Should nonviolent crimes be rehabilitative versus punitive in nature? Over the past several decades state and federal incarceration rates have increased dramatically in the United States. As a consequence of more punitive laws and harsher sentencing policies, there are more people incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails than ever before. The U.S. leads the world in its rate of incarceration. According to Valerie Wright, author of "Deterrence in Criminal Justice", society seems to agree with the old adage that there should be minimum mandatory sentences for crimes. This "stance" on crime is society 's deterrence for would-be criminals to know that if they do the crime, they will do some time (1). The question though that begs to be asked is: should prison sentences for nonviolent offenders be rehabilitative in nature? Should the "three strikes you are out rule" be applicable for those that commit nonviolent crimes? Should these sentences be altered to provide rehabilitation services, such as community service, probation or some sort of supervised out-patient treatment? It seems though that the prison system does not have rehabilitation services in place to assist nonviolent criminals or probation services nationwide with the resources available …show more content…
There is a fundamental lack of symmetry among the states. There is a federal schedule for sentencing, but each individual state differs. The scale of punishments would then determine ordinarily proportionate penalties for lesser offenses. It follows that if imprisonment is the most severe penalty, then proportionality will provide shorter terms of imprisonment and noncustodial penalties for lesser offenses. If the term of imprisonment for severe offenses is moderate, then short sentences and penalties such as probation will soon be reached on the scale of seriousness. This is the situation that prevails in many
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Within that statistic, most of the imprisoned are non-violent offenders. The problem starts with Arizona’s mandatory imprisonment laws. Research highlights that, “under Arizona's mandatory sentencing system, non-violent offenders make up the majority of state prisoners” (Greene). However, the mandatory sentencing does not just affect Arizona’s population. All across America, mandatory sentencing laws are forcing people to be put into prisons without a second thought.
There are individuals who may be successful at changing their path in life and there is a good chance they could make the right decisions. With the four main types of programs provided to inmates such as Life Skill programs, Rehabilitative programs to address issues such as substance abuse, anger management and etc, education and literacy programs to work programs, there is a high chance that members who are successful In the program will not reoffend. Statistically speaking the re-conviction rate for reoffenders is 12% which is a good majority of people who want to better their lives, and an execution would not help anybody succeed with a new life (ND, N. D. (n.d.). 4 types of rehabilitation. ontario.ca).
Many people, before reading this article, might not have been aware of the rapid increase of incarceration rates and the overcrowding issue. This appeals to the reader’s sense of logic by stating that the vast majority of them are nonviolent because it shows them that that is where the overcrowding issue resides. This gets the readers thinking that alternative ways of dealing with nonviolent offenders might be necessary to solving the issue in the criminal justice system. Zuckerman makes the reader understand that reforming the prison system is a reasonable solution to the many problems generated by non-violent offenders being imprisoned. Not only does the author make the reader aware of the issue, but he provides a logical solution for it.
Over the past 40 years U.S. incarceration has grown at an extraordinary rate, with the United States’ prison population increasing from 320,000 inmates in 1980 to nearly 2.3 million inmates in 2013. The growth in prison population is in part due to society’s shift toward tough on crime policies including determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory minimums. These tough on crime policies resulted in more individuals committing less serious crimes being sentenced to serve time and longer prison sentences. The 1970s-1980s: The War on Drugs and Changes in Sentencing Policy Incarceration rates did rise above 140 persons imprisoned per 100,000 of the population until the mid 1970s.
violent or nonviolent (1). It is hard to figure out who is a violent criminal due to the way they were charged under the justice system. There is no way of showing whether or not violence was used while they were dealing or drug using. These statistics prove that by focusing on other resolutions for non-violent crimes, the incarceration rates could be reduced. Along with rehabilitation for drug offenders, there is also a need for proper rehabilitation of mentally ill patients and prisoners to keep them from relapsing and ending up back in the system.
The Sentencing Reform Act is related to the Complete and thorough Crime Control Act of 1984 were the U.S. federal law increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the (law-related) branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the benefit of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are rules that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which secures/makes sure of a meeting of the purposes of sentencing.
The United States has a larger percent of its population incarcerated than any other country. America is responsible for a quarter of the world’s inmates, and its incarceration rate is growing exponentially. The expense generated by these overcrowded prisons cost the country a substantial amount of money every year. While people are incarcerated for several reasons, the country’s prisons are focused on punishment rather than reform, and the result is a misguided system that fails to rehabilitate criminals or discourage crime. This literature review will discuss the ineffectiveness of the United States’ criminal justice system and how mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, racial profiling, and a high rate of recidivism has become a problem.
Criminals that have been convicted of murder, rape, child abuse, and other violent crimes due deserve some punishment. They get thrown in jail where they suffer boredom and other minor difficulties, but typically they do not suffer the way they made their victims suffer. Non-violent offenders, crimes like auto-theft or burglary, should not suffer beatings and other harmful things that other inmates might force upon them. They broke the law without hurting people physically, so they should have to suffer through assault in prison. No, inmates should not be harmed physically, emotionally, or physically, but it will happen in prison and when it happens it should be the violent contenders that are
Is prison effective as rehabilitation for wrong-doers in the US? Shawshank’s Redemption, an all-time best movie produced in 1994 starred and led by actors Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman. A story about two imprisoned men’s experience with the corrupted prison institution through their way of self-redemption. There is a line, which was well read by Morgan Freeman, I am particularly fond of. Here I quote ‘These walls are funny.
There are some positives to sentencing reform. According to Source #1, “In 1965… paid countries to keep nonviolent offenders...provide rehabilitation services.” This shows that prisons are funding for reforming prisoners who have nonviolent
The correctional system uses rehabilitation for offenders who were convicted on a juvenile level. Many inmates have serious mental illnesses, some in which require rehabilitation while incarcerated and some who only need rehabilitation to sustain. There is a great difference between punishment and restraint and rehabilitation is a restraint that always an offender to get better if mentally unstable rather than making them feel punished for an act that may not have been intentionally committed. People learn by example, whether it is a child or an adult, even those in prison. The main purpose for a prison is to restrain those who are violent from placing themselves at harm or others, while helping them change their behavior from negative thoughts and acts to positive and nonviolent so that they can return to the
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
Another factor to consider is that not all crimes result in the immediate arrest and conviction with the guarantee of apprehension; therefore, the overall deterrence effect becomes reduced. A scholar in crime and punishment, Michael Tory states, “At the very least, macro-level research on deterrent effects should test the null hypothesis of no effect rather than the price theory assumption that offenders’ behaviours will change in response to changes in legal threats” (3). Tough on crime policies and an increased severity on punishment will not advocate for the desired deterrence affects. Instead, our current criminal justice system seems to actively ignore the failing legislatures and laws that feed into increased recidivism rates. Yes,
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.