Friday, December 21, 2007
Jails and Prisons - Criminal Justice Policy
Criminal justice policy has played a major part in the current overcrowding situation. The current spirit of the nation towards criminals is one of retribution and incapacitation. Retribution, a main reason for administering criminal justice sanctions to offenders implies that the harm inflicted by the criminal upon the victim will in some way be returned by the government to the offender. Our reliance on the government to inflict harm on the criminal represents the general attitude that it is the job of our government to play a role in which it was never designed to play.
Michel Foucault said, "There remains, therefore, a trace of 'torture' in the modern mechanisms of criminal justice - a trace that has not been entirely overcome" Some of the more politically minded have developed policies that satisfy the nation's thirst for vengeance. Some of these reforms include "restrictions or abolition of parole, mandatory minimum sentences, determinate sentences, sentencing enhancements (e.g., for weapons or for use of violence), and longer sentences". "A growing number of judges are speaking out against the system of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences", but the problem continues to exist despite the outcry of some in the criminal justice system because of political agendas and the publics merciless attitude.
James Austin and John Irwin, in their book It's About Time-America's Imprisonment Binge, outline some basic trends in the current political agenda that act as "conceptual building blocks" for criminal justice policy.
They are as follows:
The War on Poverty, which sought to fight crime through education, job training, and rehabilitation in the 1960's and 1970's, was a total failure.
Dangerous criminals repeatedly go free because of liberal judges or decisions made by the liberal Supreme Court that help the criminal but not the victim.
Swift and certain punishment in the form of more and longer prison terms will reduce crime by incapacitating the hardened criminals and making potential law breakers think twice before they commit crimes.
Most inmates are dangerous and cannot be safely placed in the community.
It will be far cheaper to society in the long run to increase the use of imprisonment.
Greater use of imprisonment since the 1980's is the most effective way for reducing crime.
All of these statements are based on poor information and a general lack of knowledge about who commits crime, why they commit crime, and who is affected by the crime they commit. Imprisonment has proven to be a slothful solution to a complex problem. A study on the impact of density on jail violence done by Christine Tartaro found that the increase in mandatory sentences has resulted in more inmates waiting in jail until their trial. Longer and harsher sentences for non-violent offenders have flooded our criminal justice system, crime continues to increase, and the cost of imprisonment is skyrocketing. Because of these facts, the courts have had to intervene in some of the more severe cases.
Michel Foucault said, "There remains, therefore, a trace of 'torture' in the modern mechanisms of criminal justice - a trace that has not been entirely overcome" Some of the more politically minded have developed policies that satisfy the nation's thirst for vengeance. Some of these reforms include "restrictions or abolition of parole, mandatory minimum sentences, determinate sentences, sentencing enhancements (e.g., for weapons or for use of violence), and longer sentences". "A growing number of judges are speaking out against the system of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences", but the problem continues to exist despite the outcry of some in the criminal justice system because of political agendas and the publics merciless attitude.
James Austin and John Irwin, in their book It's About Time-America's Imprisonment Binge, outline some basic trends in the current political agenda that act as "conceptual building blocks" for criminal justice policy.
They are as follows:
The War on Poverty, which sought to fight crime through education, job training, and rehabilitation in the 1960's and 1970's, was a total failure.
Dangerous criminals repeatedly go free because of liberal judges or decisions made by the liberal Supreme Court that help the criminal but not the victim.
Swift and certain punishment in the form of more and longer prison terms will reduce crime by incapacitating the hardened criminals and making potential law breakers think twice before they commit crimes.
Most inmates are dangerous and cannot be safely placed in the community.
It will be far cheaper to society in the long run to increase the use of imprisonment.
Greater use of imprisonment since the 1980's is the most effective way for reducing crime.
All of these statements are based on poor information and a general lack of knowledge about who commits crime, why they commit crime, and who is affected by the crime they commit. Imprisonment has proven to be a slothful solution to a complex problem. A study on the impact of density on jail violence done by Christine Tartaro found that the increase in mandatory sentences has resulted in more inmates waiting in jail until their trial. Longer and harsher sentences for non-violent offenders have flooded our criminal justice system, crime continues to increase, and the cost of imprisonment is skyrocketing. Because of these facts, the courts have had to intervene in some of the more severe cases.
Labels: incarceration
