In most cases, it is only reliable where murder preceded a rape. In this case, sufficient DNA testing becomes available. Nevertheless, this claim does not imply that DNA must always be preserved even in these two classes of crimes. It does not give valid results in all situations in terms of identifying the crime perpetrators (Garrett & Neufeld, 2010).

The prevalence levels of wrongful convictions may be more than the figures cited by the Innocence Project. In 2007, Risinger, a law professor at Seton Hall, studied 328 different cases of exoneration involving convicts of felonies such as murder and rape from 1989 to 2003. In his study, he also compared these cases to various other incidents that involved rape or murder, in which DNA was a crucial factor in their successful prosecution (Radley, 2014).

He deduced that the total number of people convicted to death accounted for 1% of the entire prison population in the US and 22% of all exonerated people. Hypothetically, assuming that persons who are wrongly convicted to life imprisonment also account for 1% similar to the case of those convicted to death as Resinger suggests, a 2% (about 46,000) of US prisons’ population would have been wrongly convicted to either life imprisonment or death penalty by 2008.

The above hypothetical figures of wrongful convictions in the US attract high criticism with commentators arguing that they are too high. For instance, Joshua Marquis, Clatsop County’s DA, criticizes the arguments raised by Resinger and statistics from the Innocence Project. He maintains that although wrongful convictions may occur, they are uncommon. He further suggests that he would even consider resigning if he, for sure, knew 2 to 5% of all prisons’ population was innocent (Radley, 2014).

However, whatever the actual number of wrongful convictions, they are a necessary cause of alarm, especially by noting the upwards trend of the number of cleared cases of wrongful convictions (Radley, 2014). Hence, a review of all wrongful convictions can incredibly reduce the problem of mass incarceration, especially in States with harsh crime policies.

Option 2: Community-based Rehabilitation

Justice is delivered to match the threshold of the committed offense. Therefore, incarceration in States such as Florida and Louisiana can be reduced using a policy directive for putting petty offenders into community rehabilitation facilities through intermediate sanctions. Indeed, for a state interested in seeking to reduce incarceration rates, an intermediate sanction or prisons are more appropriate depending on the crime committed.

For example, a terrorist who bombs 1000 people leaving them dead while he or she narrowly escapes death can only be an aggravated source of national and international security when an intermediate sanction is deployed to punish him or her. Such a person needs not to be in contact with other people who he or she can potentially harm or citizens who he or she can conspire to commit another deadly crime.

Depending on the threshold of the crime, intermediate sanctions for selected groups of offenders can be effective in reducing high incarceration rates in Louisiana and Florida. Instead of bringing petty offenders in contact with hardcore criminals who can train them to commit serious crimes when released to the communities, an intermediate sanction is effective since it reduces the chances of recidivism (Shalev, 2009). There should be no worry that intermediate sanctions can expose communities to risks. The exercise can be done in a manner that offenders are monitored for them not to cause safety challenges to the communities that integrate them. This way, high incarceration rates also become possible to reduce.

The State of California provides an important benchmark for the effectiveness of a community-based correctional policy directive. California Welfare-To-Work-Act, enacted in 1997, led to the creation of the Comprehensive Youth Service Act, which was meant to provide “Country Probation Departments (CPDs) with federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds to be used to help attain overarching federal TANF goals by providing services to youths and their families” (Turner, Davis, Steinberg, & Fain, 2003, p. 11). Services provided at the juvenile halls influenced the youths in various ways. Through the CYSA/TANF, many counties argued that they experienced observable changes with real impacts on persons who were seeking services from the juvenile halls.

In terms of collaboration, mental health and drug abuse programs were implemented in various counties. Such programs were instrumental in helping to provide mechanisms for reforming juveniles since substance abuse is one of the major drivers of youths’ engagement in a felony (Grady, 2012). CYSA/TANF curriculum also provided funds that were deployed to enhance activities, which were pivotal in the achievement of other goals of juvenile service as intended by the CYSA/TANF legislation.

The goals included the investment of CYSA/TANF funds in teaching at-risk youths subjects such as anger management, counseling, and even educational advocacy mechanisms among others. This strategy is desirable and appropriate in reducing the probability of increased mass incarceration in the State of California. Such success will influence the situation in Louisiana and Florida, which have a high rate of mass incarceration.

References

Acker, J. (2013). The flipside injustice of wrongful convictions: When the guilty go free. Albany Law Review, 76(3), 1629-1672.

Archambeault, W., & Donald, D. (2009). Cost effectiveness comparisons of private versus public prisons in Louisiana: A comprehensive analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn correction centers. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4(1), 1-10.

Chettiar, I. (2015). Republicans and Democrats agree: End mass incarceration. Web.

Croockett, Z. (2016). How your state voted in the past 15 elections. Web.

Florida Commission on Offender Review. (2014). Year end summary statistics. Web.

Garrett, B., & Neufeld, P. (2010). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1-97.

Genevieve, L., & Adrienne, R (2012). Confining social insecurity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the 21st century debtors’ prison. Politics and Gender, 8(1), 25–49.

Glaze, L., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional population in the United States. Washington, DC: US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L., Kaeble, D., Anastasios, T., & Minton, T. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Grady, S. (2012). Civil death is different: An examination of a post-Graham challenge to felon disenfranchisement under the Eighth Amendment. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(2), 441-470.

Human Rights Watch. (2014). National behinds bars: A human rights solution. London: Routledge.

Institute of Criminal Policy Research. (2016). Highest to lowest- prison population rate. Web.

Mahapatra, L. (2014). Incarcerated in America: Why are so many people in the US prisons? New York, NY: International Business Times.

Norris, R., Bonventre, C., Redlich, A., & Acker, J. (2011). Than that one innocent sufferer: Evaluating state safeguards against wrongful convictions. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1301-1364.

Radley, B. (2014). Wrongful convictions. Web.

Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk by solitary confinement. Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. New York, NY: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Taibbi, M. (2014). The divide: American injustice in the age of the wealth gap. New York, NY: Spiegel and Grau.

Taslitz, A. (2011). The criminal republic: Democratic breakdown as a cause of mass incarceration. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9(1), 133-193.

Timothy, W (2015). Jails have become warehouses for the poor and addicted, a report says. New York, NY: New York Times.

Turner, S., Davis, L., Steinberg P., & Fain, T. (2003). Evaluation of the CYSA/TANF program in California: Final report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Wagner, P., Sakala, L., & Begley, J. (2012). States of incarceration: The global context. Web.

Wolff, N., & Gottschalk, M. (2008). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Journal of Health Policy, 33(1), 332-337.

Mass incarceration is a controversial modern legal and social issue. In practice, it represents a form of punishment for unlawful actions. However, there is a plethora of opinions concerning the objection of different social groups to excessive imprisonment. It leads to a deficit of knowledge regarding the true state of affairs. Locating the appropriate sources is essential in ascertaining accurate information about mass incarcerations in the United States.

Overall, ten appropriate sources were chosen, which yielded substantial information. Statistics were provided by World Prison Brief, the FederalBureau of Prisons, and Prison Policy Initiative. Critique of the current prison situation was offered by UN Human Rights, Applied Social Psychology, UN Office on Drugs and Crimes, and Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. Finally, the scientific outlook was given by HeinOnline, Annual Review of Criminology, and Wiley Online Library. All of these sources are based on the prison studies data and are regularly updated.

The entirety of the research did not take more than an hour and a half. As all of them are online, the web search tools were utilized – Google Search and Google Scholar. Both these engines can set specific time frames, which allows for distinguishing outdated sources. The successful keywords included “prison”, “incarceration”, and “filetype: pdf”, while few useful results were produced by “data”, “convicted”, “The US”, The strategy for locating sources incorporated three areas of research – statistics, scientific data, and negative opinions to achieve the comprehensive picture of the subject matter.

Altogether, the process of seeking the necessary information has shown that the data is relatively easy to find. However, too much time was spent looking at statistical information. This was a mistake, which will be corrected next time because numbers and figures are meaningless without contextual expert explanation. Therefore, the most valuable lesson is that any subject matter should be approached with a strategy, which diversifies sources into statistical, scientific, and opinionated.

References

“Annual Review of Criminology.“ n.d. Web.

“Loyola University New Orleans College of Law.” n.d. Web.

“UN Office on Drugs and Crimes. n.d. Web.

“Applied Social Psychology.” n.d. Web.

“Prison Policy Initiative.” n.d. Web.

“World Prison Brief.” n.d. Web.

“OHCHR.” n.d. Web.

“Federal Bureau of Prisons.” n.d. Web.

“HeinOnline.” n.d. Web.

“Wiley Online Library.” n.d. Web.

Introduction

Mass incarceration has become a major problem in the United States as illustrated by a large number of people in jails or other forms of correctional supervision. An article published in Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice (Mass incarceration, n.d.) presented an argument that mass incarceration is not best explained by rising crime rates. On the contrary, it is a policy choice by the legislation to use imprisonment as punishment for crimes. The many dangers of this approach have been explored in scholarly literature where a consensus reached is that imprisonment hardly solves America’s problem. Therefore, there is a need to address the question of why mass incarceration is still the primary correctional practice despite evidence showing that it does not work desirably. The focus of this paper is to expound on the perceived dangers of the imprisonment policy and offer recommendations on the subject for both practice and policy.

The Problem of Mass Incarceration

Correction and sentencing practices in the United States can be labeled as ineffective and inefficient. Mass incarceration has seen a huge percentage of people being imprisoned. Prison Policy Prison is an online publication that keeps track of the imprisonment practices in the country. In 2019, Sawyer and Wagner (2019) established that almost 2.3 million people were held in state and federal prisons, Indian county jails, local jails, juvenile correctional facilities, and military prisons. In addition, other confinement facilities include those dedicated to immigration detention, state psychiatric hospitals, civil commitment centers, and other prisons in the U.S. territories. In 2020, Sawyer and Wagner (2020) note that these figures have not dropped but the number of facilities has risen. The only argument for this trend is that the country refuses to accept that there can be better alternatives to incarceration or at least that the policymakers are not keen on exploring them.

The ineffectiveness of mass incarceration can be examined in terms of the extent to which it fails to achieve correctional objectives. According to Copp (2020), incarceration often increases the risk of violent recidivism, which means that imprisonment does not make people better. A similar sentiment has been expressed by Stemen (2017) who states that more incarceration does not make society safer. Such an observation can be described as a paradox because incarceration has been shown to have little effect in reducing crime even though it is used as the primary response to delinquency in the country. Another paradox noted by Stemen (2017) is that the policymakers have been attempting to reduce mass incarceration for more than a decade while at the same time calling for tougher sentences and more incarceration to fight crime. The key idea is that imprisonment does not reduce crime, which means it is neither an effective deterrence nor a viable intervention. Sawyer and Wagner (2019) have also noted that many people in jail are being held before their trial, which adds to the growing statistics. However, the fact remains that the country has overemphasized imprisonment.

Besides recidivism and failing efforts, other dangers of mass incarceration have also been explored. For example, parental incarceration tends to harm the well-being of the children who can grow without parental attachment and the appropriate emotional support (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2018). According to Sawyer and Wagner (2019), most of the prisoners are the result of the war on drugs, which means that the wrong approach has been used to address the drug crisis in the country. Despite these observations and dangers, it is important to acknowledge that imprisonment serves certain critical purposes and could be the best solution in some cases. However, the number of people in jails is too much for a democratic country. From an economic perspective, imprisonment deprives the country of a huge proportion of the labor force. Additionally, other externalities can emerge, especially because the goods and services consumed by the prisoners are produced through normal economic activities (Cox, 2020). The redirection of resources to a huge prison population means that the current policy and practice need reconsideration.

Practice and Policy Recommendations

The first recommendation for policy and practice is the exploration and use of alternatives to incarceration. Such a recommendation is based on the notion that imprisonment does not make society safer as expressed by Stemen (2017). Additionally, the observation by Sawyer and Wagner (2019) that many prisoners are the result of the war on drugs means that there are alternatives to jailing drug offenders. Most importantly, crimes committed as a result of drug use would require rehabilitation and other forms of behavioral modification. Alternatively, community-based and family-focused interventions as recommended by Ryon et al. (2017) can also be considered for the appropriate cases. For example, incarceration of juvenile offenders has been considered to be very costly, which means that community-based and family-focused interventions serve two purposes: reduce the costs and pursue real correctional outcomes. Such an idea emanated from a growing body of evidence to suggest that cost-saving can be achieved as in the case study of Florida described by Ryon et al. (2017). Therefore, some alternatives offer better outcomes than incarceration and should be implemented.

The second recommendation is based on the first one since the alternative selected should be the one that yields the best outcome. Therefore, the criminal justice practice should implement a risk management framework to help determine the approaches taken to sentencing. According to Kopkin et al. (2016), such a framework can be an effective remedy to the problem of mass incarceration. Risk assessment is not a new concept in the legal system considering that its use has been rapidly growing in recent decades. As such, it is only a matter of finding new uses for the strategy in the form of determining sentencing decisions. The current use of risk assessment includes such determinations as parole and bail, as well as civil commitment. Therefore, it is apparent that the strategy is already in use in criminal justice. However, the recommended approach, in this case, is that the risk assessment is used in the selection of the alternatives. This means incarceration is only undertaken when the result of risk assessment indicates that it is the best solution.

The recommendation to use risk assessment to determine alternatives to mass incarceration is based on the assumption that some crimes deserve punishment while others require rehabilitation. Additionally, several risk factors need to be considered while selecting an alternative. For example, a minor addicted to drugs may and committing petty crimes may still require incarceration for rehabilitation to take place. On the contrary, a parent who commits a road offense may be placed under house arrest or sentenced to community work where he or she can still have adequate time to spend with children. Such an offender poses an insignificant risk, and other such alternatives as fines can also be implemented. In extreme cases, serial killers, for instance, incarceration is probably the only way to keep the public safe, in which a risk assessment exercise can support this decision. The potential benefits of risk assessment in sentencing have been outlined by Kopkin et al. (2016), who indicates that even judges can make more informed decisions. For example, such matters as recidivism and creating the appropriate deterrence for crimes can be addressed. Recidivism should be a major concern for the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

Mass incarceration in the United States has been depicted as a major problem for the country, which means alternatives and solutions are needed. However, the basis of the discussion in this paper was that there exist paradoxes in the practice where imprisonment is preferred by policymakers despite evidence showing such an approach does not help the country much. Therefore, the practice and policy recommendations offered are based on the idea that the justice system needs solutions that work. Therefore, alternatives to incarceration have been proposed as the first recommendation. Instead of jailing offenders, other punitive measures can be implemented depending on the nature of the crime. Secondly, it would be unwise to use alternatives that would also fail to yield the desired outcomes. Therefore, a risk assessment framework has been recommended to support the selection and implementation of the alternatives. The basic idea is that jails should be used when other alternatives fail, which would go a long way in reducing the levels of mass incarceration.

References

Copp, J. (2020). The impact of incarceration on the risk of violent recidivism. Marquette Law Review, 103(3), 775-791. Web.

Cox, R. (2020). Applying the theory of social good to mass incarceration and civil rights.Research on Social Work Practice, 30(2), 205-218. Web.

Kopkin, M., Brodsky, S., & DeMatteo, D. (2016). Risk assessment in sentencing decisions: A remedy to mass incarceration?Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 9(2), 155-164. Web.

Mass incarceration. (n.d.). Global Alliance for Behavioral Health and Social Justice. Web.

Ryon, S., Early, K., & Kosloski, A. (2017). Community-based and family-focused alternatives to incarceration: A quasi experimental evaluation of interventions for delinquent youth.Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 59-66. Web.

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2019). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2019 [PDF file]. Prison Policy Initiative. Web.

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2020).Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. Prison Policy Initiative. Web.

Stemen, D. (2017). The prison paradox: More incarceration will not make us safer [PDF file]. Vera Institute of Justice. Web.

Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2018). How parental incarceration harms children and what to do about it [PDF file].National Council on Family Relations, 3(1), 1-2. Web.