Must be 15-20 pages not including abstract, title page, or references. Including an introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, analysis, and conclusion. Must have 30 References with an annotated bibliography. References must be within the last 5 years. Only doi from crossref.org is allowed. If no doi is available, the URL for the publisher is allowed.
Topic: Overcrowding American Prisons
ID Problem – Overcrowding in American prisons is due to sentencing guidelines, the aging population, recidivism rates, and staff shortages, creating an unsustainable correctional system.
ID Solution – We need to find a way to incentivize rehabilitation and penalize recidivism for those who operate our prison systems, whether private or public institutions.
Thesis Statement:
Stabilizing American correctional facilities requires an incentive-based rehabilitative system for those private and public institutions that operate these facilities.
Discussion:
When the justice system removed and/or restricted the death penalty, it was replaced by life with or without the possibility of parole. This, along with other sentencing guidelines like the 1994 crime bill, mandatory minimum laws, and three-strike laws, filled prisons and aged the prison population. As jails and prisons became overcrowded, rehabilitation programs became less accessible. This increased the recidivism rate to an unsustainable level. Overcrowding increased stress levels for staff and inmates. Correctional staff already live in a constant state of alertness while inside the facility walls. Overcrowding multiplied the levels of stress causing shortages, which also affect recruitment efforts. All this has caused some facilities to shut down due to safety concerns for both inmates and staff. This is not an issue that is only affecting private or public-run facilities. One strategy to address these issues has been to simply release prisoners. Many states are using this as a temporary solution. The focus should instead be on enhancing and incentivizing rehabilitation programs, which is a primary goal of the justice system. Releasing inmates negates the retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation goals of the system and does not allow for programs to rehabilitate offenders. Therefore, recidivism is almost guaranteed, especially in the case of those convicted of more serious offenses.
References
Fleenor, D. (2023). A look at prison overcrowding from the inside. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 32(2), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.18192/jpp.v32i2.6850
Di Vita, G. (2020). Recent legislative measures to reduce overcrowding of prisons in Italy: a preliminary assessment of their economic impact. European Journal of Law and Economics, 49(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09639-5
Queirós, C., Passos, F., Bártolo, A., Marques, A. J., da Silva, C. F., & Pereira, A. (2020). Burnout and Stress Measurement in Police Officers: Literature Review and a Study With the Operational Police Stress Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 587. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00587
Elizabeth Jeglic, & Cynthia Calkins. (2022). Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States. Springer. Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States (apus.edu)
Haney, C. (2015). Prison overcrowding. In B. L. Cutler, & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes; APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes. (pp. 415-436, 545 Pages). Prison overcrowding – ProQuest
Gramlich, J. (2020, November 20). What the data says (and doesn’t say) about crime in the United States. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Gramlich, J. (2021, December 6). U.S. public divided over whether people convicted of crimes spend too much or too little time in prison. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/12/06/u-s-public-divided-over-whether-people-convicted-of-crimes-spend-too-much-or-too-little-time-in-prison/
Mackenzie, D. L. (2001, July). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/189106-2.pdf
Travis, J. (1997, January). Key legislative issues in Criminal Justice: Mandatory Sentencing. U.S. Department of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/key-legislative-issues-criminal-justice-mandatory-sentencing
United States Sentencing Commission. (n.d.). FY22 quick facts on mandatory minimum penalties – ussc.gov. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Quick_Facts_Mand_Mins_FY22.pdf
Walker, L. S. & Mezuk, B. (2018, November 29). Mandatory minimum sentencing policies and cocaine use in the U.S., 1985–2013 – BMC international health and human rights. BioMed Central. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-018-0182-2
Annotated Bibliography
Fleenor, D. (2023). A look at prison overcrowding from the inside. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 32(2), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.18192/jpp.v32i2.6850
David Fleenor surveyed forty inmates at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center. His focus was to understand the effects of Oklahoma’s eighty-five percent law. This newly enacted law requires violent offenders to serve a minimum of eighty-five percent of their full sentence before they are eligible for parole. He learned that those serving sentences after the law was enacted, served reduced the number of years in total when compared to those serving sentences prior to the new law. He found that the Oklahoma parole board was unwilling in most cases to approve parole for those who served twenty-five consecutive years or more. These two factors greatly contribute to the overcrowding in prisons today.
Di Vita, G. (2020). Recent legislative measures to reduce overcrowding of prisons in Italy: a preliminary assessment of their economic impact. European Journal of Law and Economics, 49(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09639-5
Giuseppe Di Vita analyzed two Italian reforms that were aimed at reducing overcrowding in prisons. One allowed for house arrest for prisoners with final conviction and the second allowed for house arrest for criminals arrested awaiting trial. He focused on their economic impact and found that both resulted in long-term positive economic impacts, with the exception of violent crimes. This study is extremely important because addressing overcrowding in prisons is not solely to reduce the number of inmates. It also aims to focus on the other goal, which is rehabilitation. Reducing unemployment rates, raising the level of education and other impacts show how these reforms positively impacted Italians.
Outline:
Topics: Sentencing Guidlines/Aging Population/Recidivism Rates/Staff Shortages
-Define Overcrowding: Lack of Space in the facility to hold prisoners and Lack of staff-to-inmate ratio causing restrictions on using facility space.
-Dangers of Overcrowding to inmates and staff
-Calls for reform
-Goals of prison system and criminal justice system (The four primary goals in response to criminal acts are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation (Mackenzie, 2001).
-Removal of Death Penalty (The 1970s began the conversation around capital punishment in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty, as it was being imposed at the time, was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, violating the “cruel and unusual punishment” restriction. ) This caused an aging population of inmates requiring different things for prisons for which they were never designed for. Retirement Holmes instead of prisons. Increased need for medical care.
-Strict sentencing guidelines (3 Strike Laws and 85% laws)
-Parole Denial (Fleenor, D. (2023))
– Recidivism
-Staffing Shortages 9Queirós, C., Passos, F., Bártolo, A., Marques, A. J., da Silva, C. F., & Pereira, A. (2020). Burnout and Stress Measurement in Police Officers: Literature Review and a Study With the Operational Police Stress Questionnaire. )
-Strategies for reducing overcrowding (DiVita, G. (2020)).
– Solution (Stabilizing American correctional facilities requires an incentive-based rehabilitative system for those private and public institutions that operate these facilities.)
Over the history of the world, punishments have ranged from instant death to public humiliation and everything in between. As a society forms, they collectively decide what behavior is acceptable and appropriate. They then determine the consequences for transgressing against an individual or the community. Sentencing practices have four primary goals: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. As society’s views change, their response to transgressions and the desired severity of punishment shifts; new laws are added, some are removed, and others are amended. When a society believes crime rates are rising, they tend to demand stricter enforcement and more severe punishment for crimes. This paper will examine the mandatory minimum sentencing laws and the current calls for reforms in sentencing practices.
The four primary goals in response to criminal acts are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation (Mackenzie, 2001). Retribution focuses on the cost of committing a crime, the eye for an eye punishment. Rehabilitation focuses on changing the inmate’s path by changing their worldview to prevent them from committing more crimes in the future. Deterrence attempts to show that the cost of crime is too severe to deter offenders and the public from committing these crimes in the future. Incapacitation removes criminals from the public to provide a safe environment for the community.
The historical focus of the criminal justice system shifted from rehabilitation to retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation around 1975 (Mackenzie, 2001). Robert Martinson examined the rehabilitation programs in the United States and argued that these programs were ineffective and had no positive influence on recidivism rates. The report’s views were widely accepted, with conservatives arguing that judges and correctional officials were too lenient on criminals and liberals claiming that the vast power in the rehabilitation system allowed for inequities in punishment based on gender, race, and class (Mackenzie, 2001). These are the same views on the current sentencing system today.
In the 1980s, cocaine use became prevalent and was described by the media as the cause of increased violence in urban areas (Walker & Mezuk, 2018). The “War on Drugs” and Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) of 1986 enacted mandatory minimum sentencing based on the type and quantity of drugs involved in an arrest. The federal government also passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which required states to amend their laws to ensure prisoners served at least 85% of their sentences in exchange for the federal aid provided through these programs. By 1994, every state employed some form of mandatory minimum sentences (Travis, 1997). In addition to mandatory minimum sentences, states began introducing three-strike laws, which doubled or tripled the minimum sentences for repeat offenders convicted of violent crimes. Between 1975 and 1997, the incarceration rate grew from 106 inmates per 100,000 adults to 445 inmates per 100,000 adults (Mackenzie, 2001). In fiscal year 2022, only about 30% of all cases nationwide carried a mandatory minimum sentence, with about 70% of them involving drug trafficking (United States Sentencing Commission, n.d.). The percentage of criminals with mandatory minimum sentencing requirements was so low because 43% of offenders received relief due to “safety valve” provisions or by assisting the government in prosecuting offenders (United States Sentencing Commission, n.d.). This amount of relief from mandatory minimum sentencing has been a consistent trend from 2018 through 2022. Despite the amount of relief, minimum sentencing, recidivism rates, and life without parole are creating overcrowded and understaffed prisons and jails (Mackenzie, 2001).
Before the shift toward retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, mandatory minimum sentencing was introduced and revoked due to its inability to address drug use in America. In 1956, the Narcotic Control Act introduced mandatory minimum sentences but was repealed fifteen years later as they saw an increase in the use of narcotics (Walker & Mezuk, 2018). In the years following the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1985-1990), the National Survey on Drugs and Health found a decrease in use trends for some drugs. After the Fair Sentencing Act (2009-2013), there was no significant change in the use trends of drugs (Walker & Mezuk, 2018). The effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentencing is unclear due to other factors affecting these congressional efforts.
Though most Americans believe crime rates continue to rise in America, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics show that crime rates have consistently fallen since 1993 (Gramlich, 2020). Contrarily, 60% of Americans surveyed describe climbing national crime rates with decreasing local crime. Calls for reform in our sentencing practices stem from either a desire to enforce the law more strictly due to the perception of higher crime rates or the desire to find alternative responses for minor offenses (Gramlich, 2021). Parole and probationary programs must be expanded to provide an alternative to the increasing prison population in America.
Minimum sentencing has been shown to increase the prison population and limit the correctional facility’s ability to provide rehabilitation programs, which increases recidivism rates. Alternative programs can provide reintegration into society for non-violent offenders and should alleviate the overcrowded correctional facilities (Mackenzie, 2001). Lawmakers should focus on these efforts before the prison system reaches a point where they cannot support the inmate population.
