The Pros And Cons Of Drug Offenders

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a federally funded, executive agency consisting of 39,683 employees and housing 193,070 inmates via 122 different institutional locations currently maintaining a thirty-four percent rate of recidivism (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016, About tab). The Bureau is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and performs duties of care and custody, rehabilitation program and services, and provides services for the prevention of future crimes. The Bureau is also responsible for carrying out all legally mandated federal executions, with Terre Haute, Indiana being home for the lethal injection center. Facilities are broken down into different classifications based on security concerns, and house inmates accordingly by

The prison system in Texas is its own and unique beast. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice or TDCJ has many different units that house many different types of inmates. These units across Texas all sever different purposes to the state and the local communities in which the prisons are close to. There are however three things that make each prison unique from the other prisons, the inmates that they house, and the different industries ran by the each prison and the programs offered to offenders. I work at the H.H. Coffield Unit and I will take you on a tour of that prison and explain what it is that make Coffield unique.

How well does the Australian Legal System deal with the contemporary issue (drug use and the law)

America's prisons are overpopulated and the population is growing each year with increased drug activities. Low level drug offenders, comprised of 39 percent of the overall prison population. In the article " Department of Justice low-level drug offenders: a defense perspective" defines low-level drug offender as one who has been convicted drug trafficking offense but has no prior commitment, history of violence, known involvement of sophisticated criminal activity, significant "public risk factor," and pending detainer (Katz 28) . This group isn't hardened criminals and don't live a life of crime; rather they are motivated by profit. They are less likely to return to prison when compared to hardened criminals. The length of drug sentences

In this day and age, There are five times as many people in jail as there were in the 1970s. Almost 5 percent of the population of the United States will go to prison at in point of their life. Conservatives believe that imprisonment reduces crime in two ways: it removes criminals from the public so they can not commit more crimes, and it also discourages people who would commit a crime as they consider the consequences. Unfortunately, neither of these outcomes have come to be true. In fact, mass incarceration and “tough on crime” laws have been extremely ineffective that instead of reducing crime, it increases it. There are several different ways to effectively reduce crime other than these two strategies, such as reforming certain policies

The American Dream is being able to achieve whatever a citizen wants as long as they are willing to work hard for it; being financially stable is a key factor to being successful. This is the main reason many immigrants come to America. They want to start a life that allows them to build a family in a successful environment. The American Dream started in the early 1800s saying that anyone was able to achieve what they want as long as they worked hard and never gave up. America is one of the best countries to achieve the idea of “being successful.” Although there are many obstacles in life, the American Dream is pretty realistic.

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.

This section’s goal is to show the effectiveness and efficiency of 4 studies on the previously outlined programs. To begin, Federal funds paid for a study named The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), the study measures the effectiveness of adult drug courts. Since drug courts aim at keeping addicts away from drugs and out of jail, the purpose of the study was to “evaluate the effects of drug courts on substance use, crime, and other practices,” and to note when outcomes proved positive (Rossman, Rempel, Roman, Zweig, Lindquist, Green, Downey, Yahner, Bhati, Farole, Jr., 2011, p. 1). Authors of the report include Shelli B. Rossman, Michael Rempel, John K. Roman, Janine M. Zweig, Christine H.

Essentially, the war on drugs has demonstrated to be an exorbitant expense. The federal government in 2002 alone spent $18.822 billion in the form of expenditures such as treatment, prevention, and domestic law enforcement (CSDP, 2007, p. 54). However, given that the drug war has garnered meager results, this investment may be interpreted as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Alternatively, the money that has been allocated to arrest and detain drug offenders may also be a source of contention. CSDP (2007) “Of the 1,846,351 arrests for drug law violations in 2005, 81.7% (1,508,469) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.3% (337,882) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug” (p. 23). Therefore, the individuals who are likely to enter the already overcrowded prisons may be users and the actual not distributors themselves. Thus, prison space that is intended to be reserved for murders and sexual predators is instead being occupied by substance

As a nation proud of the philosophies revolving around freedom, equality, etc. it is far-fetched and unseemingly to good to be true. In the “Deaf in Prison” documentary, “there are more than two people incarcerated” (Deaf in Prison, 2013). We shift our attention to issues that should not be started as an issue, mass incarceration for little crimes such as an individual sentenced ten years for holding very little marijuana, primarily targeting those who are a person of color, screams a lot about the system as a whole. There is a whole lot of fragments that need fixing within our unjust judicial system, and that is why we need to curb the efforts of providing the best resources possible for those convicted wrongfully and those who want a second

The purpose of this literature review is to prove that drug court programs are an effective alternative to incarceration for people struggling with substance abuse issues. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics seventeen percent of prisoners at the state level were incarcerated due to drug related crimes. Eighteen percent of federal cases were related to drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). According to Lutze and Van Wormer the drug court model was formulated in response to the revolving cycle involved with substance addiction and crime. This model incorporated many different aspects of the judicial system such as judges, lawyers, probation officers, and social workers as well as traditional substance abuse treatment concepts.

The initial thinking behind the creation of minimum mandatory sentences was created by congress to aim in the capture and imprisonment of high level drug traffickers, and deter others from entering into drug trafficking or using illegal substances, which would create a safer society. However, the nation prison has been expanded with low level street drug dealers, and the accessibility to illegal drugs is more obtainable then before the enactment of the mandatory sentencing act. In fact, the number of drug offenders in federal prisons has increased 21 times since 1980. Contrary to what congress has believed in the past about the dangers of crack cocaine compared to that in powder form has been proven to be untrue, but little has been done to reduce the number of prisons affected by that belief.

Crutchfield writes that, “African American and Latino drug dealers are more likely to be arrested because of their activity”. Minorities have to be extra careful about their actions. Martensen states that, “Blacks and latinos make up seventy percent of the criminal population and in 2000, eight percent of all black men and three percent of all hispanic men were incarcerated in jail or prison,” (2). It was key interest among politicians who called for the “war on crime” which just turned into “war on drugs”, and the demonization of people of color.

As of September 26, 2015, there is a total of 93,821 inmates in prison for drug offenses, which is equivalent to 48.4 percent of the prison population. The use of illegal narcotics has been an issue within the country for decades; however, is incarceration the way to solve this problem? I think not. During the late 1960’s, poverty was a substantial issue within urban cities and secluded rural areas. On the other hand, recreational drug usage promoted by fashionable young, white Americans as a symbol of social upheaval and youthful rebellion coincided with the deprivation within many of these areas. The most notable drug reform in Nixon’s war on drugs. Nixon maximized federal drug agencies enforcing mandatory sentences and intrusive searches.

A big reason why this is; youth in these particular communities are used to growing up with family members making lots of money selling drugs, and see hardworking family members working legitimate jobs barely making ends meet. This really disheartens them from continuing with school as Rodney Phelps says to another young kid in the Juvenile detention system, “…you still a kid, basically, how you going to be making six an hour, when you can be stacking real money, slinging?” (Bergmann 2008, 159). This shows the attitudes of people in the community, which in turn affects the decision making of young men in these families. The drug dealing culture really shapes family life in Detroit by being normalized and seen as a way to make huge amounts of money albeit the risk of incarceration increasing exponentially. These young people often grow up in broken families or with multiple family members in prison for drug related crimes such as Dude Freeman, who had his father die of cancer, one of his brothers on the run from the police, the other locked-up, and a mother in dialysis (Bergmann 2008, 110). With family members often coming into contact with the justice system, like many other young males, Dude knew that you could only truly trust family in the end to not snitch or sell you out. This makes