“Build them and they will come” is a phrase that depicts the truth of the current correctional system. It is hard to believe, just in California the amount of prisons have more than tripled and are continuing to be filled to the maximum capacity with inmates. We are now aware as a nation the growing dilemma with those entering and re-entering our prisons in the criminal justice system leading to severe overcrowding, making the safe operation of a prison system nearly impossible. As our society is faced with these current dilemmas, a change must occur NOW! The only type of people whom should be incarcerated are violent and/or life threatening inmates. As our correctional facilities are being flooded, it is believed there are more affective punishments and fines to adhere to nonviolent criminals rather then wasting our tax dollars on pleasing most poor nonviolent offenders with food in their stomachs and a roof over their head.
While poverty is no longer a crime, at least not officially, two new studies suggest that the practice of locking up debtors is becoming more common. “In separate efforts, the American Civil Liberties Union and Brennan Center for Justice at New York University spent a year observing court cases and interviewing hundreds of defenders, prosecutors, and the accused. The results concluded copies of which were released early to NEWSWEEK, show a troubling pattern of incarceration in at least 16 states, where even minor, nonviolent offenses such as speeding and loitering result in prison time for the poor. The reason, according to the reports, is that courts indiscriminately slap fines on impoverished defendants, triggering an endless cycle of legal jeopardy”(Schectman 2010). This study backs up legit reasoning on the correctional system and defends my thesis of why we must not continuously fill our prisons with non violent offenders, especially those who are unable to pay fines. As we are facing an economic crisis as a whole nation, there are other means of retribution.
As Texas is facing financial dilemmas, “During the 2003 fiscal crisis, the Legislature decided to save money on prisons by cutting drug and alcohol treatment programs. This was the dumbest thing they could have done. Instead of getting treatment, nonviolent offenders remained incarcerated at great expense before being returned to their communities under supervision. In recent years, legislators involved in corrections policy have wised up. They have figured out that it makes no sense to imprison nonviolent offenders who haven't committed felonies against persons or property in maximum-security installations. The savings represent the cost of keeping an estimated 8,424 drug offenders in prison who haven't been convicted of violent felonies. These offenders should be rerouted from prison to probation, parole, and community treatment programs. Incarcerating an inmate costs about $50 a day. Probation and parole cost less than $5 a day saving the state over 300 million dollars. Experts say that drug treatment is at least five times less costly than prison--and is far more effective”(Burka 2010). Considering other alternatives such as ankle monitoring and other tracking devices could help keep track of non violent offenders as they pay time to the state by doing some type of community or state service where we would not have to pay them, instead their time and work will replace our tax dollars feeding them behind bars because they do not have enough money; that cycle does not seem to be working. Releasing all nonviolent offenders will definitely be economically beneficial for the nation as a whole.
REFERENCES:
Burka, P. (2010). THE EIGHTEEN BILLION DOLLAR MAN. Texas Monthly, 38(10), 116-182. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Schectman, J. (2010). THE RETURN OF DEBTORS' PRISONS IN LOUISIANA. Newsweek, 156(14), 6. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
THE BIG CONFLICT WITH MEDICINE, MONEY, & INMATES
“Among the most serious problems in the nation's correctional facilities are those involving medical care. According to the report, prisons often have only two or three doctors available to serve thousands of inmates. Some states allow physicians who are under-qualified, or who possess restricted licenses or scars on their medical records, to work in prisons or jails” (Cowdry 2006). The California prison system must reduce overcrowding by as many as 55,000 inmates within three years to provide a constitutional level of medical and mental health care, a federal three-judge panel tentatively ruled in 2009.
“Relying on expert testimony, the court ruled that the California prison system, the nation's largest with more than 150,000 inmates, could reduce its population by shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole, which they said would have no adverse impact on public safety. It is said that without such a plan, conditions would continue to deteriorate and inmates might regularly die of suicide or lack of proper care” (Moore 2009). Some might say, who cares, as those incarcerated should not have the benefits as law abiding citizens endure on the outside, although the state has taken custody of all inmates and must abide to their rights of regular medical care and needs, but because of severe overcrowding it has become very difficult to abide, especially California.
One of the biggest concerns of state-level correctional administrators is cost. Housing inmates in prisons is expensive and detracts from budgetary dollars that could be allocated to other areas such as community corrections or rehabilitation programs. Housing inmates in facilities that offer more services or provide more security will be more expensive than holding inmates in other facilities that merely warehouse their prisoners. In addition to cost, correctional administrators are concerned with security as prison crowding can inhibit the safety of guards and inmates. It is noticed that state officials may be less inclined to crowd facilities for women given the extra costs associated with their individual housing needs. (Steiner & Wooldredge 2008). Those who have certain medical needs are being neglected because of no money and enough people to provide the amount of care for inmates with.
As prison overcrowding has taken over, it has been put out of the hands of the people for the state of California. Instead of the state fixing budget issues for the department of corrections, California’s state prison health system is currently under the control of a federal receiver who claims to be about half way done from recovering their economic fiscal crisis. As more jobs have been applied to those in the process of getting California back in shape, it is pretty sad to see others being paid for a job the state should have taken care of. So what really needs to be done to fix the overcrowded prison population?
References:
Cowdrey, L. (2006). Commission: U.S. prisons, jails in need of reform. Nation's Health, 36(6), 21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Moore, S. (2009). Court panel orders California to reduce prison population by 55,000 in 3 years. New York Times, 12-11.
Steiner, B, & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Comparing State-Versus Facility-Level Effects On Crowding In U.S. Correctional Facilities. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2), 259-290.
“Relying on expert testimony, the court ruled that the California prison system, the nation's largest with more than 150,000 inmates, could reduce its population by shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole, which they said would have no adverse impact on public safety. It is said that without such a plan, conditions would continue to deteriorate and inmates might regularly die of suicide or lack of proper care” (Moore 2009). Some might say, who cares, as those incarcerated should not have the benefits as law abiding citizens endure on the outside, although the state has taken custody of all inmates and must abide to their rights of regular medical care and needs, but because of severe overcrowding it has become very difficult to abide, especially California.
One of the biggest concerns of state-level correctional administrators is cost. Housing inmates in prisons is expensive and detracts from budgetary dollars that could be allocated to other areas such as community corrections or rehabilitation programs. Housing inmates in facilities that offer more services or provide more security will be more expensive than holding inmates in other facilities that merely warehouse their prisoners. In addition to cost, correctional administrators are concerned with security as prison crowding can inhibit the safety of guards and inmates. It is noticed that state officials may be less inclined to crowd facilities for women given the extra costs associated with their individual housing needs. (Steiner & Wooldredge 2008). Those who have certain medical needs are being neglected because of no money and enough people to provide the amount of care for inmates with.
As prison overcrowding has taken over, it has been put out of the hands of the people for the state of California. Instead of the state fixing budget issues for the department of corrections, California’s state prison health system is currently under the control of a federal receiver who claims to be about half way done from recovering their economic fiscal crisis. As more jobs have been applied to those in the process of getting California back in shape, it is pretty sad to see others being paid for a job the state should have taken care of. So what really needs to be done to fix the overcrowded prison population?
References:
Cowdrey, L. (2006). Commission: U.S. prisons, jails in need of reform. Nation's Health, 36(6), 21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Moore, S. (2009). Court panel orders California to reduce prison population by 55,000 in 3 years. New York Times, 12-11.
Steiner, B, & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Comparing State-Versus Facility-Level Effects On Crowding In U.S. Correctional Facilities. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2), 259-290.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Three Strikes and YOU'RE IN!
“For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out, at the old ball game”, has become not only relevant in any traditional seventh inning baseball game, but has described and could possibly be the reason why our prisons are flooding with inmates. The enactment of the three strikes law has produced thousands of more cases with also fewer guilty please by defendants, leaving our criminal justice in jeopardy because of the lack of time, money, and people needed to get every case efficiently completed. With an increase of jury trials, courts are also pushing less serious cases out of court and even releasing offenders early to abide by court-ordered population caps all because of the three strikes law.
The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation's prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate. Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states, many with falling crime rates, that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the ''three strikes and you're out'' rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away. These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent(New York Times 2010). California is perhaps one of the only states being so drastically exposed in a negative outcome because of the three strikes policy, because of severe budget issues. It is appalling to see the amount of commitment and money given to the prison population being much greater then compared to the education given towards the children of the future.
California’s three strikes policy is particularly atypical in that it is widely applied toward nonviolent offenders. As of 2005, 37% of second and third-strike offenders had been incarcerated for “crimes against persons,” 30%for property crimes, 23% for drug offenses, and 10% for other offenses such as weapons possession (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). In contrast, 96% of the cases prosecuted under Three Strikes in Washington by March 2006 involved violent offenses (State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2006). As Washington is not being greatly affected as compared to California, this one statistic should prove that we should not be locking people for life up who’s last strike could have been for stealing a pair of socks or littering. This law was enacted in hopes to detter criminals and their activity, but instead has filled prisons with potentially non-violent offenders. If our tax dollars are being spent, it would be nice to know money is being spent to keep dangerous people off of the street rather then someone who broke the law three times, with one of those three offenses being violent because there are far worse life threatening people that need to be occupying cells.
References:
Chen, E. The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s Three Strikes Law, 6(2), Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2005). A primer: Three strikes. The impact after more than a decade. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Prisons and Budgets :[Editorial]. (2010, January 4). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.20. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1931957391).
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2006).
offender sentencing in Washington State through March 2006Two strikes and three strikes: Persistent. Olympia, WA: Author.
The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation's prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate. Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states, many with falling crime rates, that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the ''three strikes and you're out'' rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away. These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent(New York Times 2010). California is perhaps one of the only states being so drastically exposed in a negative outcome because of the three strikes policy, because of severe budget issues. It is appalling to see the amount of commitment and money given to the prison population being much greater then compared to the education given towards the children of the future.
California’s three strikes policy is particularly atypical in that it is widely applied toward nonviolent offenders. As of 2005, 37% of second and third-strike offenders had been incarcerated for “crimes against persons,” 30%for property crimes, 23% for drug offenses, and 10% for other offenses such as weapons possession (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). In contrast, 96% of the cases prosecuted under Three Strikes in Washington by March 2006 involved violent offenses (State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2006). As Washington is not being greatly affected as compared to California, this one statistic should prove that we should not be locking people for life up who’s last strike could have been for stealing a pair of socks or littering. This law was enacted in hopes to detter criminals and their activity, but instead has filled prisons with potentially non-violent offenders. If our tax dollars are being spent, it would be nice to know money is being spent to keep dangerous people off of the street rather then someone who broke the law three times, with one of those three offenses being violent because there are far worse life threatening people that need to be occupying cells.
References:
Chen, E. The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s Three Strikes Law, 6(2), Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2005). A primer: Three strikes. The impact after more than a decade. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Prisons and Budgets :[Editorial]. (2010, January 4). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.20. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1931957391).
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2006).
offender sentencing in Washington State through March 2006Two strikes and three strikes: Persistent. Olympia, WA: Author.
Monday, November 22, 2010
THE CRISIS OF OVERCRIMINALIZATION
Over the past decade, secure facilities have faced a crisis of over criminalization. As we have increased the number of punishable offenses, we have increased the number of offenders who need punishing. The result of more punitive laws, mandatory sentences, determinate sentences, and sentencing guidelines is why much of our prison population is crowded. Kids are being charged as adults, and stricter drug laws have left many incarcerated. Californians have been greatly affected as the three strikes law became in effect years ago now, and could possibly be part of the reason why our prisons are flooding with inmates. No need to point fingers as to how this crisis happened, although now a question as to how to get ourselves out of this mess is another story.
“As existing studies of the impact on crime in California consider only partial deterrence, that is the deterrence of offenders committing their last strike. As another explanation is tougher sentencing practices, many critics of sentencing reforms argue that stricter sentencing is too harsh on criminals and ineffective in achieving deterrence”(Sheperd 2002). It makes complete sense right? People get harsh longer sentences, and say screw it, if I have to be in here for at least twenty-five years there’s no point in following the rules. Then of course is the controversy to as who is being locked up.
“Overcriminalization is probed as this superficially simple question in considerable depth and with great sophistication. It might be thought that if an offense is created, and then never enforced, that must be a case of overcriminalization; but that is not necessarily so” (Horder 2009). In fact, these days our prisons are so full it is as if they are welcoming facilities. It is as if people truly do not mind being incarcerated…is it really not that bad as compared to the outside life?
Horder, J. (2009). Overcriminalization. Social Theory and Practice, 35(3), 483-90.
Shepherd, J. (2002). Fear of the first strike. The Journal of Legal Studies, 159
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A Huge Dilemma
Our prison population has been continuously striving in numbers throughout the United States. It has become a financial crisis for our working government as well as our society as a whole.“Build them and they will come” is a phrase I have heard by many of my criminal justice professors and I am beginning to really understand why they’ve said that as it is hard to believe, just in California the number amount of prisons have more than tripled and are continuing to be filled to the maximum capacity with inmates.
It seems as though we have a growing dilemma with those entering and re-entering our prisons in the criminal justice system.. Severe overcrowding makes the safe operation of a prison system nearly impossible.. Everything is known to revolve around overcrowding such as the deficiencies in the classification plan are unavailable because of staff doing other tasks associated with overcrowding problems. California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has even recognized and posed a state of emergency back in the year 2006 due to the dangers overcrowding poses posed to prisoners, prison staff, and even the public (Specter 2010). As a state of emergency was in alert for California in 2006, still nothing has changed. If a state of emergency alert can still change nothing for even the state of California then we will continue to be we are faced with a dilemma in the number of growing and never ending inmates.
Despite the amount of money washed away taking care of the many needs of inmates, there is another round of bad news in which is just an extension of the first. Low and behold the more money a state spends on building and running prisons, the less there is for everything else, from roads and bridges to health care and public schools (Brown 2008). If our criminal justice system continues to run like this, our prison population will continue to grow and pretty soon in my eyes it will be even more hardmore troubling to uphold a stable lifestyle for the community of most American families.
With angry and tired citizens’ tax money going to waste to accommodate incarcerated felons off the streets; I think I speak for most when I say, something must be done. There must be a way we can go about holding and/or treating inmates for the better in which our money and streets will be protected. What about who we are holding in our cells and who we are releasing? I do not want to waste any more of my tax dollars keeping non-violent offenders locked up when they could be doing hard labor making jobs on our streets in means of restitution with a way of also making ourand communities looking better; with patrol supervision of course, even allowing more jobs for our every day law abiding citizens.
Brown, E. & Gonnerman, J. (2008). We are locking up 1 in every 100 american adults-and going bankrupt in the process. Slammed, 33(4), 44-46.
Specter, D. (2010). The State of California Prisons. Everything revolves around overcrowding, 22 (3), 194-199.
It seems as though we have a growing dilemma with those entering and re-entering our prisons in the criminal justice system.. Severe overcrowding makes the safe operation of a prison system nearly impossible.. Everything is known to revolve around overcrowding such as the deficiencies in the classification plan are unavailable because of staff doing other tasks associated with overcrowding problems. California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has even recognized and posed a state of emergency back in the year 2006 due to the dangers overcrowding poses posed to prisoners, prison staff, and even the public (Specter 2010). As a state of emergency was in alert for California in 2006, still nothing has changed. If a state of emergency alert can still change nothing for even the state of California then we will continue to be we are faced with a dilemma in the number of growing and never ending inmates.
Despite the amount of money washed away taking care of the many needs of inmates, there is another round of bad news in which is just an extension of the first. Low and behold the more money a state spends on building and running prisons, the less there is for everything else, from roads and bridges to health care and public schools (Brown 2008). If our criminal justice system continues to run like this, our prison population will continue to grow and pretty soon in my eyes it will be even more hardmore troubling to uphold a stable lifestyle for the community of most American families.
With angry and tired citizens’ tax money going to waste to accommodate incarcerated felons off the streets; I think I speak for most when I say, something must be done. There must be a way we can go about holding and/or treating inmates for the better in which our money and streets will be protected. What about who we are holding in our cells and who we are releasing? I do not want to waste any more of my tax dollars keeping non-violent offenders locked up when they could be doing hard labor making jobs on our streets in means of restitution with a way of also making ourand communities looking better; with patrol supervision of course, even allowing more jobs for our every day law abiding citizens.
Brown, E. & Gonnerman, J. (2008). We are locking up 1 in every 100 american adults-and going bankrupt in the process. Slammed, 33(4), 44-46.
Specter, D. (2010). The State of California Prisons. Everything revolves around overcrowding, 22 (3), 194-199.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)