“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)