Category: Prison

Prison Overcrowding as a Problem: Informative Essay

Prison overcrowding is not a new issue in the penal system in the United States. As far back as the original thirteen colonies, there have been problems surrounding the incarceration of criminals. Over the past century, different situations have caused fluctuations in the number of people confined to prisons, in both the federal and state-level justice systems. This issue is not only a threat to the general public, it can hurt state budgets, the employees that work in the complexes and jails, and even the offenders themselves. This paper will try to explain some of the causes of this overcrowding and suggest some ideas that might alleviate some of the burdens on the system of incarceration.

One of the largest antecedents of prison overcrowding is the term sentence for the crime itself. Sentencing terms for some crimes vary differently from location to location, as does population. When more people in a densely populated area are sentenced longer for crimes, the jails become more crowded than in a lesser populated area. The larger cities do not always have the buildings needed to make room for all of the prisoners. When people are sentenced to life with no parole, this guarantees them a spot in a cell, with no chance of leaving. According to The Sentencing Project, there are currently over 50,000 people serving a sentence of life without parole in US prisons. Add to that the number of people serving life sentences with a chance for parole, and it is more than the whole prison population of the United States in the 1970s (Sentencing Project, 2018).

One law that was put into effect that has impacted the prison population is the ‘three strikes’ rule. This rule fundamentally increases the jail sentences of people indicted for a lawful offense who have been previously convicted of at least two or more violent crimes or felonies and limits the ability of these criminals to get a prison term other than lifelong incarceration. While it gets these repeat offenders off of the streets, it also fills up the space in the prisons for a longer period of time. The problem with this law is that it varies from state to state as to the crimes included, and some non-violent offenders have been caught up in the mix. Many of these people could be released or transferred to another program and lessen the burden on the system.

Former President Richard Nixon declared a ‘war on drugs’ in 1971 to attempt to curb drug abuse in the United States. Included on this list of scheduled drugs was marijuana. While the majority of these laws focused on the larger issue of widespread drug trafficking into the country, they also focused on low-level, everyday recreational drug users. In 2012, 22% of federal marijuana sentences carried terms of 10-20 years or more, and half of those were first-time offenders with no other criminal history, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2015). Compare this to the recent sentencing of Dallas police officer Amber Guyger of only 10 years for the murder of an innocent man in his own home. A reevaluation of the sentencing terms could make a drastic impact on the number of prisoners in the jails at any one time. The concept of cleaning the streets was a good idea, but unfortunately not a really well-thought-out plan. The number of incarcerated individuals increased, but the number of prisons to put them in did not.

Another major issue causing overcrowding is funding for jail and prison space. Incarceration centers on smaller levels, like those of counties and cities, often do not have enough funds to expand. When they become overcrowded, offenders are often sent to larger state-level facilities, which in turn become more congested. Due to the fact that taxpayers usually do not want to give more of their money to house criminals, tax bonds do not often pass in these areas, and the overcrowding continues. Most taxpayers do not want even more criminals in their backyards for fear of becoming victims in the event of an escape. When voters do not approve budget increases to support the prison systems, lawmakers have to find a way to ‘make it work’. This often means moving funds from other programs to the prison system, which then leaves other people without support. The Bureau of Justice reported in 2004 that the average yearly cost in 2001 for an inmate in Louisiana was about $13,000 (Stephan, 2004). In today’s money, that is approximately $18,500 per inmate. Potential budget cuts in Louisiana for 2018 could have forced the early release of nearly 10,000 non-violent offenders and dropped nearly a third of those on parole into self-supervision. Some departments had to think outside the box to find ways to house an ever-growing number of offenders. In New York City where land is at a premium and crime is always ongoing, a barge built in New Orleans was put into a detention center. It opened in 1992 with 16 dorms and 100 cells to house those convicted and awaiting sentencing (NYC DOC, 2019). In many situations, the need to spend money at the time to save money in the future was not well received.

When referring again to Nixon’s war on drugs, it should be noted that this plan was not just conceived to protect the welfare of American citizens. In an interview in Harper’s Magazine with John Ehrlichman, assistant of domestic affairs under Richard Nixon, author Dan Baum was told the real reason for the war on drugs. Ehrlichman explained who Nixon’s main political enemies were: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. Do you understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did” (Baum, 2016).

What better way to control your enemies than to lock them up and throw away the key? The problem is that this war on drugs has been going on since 1971, and the real targets are blacks and Latinos. The majority of ‘hippies’ at the time tended to be white, middle class, and college educated, but they did not end up in prison with the numbers of blacks and Latinos. Prior to 1970, the average incarceration rate for males was about 200 men for every 100,000 people. By the middle of the 1980s, it had doubled in number to 400 per 100,000. Just after the year 2000, the numbers had doubled again to nearly 800 per 100,000 people. That means 1 out of every 100 men was imprisoned on drug charges of some sort, and the majority of them were black and Latino (Perry, 2019). According to the United States Bureau of Statistics, the black male arrest rate was four times that of white males in 2009. After a decrease in the 1990s, this upturn was reminiscent of the rates back in the 1980s (Snyder, 2011). The disparity in income levels between blacks and Latinos and their white counterparts often insured that they ended up in a cycle of incarceration. Whether they stayed for a longer sentence or left and came back, they all were counted in the overcrowding. Sadly, this is not a thing of the past, as blacks are still five times more likely to be arrested on drug charges than whites. As long as this targeting along racial lines continues, so will it add to the prison populations.

Now that we have discussed some of the causes, we can take a look at what can be done to try and relieve some of the overcrowding. These include temporary plans in use by some facilities, programs already in place in most prisons and justice systems, and a few brainstormed ideas that could help in the future. Not all of these options can promise success or ensure sustainability, but at this point, any relief from the pressure is a positive result.

One of the temporary fixes currently in use by many larger prisons and those at the state level is to send some prisoners out to smaller county and parish jails run by the Sheriff’s Departments. These smaller jails receive compensation from the state for housing their offenders when the state no longer has room. This concept is workable to a degree. It is sustainable as long as the county jails have room and for as long as the state has the funding to pay the counties. When a community sees a growth in population, its crime rate can increase as well. If that happens, local law enforcement will need the jails for their own use. If the state funding dries up, the prisoners are sent back to the state prisons. This is a true temporary fix; in that, it is basically a shuffling of the prisoners from one place to another. The use of privatized prisons is another way to relieve the burden on state and federal prisons, but at the same time, they rely on a continuous influx of offenders. These prisons are ‘for profit’, which means they make money based on how many prisoners they have incarcerated. While this does relieve the overcrowding elsewhere and for a time, it does not help with the recidivism rates overall.

With all of these procedures currently in place by the justice system, there are still other options to relieve the pressure. If some of these options were more seriously considered, it could mean a great deal to the number of incarcerated people. The first concept includes a reevaluation of current laws. The idea of reducing mandatory sentencing laws for nonviolent drug crimes would reduce the population by at least one-third or more and save over $2.5 billion over 10 years. Another idea is to give greater judicial discretion in cases where the person is a first-time offender with no record, or if the crime was of the ‘white-collar’ variety. One idea introduced has been an earlier release date for lower-risk convicts based on the completion of prison programs. Many inmates do not voluntarily participate in these programs because they think they will not benefit. If they had another incentive, they would more likely be involved. Not only would this lower numbers, but it would also give the offender a better start after release.

Another concept deals with the number of senior citizens currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons. From 1993 to 2013, the number of offenders over the age of 55 in state prisons doubled (Carson and Sabol, 2016). Not only does an aged person add to the overall count of prisoners, but they also require more medical care than the average inmate, and that tends to increase the costs to the prisons for their care. The release of older prisoners would not only ease the burden of space and cost, but they tend to have a lower recidivism rate than other inmates. With the release of these prisoners, there would be a lesser need for additional medical prisons to house them. When they leave, some of those with mental issues could then be transferred over to their recently vacated spots. This would remove the mentally ill from places where their illness could be better treated and lessens the risk of harm to everyone involved.

One of the many reasons offenders return to prison is that they were not prepared for life on the outside. Since so many are from lower-income lives, they do not have the support systems that others have. One idea is to provide more federal funding to companies that are willing to employ recently released convicts and parolees. This makes money for the business and provides the former offender a basis from which he can begin rebuilding his life. The stigma after prison is a strong one and the barriers for them are many. Without money, a parolee will find it hard to establish himself after release. They will earn money from their job, be able to get affordable housing, leave the shelters or homeless encampments, and continue with the treatment and reintegration programs they need to succeed on the outside. Another good idea for the workforce is the concept of apprenticeship programs. These programs can help the offenders more than some due to the fact they learn an actual trade. Upon completion of the program, they would then be placed with a business doing that job. They would have actual training and job skills that will help them keep the job. One of the best things about this idea is that it can be customized to the person. Not only male offenders would benefit, but also women and those with children, young adults coming from juvenile incarceration, and people with disabilities. If idle hands are the Devil’s playground, then put them to work and keep them busy. That way, everyone benefits.

As you can see from the points presented here, one of the main causes of overcrowding is the justice system itself. With some revamping of current standards and a reconsideration of sentencing terms and laws, the overcrowding that the justice system deals with today could be lessened in a way that benefits everyone. Offenders could be less inclined to re-offend when they can provide for themselves, taxpayers would not have to shoulder so much of the cost burden, prisons could safely and more adequately address those who remained in their care, and the budgets of state and federal departments would require constant increases. It would be a win-win situation for everyone. This 40+ year-long ongoing ‘war on drugs’ has been a losing battle with the status quo. The justice system needs to reassess the sentencing process in light of newer laws and public opinion. The time for change has come or the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

Works Cited

1. Baum, D. (2016, March 31). [Report]: Legalize It All, by Dan Baum. Retrieved from https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
2. Carson, E. A., & Sabol, W. J. (2016, May). Aging of the State Prison Population, 1993–2013. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aspp9313.pdf
3. New York City Department of Correction Facilities Overview. (2019). Retrieved September 27, 2019, from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doc/about/facilities.page
4. Perry, M. J. (2019, August 29). The Shocking Story Behind Richard Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ That Targeted Blacks and Anti-War Activists: American Enterprise Institute – AEI %. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-shocking-and-sickening-story-behind-nixons-war-on-drugs-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists/
5. Snyder, H. N. (2011, September). Arrest in the United States, 1980-2009, compiled by U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus8009.pdf
6. Stephan, J. J. (2004). State Prison Expenditures, 2001. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf
7. Taxy, S., Samuels, J., & Adams, W. Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of Characteristics Based on Linked Data (2015). Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Justice.
8. THE FACTS OF LIFE SENTENCES. (2018, December). Retrieved September 21, 2019, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Facts-of-Life.pdf

Pros and Cons of Private Prisons: Critical Essay

Private prisons are correctional and rehabilitation institutions that are managed by third-party institutions, not the state government as commonly perceived. In the USA, private prisons are mainly funded by the government through governmental contracts, which are majorly based on the number of prisoners and the average length of the prisoners’ sentences. It implies that the more the number of inmates these institutions can house with longer sentences, the more funding they get from the government. Ideally, private prisons are portrayed as non-profit making and are only supposed to help the government in housing inmates and reduce the government to ease overcrowding in state prisons. Apart from having a different management system from the state-owned institutions, private prisons have the privilege of declining to admit any prisoner. In most cases, they are likely to decline inmates who have health issues that would render housing them costlier as compared to other prisoners.

Owen, Paez, & Murphy (2016) argued that in terms of safety and quality, private prisons were equally comparable to their public counterparts, and thus the services offered in private facilities were as standardized as those offered in public ones. However, private prisons were better in terms of confiscating contraband from inmates as compared to their public counterparts. Additionally, inmates in private facilities are less likely to use drugs or be involved in sexual offenses while at the institutions. Besides, these institutions have recorded very low relapse rates among their offenders as compared to those housed in public facilities. Lastly, studies have shown that private facilities have fewer cases of inmate deaths as compared to their counterpart. All this shows the benefits that private prisons bring.

Just like any business creates employment opportunities for the surrounding community, a private prison is also expected to create employment for the local population. The staff needed such as cooks, warders, administrative officers, and medical professionals among others would be outsourced from the local community, thereby creating jobs for the local population.

Moreover, in comparison to government institutions that have longer bureaucracies and red-tape processes, private entities are known to have faster decision-making systems, which makes them more efficient and prone to serve the interests of their stakeholders as compared to government institutions.

But private prisons also have their drawbacks. According to a study by Burkhardt (2017), private prisons record 50% more violence among inmates as compared to public institutions. The trend is majorly attributed to the fact that these institutions are more business-oriented and are likely to understaff their facilities so that they can maximize their profits. In some cases, it has been recorded that the officer-to-inmate ratio is 1 to 120, which forces the officers to use excessive violence to control the inmates. The understaffing in these facilities has also led to higher escape rates.

Another con is less transparency. Most private prisons do not disclose their details to the public in terms of the expenses their expenses versus the number of prisoners. Therefore, the public cannot efficiently audit these institutions for efficacy.

In addition, since private prisons focus on reducing expenses, the training given to inmates is also compromised. In the long run, most inmates in private institutions are subjected to lesser training opportunities.

In summary, private prisons have both pros and cons compared to their public counterparts. From my point of view, the cons are more important, because in this case, prisoners are not seen as people who need to be rehabilitated back into society, rather they are seen as a commodity that should bring in a profit. In such a scenario, they will find themselves in difficult working conditions, and even in the worst case, there may be a massive violation of fundamental human rights in the process of obtaining maximum profits. Besides, if prisons concentrate on profit-making rather than rehabilitation, then the whole concept of having offenders reprimanded in a correctional facility is violented, which would be a key indicator of failure in the justice system.

Why Solitary Confinement Should Be Abolished in US Prisons: Argumentative Essay

Although solitary confinement has been used in the United States for over a century, it is time to put an end to this abhorrent punishment. Solitary confinement has been proven over the years to be detrimental to the mental health of inmates. According to an article from the journal Crime and Justice, a staggering percentage of prisoners suffer detrimental mental damage from solitary confinement. Questioned prisoners pointed to stress, thoughts of suicide, hallucinations, and difficulty sleeping as symptoms suffered (Smith, 488). These inmates suffered psychological harm born from isolation. Smith also writes that a greater sensitivity to stimuli was discovered. Some inmates in isolation react more dramatically to normal sounds (Smith, 489). A man left in solitary may suffer a panic attack from a mere drop of water hitting the ground. Crime and Justice states that hallucinations can have a relation with paranoia, a symptom resulting from solitary confinement. While in solitary, unhinged psychosis may develop from some cases of worsening paranoia (Smith, 491). The mental illnesses of prisoners have the potential to further deteriorate from being placed in isolation and leave a permanent impact. Smith finally concludes a plethora of varying psychological reactions is possible. Solitary confinement proves itself to be inhumane to inmates, and worse for those who are mentally ill. When the inmates are released from prison, their lives will be permanently impacted.

Being placed in isolation is considered torture. Humans are social creatures, and the depravity of socialization is unhealthy. Isolation, as a whole, is considered detrimental to the mental health of humans. However, some organizations beg to differ on the psychiatric effects of isolation. As reported in an article from the American Psychiatric Association, the author states, “And even for those inmates who were not mentally ill, simply being in a structured environment helped them get better” (Arehart-Treichal, 2013). This suggests being moved to isolation may not be as psychologically damaging as it is made out to be. Although, a study from the Public Broadcasting Service proves otherwise: “Stuart Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist and a former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in solitary confinement. In one study, he found that roughly a third of solitary inmates were ‘actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal’” (Breslow, 2014). It is in solitary confinement that prisoners begin to suffer mental damage and possible suicidal thoughts. It is also in solitary confinement where the prisoners are most susceptible to physical illness. As mentioned in an article from the International Journal of Prisoner Health, “A recent study conducted with prisoners from Pelican Bay as part of the Ashker litigation found that prisoners experiencing long periods of isolation were at significantly greater risk of hypertension” (Ahalt et al., 2017, p.43). Hypertension is unnaturally high blood pressure, which can later result in one suffering a stroke or heart disease. The lack of exercise thanks to the activity privilege revoked, alongside the lack of vitamin D obtained due to little sunlight, only leads to further deterioration of the inmate’s well-being. While the idea of solitary confinement sounds beneficial on paper, it leaves a devastating mental health impact on inmates. Solitary confinement should be abolished in U.S. prisons to prevent trauma and mental health disorders from damaging the lives of prisoners following their release from prison.

Solitary confinement does not work as a method of rehabilitation. For rehabilitation to work, human interaction is required. Solitary confinement, its name suggests, leaves prisoners with no way to interact with other people as they are left in a desolate, closed cell. Quoting author Jason Breslow, he says, “For 23 hours a day, inmates are kept inside a cell that is approximately 80 square feet, smaller than a typical horse stable” (Public Broadcasting Service, 2014). No socialization can occur as the inmates are left in a cell for almost an entire day. Furthermore, there is nobody around to encourage the prisoner-in-question who needs rehabilitation. It can be argued, however, that the period of alone time is what the inmate needs in order to properly reflect upon their actions. They will have time to think to themselves without distractions, such as the ruckus caused by neighboring prisoners. Yet, without someone to discuss the outcome of their actions and how to avoid making the choice they did, an inmate left in isolation learns nothing. There is no guidance, no direction, only the inmate with his furious, exhausted, and possibly terrified thoughts. As the American Psychiatric Association states, “Most people with serious mental illness do not belong in jail or prison because the vast majority are incarcerated for crimes that are not violent and would be far better treated and cared for in the community” (Arehart-Treichal, 2013). This means prisoners with pre-existing mental disorders prior to their entrance into prison will likely suffer the worst without someone to care for them or guide them. When mentally ill prisoner is released back into the world after spending most of their time in solitary confinement, their condition will only be worse than before, and they may eventually end up in prison yet again. Without the correct help, mentally ill prisoners will only find themselves in an unfortunate cycle of mistreatment and punishment, which may ultimately lead to them committing suicide in the end.

Prisoners suffer a loss of freedom when placed in solitary confinement. Inmates who are left in this specialized method of confinement are kept under watch with the highest degree of security. There is absolutely no privacy as a result of this constant supervision from guards. Access to activities on the prison site is also taken away from an inmate who is in solitary confinement. This means there is no opportunity to exercise, converse with fellow inmates, and get fresh air. Self-destructive behavior is also born while in solitary. Once again quoting the International Journal of Prisoner Health, “These negative mental health effects of solitary confinement are well-documented; insomnia, anxiety, panic, disturbances in appetite, paranoia, hallucinations, and self-mutilation are commonly experienced by isolated persons” (Ahalt et al., 2017, p.43). Due to the lack of control over their surroundings and the lengthy amount of time spent alone, inmates will gradually become more self-destructive, turning to the likes of self-mutilation in desperation. It is arguable that the inmates who are placed in solitary do not deserve such freedoms as they have committed crimes that should render them unworthy of having freedom until they prove to have learned their lesson.

The United States is waking up to the effects of solitary confinement on prisoners, and states are working to reform or entirely abolish this method of confinement. For example, Colorado has abolished long-term solitary confinement. As an article from The New York Times declares, “There now is enough data to convince me that long-term isolation manufactures and aggravates mental illness” (Raemisch, 2017). Due to the knowledge of how isolation breeds mental health problems, Raemisch encouraged Colorado to reform its solitary confinement system. In turn, more states, including Pennsylvania, have begun to take action on how they handle using solitary confinement. This demonstrates states are becoming aware of the effects isolation has on inmates and may potentially be motivated to aid the health of prisoners rather than hurt them. However, not all states have a plan to rework or rid of solitary confinement, such as Florida. Laws to change or ban solitary confinement sweeping the nation would be the best possible option for inmates. As also stated in the article ‘Why We Ended Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Colorado’ from The New York Times, “We have done this not only to fulfill Mr. Clements’s vision, but also because since over 95 percent of all inmates eventually leave prison, it is simply the right thing to do — for the inmates and for their communities” (Raemisch, 2017). This statement applies to every prison in the United States.

To summarize, although the battle to change the solitary confinement law nationally would be difficult, it is a necessary fight. The inmates who are placed in solitary confinement are prone to developing mental illnesses, and those who are already mentally ill suffer from amplified symptoms. It is also not mental sickness which prisoners may fall to, but physical sickness as well. The cramped conditions of the cells, when coupled with the activities taken away from the prisoner-in-name, lead to possibly fatal illness. While being left alone to reflect upon their actions sounds effective in theory, isolation fails in rehabilitation. Human interaction is a requirement when it comes to rehabilitation, and without some form of socialization provided, inmates will be driven insane from their thoughts and may turn to self-destructive behavior. Most importantly, the rights of prisoners are stripped upon placement in solitary confinement. Their right to privacy is violated daily and they are not allowed to participate in activities with other inmates. Finally, some states are already working on the reformation or removal of solitary confinement, like Colorado, as mentioned earlier. This is a sign of an incoming national change that prisons need. In the end, for the sake of the prisoners and their well-being, the United States needs to abolish solitary confinement.

Works Cited

1. Ahalt, Cyrus, et al. ‘Reducing the Use and Impact of Solitary Confinement in Corrections’. International Journal of Prisoner Health, vol. 13, no. 1, 13 Mar. 2017, pp.41–48. ResearchGate, doi:10.1108/ijph-08-2016-0040.
2. Arehart-Treichel, Joan. ‘Solitary Confinement May Not Be Psychologically Harmful’. Psychiatric News, American Psychiatric Association, 17 May 2013, www.psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2013.5b1
3. Breslow, Jason M. ‘What Does Solitary Confinement Do to Your Mind?’. PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 22 Apr. 2014, www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/
4. Raemisch, Rick. ‘Why We Ended Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Colorado’. The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/solitary-confinement-colorado-prison.html.
5. Smith, Peter Scharff. ‘The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature’. Crime and Justice, vol. 34, no. 1, 2006, pp. 441–528., doi:10.1086/500626.