Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US Research Paper

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

Abstract

This paper considers the current incarceration rates in the US as a cause for serious concern and highlights various causes for such situations. It quotes various figures and statistics that pinpoint the sorry state of America’s various jails and prisons and also studies the many causes for the same. The paper mentions that the massive and harsh drug control laws adopted by the state over the years have mainly contributed to the problem.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Research Paper on Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US
808 writers online

The changes in criminal justice policy over the past decades and the alteration of the same from one of rehabilitative and social justice to one of retributive justice and increasing reliance on imprisonment as a correctional tool have been cited as major causes for the problems. The state policy affects women and men from colored communities like Afro American and Hispanics the most.

The incarceration of women is all the more depressing in as much such incarceration affects the family and children of such women and also stigmatizes them from having a normal life after release from prison. In such a situation, ex-prisoners do not receive full welfare benefits, cannot vote, often find no employment, and are also socially and economically deprived. This makes them either mentally or physically incapacitated and generally, such ex-prisoners commit fresh crimes and re-enter the prison system.

Large-scale prison expansion, overcrowding of prisons, and skewed policies have only exacerbated the crime environment instead of minimizing the same. As a result, the criminal justice system appears to be failing in both its crime-reducing aspect as well as the larger humanitarian and social aspects that necessarily characterize a developed and democratic country. Most authors who have studied the problem have termed the current criminal justice system as retrograde and retributive and as one needing replacement by a more humane and socio-economic system.

Incarceration in the US: An introduction

It has been well documented over the years that the US incarcerates the most people in the world and the rate of incarceration is also four times the world average (Hartney 2006). Hartney also observes that the US incarcerates the most number women than any other country.

The situation creates various social and economic disparities. The problems are diverse and severe on the prisoners as also their families. Prisons are overcrowded and such overcrowding causes severe health problems while also impacting the security of staff and prisoners. Prisoners reentering society and the labor market face obstacles by way of lower employment opportunities, poorer wages, and social discrimination. Additionally, the state expends a substantial part of its funds on maintaining an elaborate prison system, which directly affects the taxpayers of the country.

It has been observed that the US currently incarcerates criminal offenders in both state and federal prisons across the entire country at rates that touch nearly 737 persons per a lakh of the population (ICPS, 2005). By the same year (2005), the actual number of state and federal prisoners even touched a phenomenal figure of 1.4 million. However, in contrast, the corresponding world average was only around 166 per lakh of persons the same year (2005).

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

Nearly 65 percent of those incarcerated in the US are composed of prisoners housed in state and federal prisons while the rest constituted the local jails. The years have also seen a massive increase in local jail incarceration, almost becoming three times the previous levels by the year 2005. Mostly, such increased incarcerations have been concentrated among low-income, less educated men from the minority communities, particularly African-American men. In fact, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics has pegged the lifetime likelihood of persons in the US that may be incarcerated to be mostly from the black communities (32.2 percent). Such disproportionate incarceration rates have only exacerbated the already increased racial differences as evident in social and economic practices in the various provinces.

The skewed incarceration rates have affected minority and colored communities as well as growing-up colored children. While state and federal socio-economic welfare is a direct casualty of this situation, former minority prisoners often face discrimination in getting employment and welfare benefits. Re-entry to society generally means that such ex-prisoners have to come back to their own social and economically deprived community environment.

But they generally feel ostracized from the mainstream and often get mentally or physically incapacitated. Even marriages are seen to fail when any of the marrying partners or their children get into wedlock and relationships often break up quickly. Children of ex-prisoners also become very poor and often develop behavioral problems (Johnson 2007). The prison population at any given point of time comprises persons convicted for felonies as well as parole and probation violators. Even those awaiting adjudication are lodged in local, federal, or state jails. Overcrowding of prisons at all levels is thus both a common feature as well as slowly becoming unmanageable.

The actual incarcerations for extended periods of time are compounded further by continuous flows into and out of the prisons and jails, throughout the US. What is more glaring is that, of the many prisoners held in jails or prisons at any point in time, many constitute those who have re-entered imprisonment for having committed fresh or newer crimes. Hence, the present prison system in the US as a corrective institution is obviously lacking in the basic objective of any criminal justice system, viz., that of minimizing incidences of re-imprisonment of criminals for fresh crimes committed when released or while on parole.

The tenure of most incarcerations does not generally exceed a period of five years (Travis 2005). More significantly, the rate of admissions to prison has far exceeded the releases from the same. Men constitute the most number of criminals imprisoned and among men, those having ages between 25 and 40, form the majority who are imprisoned and, more particularly, constitute persons from colored communities.

Surveys of incarcerations have indicated that imprisonment in the US has primarily increased due to the severe drug enforcement policies adopted by the state. Most incarcerations are thus related to drug offenses and other petty crimes. Unfortunately, the majority of such drug offenses appear to be caused by colored communities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. More alarmingly, women constitute a significant part of the growing numbers of prisoners and ex-prisoners.

Nearly half the women incarcerated are African Americans. Drug sentencing is particularly severe on this growing community of colored women offenders who stand to lose lifelong welfare benefits, their social status, their family life, and their economic well-being. This is compounded further by the social structure which is usually male-dominated and discriminatory towards women. A growing number of colored families are a single parent and both their prisoner or ex-prisoner parents and their children get affected by the strict law enforcement system.

Remember! This is just a sample
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers

Causes for increasing incarceration rates

Although incarceration rates have increased throughout the past decades starting from the beginning of the 1990s, the change in crime rates does not appear to justify such enhanced incarceration levels. According to Tonry (1999, p. 422), “the incarceration rates in the US do not rise with rising crimes; they do so because American politicians want them to rise”. He also observes that the earlier indeterminate sentencing rules and discretionary release of prisoners have been replaced by determinate sentencing norms facilitating automatic release.

While earlier, release from prison was viewed as a privilege to be earned, and prisoners were generally released on parole into rehabilitation or in case of family or job considerations, present-day sentencing rules provide for a mandatory and fixed-term behind bars for the prisoner to serve, and the prisoner is usually released once he or she has served the required fixed terms in prison. Petersilia even observes that parolees re-enter prison soon after release for fresh crimes.

Most often, such parolees or ex-prisoners return on release to their poor and socially stifling community environment and are hardly able to adjust to severe social and economic hardships that they face as ex-prisoners. While rehabilitation programs have declined, parole officers are unable to tackle the volumes of prisoner release, and the problem is more pronounced in the case of poor and colored communities.

Some authors have also observed that the US government relies on both state and federal levels on incarceration as a means of deterrence in the fight against drugs (Bewley-Taylor, Trace and Stevens, 2005). The past decades have seen the US administration explicitly use incarceration as a drug control policy so as to help reduce the proliferation and use of illicit drugs in the country. Such drug policy is also known as the ‘war on drugs’. The US drug policy essentially attempts to check the supply of illicit drugs and restrict the same in both scale and scope. This has been pursued through some stringent law enforcement methods (Roberts, Trace, and Klein, 2004).

Hence, even as early as in the 1980s, the state has resorted to punitive measures in combating and controlling the menace of drugs in the country. Such measures have predominantly included arrest and imprisonment. As a result, arrests due to drug offenses have doubled from around 6 lacs in 1980 to a staggering 1.6 million in 2000, which constitutes roughly an increase from 5.5% to 11 percent of the total arrests (Boyum & Reuter, 2005).

A major number of those arrested have been incarcerated for possessing marijuana. Arrests for marijuana alone in present-day America constitute almost half the yearly drug arrests (King, & Mauer, 2005). Increase in such widespread drug use and abuse has been dealt with by the state with an iron hand and the result is that drug related incarcerations, particularly among Hispanics and African Americans, has been steadily increasing to an all time high.

Boyum and Reuter (2005) even observe that such drug related incarcerations have increased almost 10 fold between 1980 and 2000 and such increase has been mostly driven by the new mandatory sentencing rules. It has become a common occurrence to incarcerate persons possessing drugs, even if they possess very small amounts of illicit drugs. The prisoners are forced to serve out minimum mandated prison terms. The number of drug users and sellers in jails and prisons in the US today exceeds almost half a million (Boyum & Reuter, 2005). Also, a major proportion of these incarcerated persons are actually non-violent offenders (Schiraldi, Holman & Beatty, 2000).

A still more alarming phenomenon has been the growing incarceration of women. Thus, between 1985 and 1995, for example, the number of women incarcerated in state and federal institutions increased 200 per cent and most of such incarcerations also were related to non-violent offences. Reichel (2005) avers that the increase in incarceration levels in the US has been primarily due to stricter law enforcement by the state, increase in level of penalties and the stringent sentencing rules prescribing mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders. The most impact of such drug related incarcerations has been observed in women in general and African American women, in particular (Bush-Baskette, 1999).

We will write
a custom essay
specifically for you
Get your first paper with
15% OFF

Community-wise, according to government statistics in 1990, African-Americans made up only around 15-20% of the country’s drug users, but in most urban areas their community had the most persons –around half to two-thirds the total number of arrests–arrested for drug offences (Duster, 1997). Oliver best identifies the causes for such increased incarceration rates in the US when she observes that “determinate sentencing, which eliminates judicial discretion, longer sentences for drug offences, increases in funding for police departments and large increases in prison capacity, the exacerbation of racial tensions and fears following the civil rights movement and the riots of the 1970s, and the politicization of crime as an election issue all appear to have played some role” (2001).

Generally, the high incarceration rates are driven by multiple factors like more widespread violent crime incidences, more severe and vastly altered sentencing rules, the introduction of retributive rather rehabilitative policies, the curtailment of judicial discretion, as also a greater reliance on incarceration as a crime correctional mechanism.

Criminal justice system in the US

The US criminal justice system needs to be examined in order to understand better the systems, which contribute to incarceration and other law enforcement practices in that country. Hence, the sequence of events right from the origin of crime and the initial response to it, to the ultimate correctional system and release and rehabilitation of prisoners into society needs to be studied if at all the reasons for high incarceration rates are to be understood and suitable mechanism suggested for rectifying the situation. In this respect, it can be noted that the first step in the entire cycle is the origin of the crime and the response to the same.

In the US, the first persons or entities that respond initially to a crime are the many individuals, families, businesses, industries, neighborhood association, news media, etc which are obviously all private and not related to state organizations like the police or judiciary. The system relies to a large extent on a state sponsored and propagated community awareness and participation program for early detection of crime, responding to it in a suitable manner and facilitating quick entry of the criminal into the criminal justice system.

Private involvement in crime prevention involves crime prevention as well as the community or public participation in the entire criminal justice process. The public involves in neighborhood watch programs but also stay committed to preventing and eliminating crime from society. Public individuals need to report on crimes to the police. They also participate in the system by being members of the jury or witnesses to a prosecution.

It is also the public in a democratic nation like the US that constitute tax payers and electors who can influence the working of criminal justice and law enforcement systems in the country. The public also plays a role in such important issues like the maintenance of prisons, the reintegration of ex-prisoners into society, etc. But, other than individuals, the criminal justice system also includes the services or contributions of various agencies and organizations. This includes many public and private bodies, which coordinate and collaborate with the criminal justice department, agencies caring for public health, welfare, education, etc.

The American criminal justice system has evolved from the English Common Law but consist of various complex procedures and legal decisions. The US law regards crimes against individuals as crimes against the State. However, criminal justice systems vary among jurisdictions and states. There is no single uniform federally imposed criminal justice system in place across the country. Rather, the criminal justice processes attempt to minimize state intervention in criminal cases and even provide necessary support to the convicted offenders. Thus, many crimes are not reported and hence not proceeded against in courts.

But, it is necessary to take specific steps as mandated by the provisions of the US Constitution and the due process guarantees that it provides US citizens. The first time that crime gets reported is due to reports from victims themselves or eyewitnesses. However, a police official, intelligence agencies, or even informants can also collect and provide information on crime.

Once it is established that a crime has been committed, the law enforcement agency attempts to identify the suspect and also arrest him. While officials may arrest a criminal at the scene of the crime, a long drawn investigation may often be required so that the suspect’s involvement in the crime can be established before the person can be arrested. An arrested person found innocent can also be released later on. But once the suspect gets arrested, the police have to present the details of the case to the prosecutor who will then decide on whether to file formal charges in court against the accused or not.

There are, however, many instances when efforts to prosecute have failed and the accused has been let off. But in any case a suspect who is charged with a crime has to be produced before a magistrate or judge without delay. In cases which are not serious, the judge may, at this stage, determine the extent of penalty. At this time, a defense counsel may also be assigned since all suspects prosecuted for serious crimes have the right to be represented by an attorney.

In fact, suspects found indigent by the court may also be assigned a counsel at public expense. At the first appearance before the judge, the suspect may be detained or released prior to the trial. However, in most cases, the judge bases his decision before the trial on the drug habits, family situation or employment status of the accused.

A judge can release the accused at this stage itself or may even release the person into the custody of a third party after getting him to post a financial bond and upon obtaining a promise from him to abstain from drugs and take periodically monitored drug tests. Often, in many jurisdictions, the accused may have to face a preliminary hearing where it is determined if he has committed any crime within that jurisdiction. Without finding a sufficient cause for believing that the accused has committed such crime as known, the judge orders his release and the case as dismissed. But if the cause for belief in his guilt is found justified, then the case can be handed over to a grand jury.

The function of the grand jury is primarily that of hearing evidence in a case, deciding upon action against the criminal offender and submitting an indictment constituting the charges to bring against the accused, in case the guilt of the accused is proved. Such a grand jury may also try common criminals and also issue certain grand jury original indictments for starting criminal cases, particularly in cases relating to drug or conspiracy cases.

Grand jury indictment generally is acted upon by law enforcement agencies by apprehending and arresting the accused named in such indictment. While indictments may be given even in felony cases in some counties, an information or written accusation submitted to court by a prosecutor could initiate many casers of felony or misdemeanor. Information may be preferred by an accused in place of a grand jury indictment but once an indictment or information has been filed with trial court, the accused has to be prepared for arraignment at which he or she is read out the charges, advised of personal rights and also asked to enter a plea against the charges, if any.

Often the accused pleads guilty or pleads nolo contendere i.e., accepts the penalty without admitting the guilt. The judge either accepts such plea or rejects the same, when, without any trial, the accused can be sentenced immediately or even later on. There is provision for an accused to be declared insane or for his not pleading guilty and trial by jury is usually guaranteed to an accused. But an under-trial can ask for a trial bench instead of a jury to decide upon the case.

In any case, the prosecution as well as defense counsel present evidence, examine witnesses, and ask the judge to decide the issues. The accused is acquitted or convicted by the judge for the main as well as other minor charges. The convicted person can ask for an appellate review also. Cases resulting in capital penalty usually provide for appeal by the accused, which may be provided by the appellate court and usually follows the acceptance of a defendant’s petition for “writ of certiorari”. But there is provision also for habeas corpus and civil rights petitions in the US criminal justice system.

Once an accused is convicted of the criminal charges, either the judge or jury imposes a sentence on the accused. A sentence hearing may be held prior to sentencing or court may also rely on investigations prior to the sentencing made by probation or other authorities.

After due consideration of the issues in the case, the judge or jury may award incarceration in prison or jail, the death penalty, probation, financial penalties, or even restitution to be paid as compensation to the victim of the crime. Often the convicts may be lodged in boot camps and subjected to supervision, drug monitoring, house arrest, monitoring of activities, denial of welfare benefits, etc. However, a criminal often has to serve a minimum mandatory prison term, but usually the courts now resort to determinate sentencing rules providing for automate release from prison after the expiry of a particular term of imprisonment.

Criminals are usually incarcerated in local jails or state or federal prisons. While jail incarceration is for a period of less than a year, higher tenures require the lodging of the criminal in a state or federal prison. Often the criminals are held in a community correctional center and may get parole after a fixed term behind bars. Such parole is granted by a parole board, which can both grant and revoke paroles. However many criminal internees need to serve out full terms of imprisonment less the good time credits that they may accumulate in prison. A parole supervises the entire tenure of release of the convict, governed by the specific terms of release.

Often, criminals re-enter prison when they commit fresh crimes when released or while on parole. The system takes into account prior sentencing or prison terms of such rearrested criminals.

There is also a separate system for trying juveniles that relates to issues like juvenile delinquency, truancy, running away, neglect or adoption. Generally persons under 17 years are treated as juveniles. Juvenile courts try juvenile criminals in a manner similar to adult criminals and are referred such juveniles by law enforcement officials, school officials, parents, etc. for criminal behavior. Juvenile cases are often diverted to alternate correctional systems including drug rehabilitation, counseling or educational interventions.

However, certain circumstances require that juveniles be tried as adult criminals. Many States exclude serious criminal cases from the purview of juvenile courts and may try such under-age criminals in usual criminal courts. In many jurisdictions, juries may try juvenile criminals although this is not mandatory. The juvenile courts can order probation, residential rehabilitation, restitution, fines or even removal of juveniles on conviction to remand homes. Juveniles classified as youthful offenders invite longer sentences. Juveniles receive aftercare but those who violate aftercare can be sanctioned in a manner similar to adults.

The US has in place a system of criminal justice wherein the Constitution and the various case laws define the course and procedures of criminal trials, convictions and correctional programs. The laws of each State define the criminal justice system within its jurisdiction and acts through its various officials, agencies, and institutions. Local statute defines the criminal justice system in the counties and municipalities. A Federal criminal justice system caters to the crimes like bank robberies, trans-border smuggling of goods and kidnapping. Criminal justice is predominantly a State subject. So too is the correctional system and most justice personnel are employed at local levels.

The criminal justice system is founded on acceptance of individual rights to justice, and discretion on the part of government and law enforcement machineries. Professionalism is sought to be imparted into the system by training and education of government officials. The degree of discretion exercised by an official varies from one jurisdiction to another. However, determinate sentencing has somewhat curtailed the discretionary authority of judges to impose anything other than mandatory minimum sentencing terms in criminal cases.

Common ill-effects of incarceration

The ill effects of imprisonment are many and diverse. Since the majority of prisoners leave prison with low savings and lack of welfare benefits and lesser employment prospects, such ex-prisoners are unable to adjust to social demands and are unable to perform even the smallest tasks of daily life. The majority do not get jobs in the usual labor markets. Imprisonment also affixes a stigma to them and they are thus unable to come out of a vicious cycle, which again turns them into criminals.

They hence commit fresh crimes and find themselves in prison all over again. Some employer companies also restrict employment to non-parolees and most often, a convicted felony offender can be temporarily disqualified from gaining employment in professional or licensed jobs, particularly jobs in health or skilled trades or even in the public sector as in several States. Some States even bar parolees from employment in sectors like real estate, law, nursing, education, engineering, medicine, etc. Felony convictions can also bar them from getting divorce, parental rights or employment as jury members. Rose et al (1999) actually found that “high rates of imprisonment can destabilize informal networks of social control and lead to increases in crime”.

A shocking fact is also that women constitute just 7 per cent of the US prison population but the current increase in their incarceration rate far exceeds the same rates for men. Many women are also parents of children who are adolescents.

It is also a recorded fact that when mothers are incarcerated, their children are placed under the care of grandparents or even in foster care. Family visits are more difficult for women so that family gets penalized for their parent’s faults. Mothers who leave prison often have trouble in finding such mundane services like housing, childcare, etc. Their children often lapse into depression and cannot bear with the social stigma caused by their parent’s criminal past.

They also have low self-esteem, often have aggressive manners, and suffer many emotional dysfunctions. They may also follow their parents in their criminal pastimes and enter prison at some time or other in their lives. Poverty and social stigma are just two common causes for trouble faced by the children of ex-prisoners. But they are also subjected to parental neglect and cannot develop as normal adults. This often results in their physical or mental illness.

Ex-prisoners as well as prisoners also generally take to drugs, develop mental disabilities, and often become carriers of serious diseases. They hence also constitute serious help risks for the entire community in which they live. Common diseases inflicting ex-prisoners or their children include TB, HIV, AIDS, etc. Much of the increased incidence of serious ailments like AIDS and HIV is due to the drug habits of such criminals who generally share needles for injecting drugs amongst themselves.

Another ill effect of incarceration is that the ex-prisoners lose their right to participate in democracy and are politically alienated and socially from the general mainstream. Thus, for example, colored persons, who constitute almost half the number of prisoners lodged in jail or prison in present day US, find that they cannot vote at all. Hence, in every way, the convicted criminals are alienated from society and are more prone to recommit some crime or other and hence re-enter prison. Crime is also increased by the growing incidences of neighborhood crime and violence. Homelessness, prostitution, graffiti, etc flourishes and crimes escalate amidst the lawless state and disorder thus created.

Strategies to control incarceration rates

The problem of increasing incarceration in jails and prisons across the many jurisdictions of the US has assumed epic proportions. Hence, the problem needs to be tackled urgently. The federal and state governments need to check the proliferation of prisons that drain vast amounts of public funds. Social and humanistic aims also necessitate the adoption of a people friendly strategy that can assure policies that do not discriminate amongst difference races or color, and also establishes a system of rehabilitation for re-entering ex-prisoners into the social and economic mainstream. While crime needs to be effectively curtailed, criminal justice and law enforcement systems also need to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights.

Various authors provide varying solutions to the problem. Some want the sentencing rules to be altered in respect to prison terms. They also observe that alternate mechanisms need to be built up in the criminal justice system so that penalties and prison terms can better reflect the individual cases of incarceration. Since drug offences constitute the greatest causes for increasing incarceration rates, some scholars would like direct court intervention in handling of drug related cases.

Generally, most would like the terms of prison to be minimized by changing the provisions of the three strikes laws, truth in sentencing, the mandatory sentencing law, etc. Since the entire US criminal or legal systems rely on the application of correct discretion by the law enforcers, the system could also be streamlined so as to effect reduction in terms of prison sentencing both locally and federally. However, since economic considerations are paramount for any nation, another important issue is the use of substantial public funds in maintaining an elaborate prison system and such funds could be better utilized in other rehabilitation or humanitarian programs.

Gainsborough and Mauer (Sep 2000) observe that the more incarceration is resorted to as a correctional tool in a criminal justice system, the less effective it is in curtailing crime. Increasingly the need is being felt for evolving an alternate mechanism for reducing crime and ensuring public safety. Gainsborough and Mauer (2000) also outline a definite strategy for curtailing prison expansion and limiting the increasing incarceration rates.

They recommend a variety of measures like imposing a complete moratorium on prison construction, the pursuit of an alternate criminal justice policy, a repeal of the mandatory sentencing laws, treating non-violent drug related offenders quite differently from violent criminals and better community participation in tackling non-violent criminal cases. They feel that such a system can help divert many offenders away from prison into more humane rehabilitation systems.

The authors also observe that recidivism has hardly been controlled by extant juvenile or adult criminal justice policies and other measures like strengthening parole and probation, empowering juvenile courts more and introducing smoother re-entry of ex-prisoners into society need to be adopted. The most significant factor causing such inflated incarceration rates has been the national drug policy which has hardly been able to completely eradicate the proliferation and use of illicit substances.

Crimes related to drugs in particular can be better tackled through a prevention and drug treatment regime, feel these authors who also observe that social issues like building strong families, reducing incidences of mental and physical disabilities caused by incarceration, administrative support to ex-prisoners, etc. also need to be addressed as a national priority instead of pursuing a policy of retribution and unchecked prison expansion.

Conclusion

What then is the exact solution to the problem? In this respect, Haney (Dec 2001) succinctly observes that prison policy and its adverse effects need to be addressed and the ex-prisoners who are affected by such adverse incarceration policy also need to be rehabilitated into society. This would then help reduce entry or reentry of criminal offenders into prison as well as successfully resolve all social, economic and health issues associated with mass incarcerations.

Haney also specifies three areas which need to be the prioritized, namely, policies, procedures and prison conditions. He advocates revamping the prison environment and replacing retributive penal measures with policies and procedures that promote prisoner rehabilitation and reentry into communities. According to him, a prison needs to replicate life in the external real world as much as possible in order to integrate criminals into society and facilitate ongoing processes for cleaning society of criminal elements and at the same time adopt a more human approach to criminal justice.

Such a system helps generate greater prisoner autonomy, enables scope for improved personal initiatives for improvement, and usher in a corrective system that fosters a climate of trust, safety, and a spirit of cooperation.

Haney realizes the nearly permanent social withdrawal effects that a retributive prison environment can create in an ex-prisoner, and rightly advocates an enabling rather than a depressing system of criminal justice that can give new life for an ex-prisoner outside the prison walls as well as effectively curtail the incidences of re-entry of ex-convicts for fresh crimes. Such an environment for ex-prisoners necessarily builds upon opportunities for leading meaningful life as derived from gainful employment from within a sympathetic community of right minded individuals. It also provides for various resources essential for proper mental and physical health of prisoners and ex-prisoners.

The re-acclimatization of ex-prisoners when released into free society can successfully help curtail the incidences of prison re-entry that can address the issue of overcrowding of prisons both in the short and long terms, and as an integral part of the American criminal justice policy, at all levels and in all jurisdictions. The transition of the prisoner into a reformed criminal and the subsequent reintegration into society so as to be able to independently sustain one’s livelihood is perhaps one of the most important objectives of any criminal justice system.

A successful system of prisoner reintegration into the society at large must be a part of a larger socio-economic policy that addresses the well-being of all individuals of society irrespective of caste, creed, religion or color. Socio-economic policy is mentioned since the most important factor commonly causing criminality in society is lack of gainful economic opportunities and the prevalence of social inequalities based on such divisive elements like caste, religion or color differences.

References

Bewley-Taylor, D., Trace, M., and Stevens, A. (2005) Incarceration of drug offenders: costs and impacts. The Briefing Paper Seven, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme (BFDPP).

Boyum, D., & Reuter, P. (2005) An Analytic Assessment of US Drug Policy, Washington, DC: The AEI Press.

Bush-Baskette, S. R., “The ‘War on Drugs.’ A War against Women?” in Cook, S., & Davies, S., (Eds) (1999). Harsh Punishment: International Experiences of Women’s Imprisonment, Boston: N. Eastern University Press.

Duster, T. (1997) “Pattern, Purpose, and Race in the Drug War: The Crisis of Credibility in Criminal Justice,” in Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. J., (Eds) Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Gainsborough, J., and Mauer, M. (2000). Diminishing Returns: Crime and Incarceration in the 1990s. Washington DC: The Sentencing Project. Web.

Haney, C. (2001). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. Working papers prepared for the “From Prison to Home” Conference (2002).

Hartney, C. (2006). US rates of incarceration: A global perspective, Fact Sheet, Research from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, NCCD.

King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2005) The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s. Washington DC: The Sentencing Project.

Mauer, M. (2003) Comparative International Rates of Incarceration: An Examination of Causes and Trends, The Sentencing Project, Presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Oliver, P.E. (2001) Racial disparities in imprisonment: Some basic information. Focus Vol. 21, No. 3.

Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges, The Prison Journal, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 360-375. Sage Publications.

Raphael, S. (2007) The Impact of Incarceration on the Employment Outcomes of Former Inmates: Policy Options for Fostering Self-Sufficiency and an Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of Current Corrections Policy, Institute for Research on Poverty Working Conference on Pathways to Self Sufficiency: Getting Ahead in en Era beyond Welfare Reform, Madison, WI.

Reichel, P. L. (2005) Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Roberts, M., Trace, M., & Klein, A. (2004) Law Enforcement and Supply Reduction, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, Drug-scope, Report Three.

Rose, D., Clear, T., & Scully, K. (1997). Coercive mobility and crime: Incarceration and social disorganization. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.

Schiraldi, V., Holman, B., & Beatty, P. (2000) Poor Prescription: The Cost of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States. Washington DC, San Francisco: Justice Policy Institute. Web.

The Sentencing Project (2006). New incarceration figures: Thirty-three consecutive years of growth, Research for Advocacy and Reform, Washington DC. Web.

Tonry, M. (1999) Why are US Incarceration Rates so high Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 419-437, © Sage Publications, Inc.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Inca... written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, November 5). Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US. https://ivypanda.com/essays/re-examining-criminal-and-social-justice-systems-reducing-incarceration-rates-in-the-us/

Work Cited

"Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US." IvyPanda, 5 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/re-examining-criminal-and-social-justice-systems-reducing-incarceration-rates-in-the-us/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US'. 5 November.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US." November 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/re-examining-criminal-and-social-justice-systems-reducing-incarceration-rates-in-the-us/.

1. IvyPanda. "Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US." November 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/re-examining-criminal-and-social-justice-systems-reducing-incarceration-rates-in-the-us/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US." November 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/re-examining-criminal-and-social-justice-systems-reducing-incarceration-rates-in-the-us/.

Powered by CiteTotal, automatic citation maker
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1