The federal and state governments in the United States of America have been taking a number of strict measures to combat the social, cultural and economic threats posed by drug use and drug trade. Evidently, one of the major measures heavily employed by the federal government as well as several states is massive imprisonment of persons found guilty of dealing with drugs (Pollock, 2011). Some local authorities, like the government of my state of California, have taken the drug war to the extreme.
Massive imprisonment is evident in the state, and it appears as if the state is relying on this initiative than any other process, yet there are several available options applicable in solving the problem. Arguably, this initiative has resulted in more harm than good- overcrowding of national and state prisons is evident.
In California, jailing has become a business rather than a public service. In fact, the state spends more than 9.7 $ billion per year on correctional system, with its prisons hosting more than one out of seven of America’s prisoners (Pollock, 2011). In addition, California has the largest prison population than any other state in the US. The state has been establishing new prison facilities at a higher rate than all other states, which means that it has to hire large number of prison staff. Yet, the quality of the prison system in California has declined with time.
It is worth noting that California’s stance on the war against drugs is the principal factor that contributes to this condition. In fact, California’s drug laws and the frequency of imprisonment for people accused of dealing or using drugs are the strictest in the country. The Supreme Court ruled that the prison system in the state violated the federal constitution due to cramping of prisoners in overcrowded facilities. Yet, Californian prisons do not initiate effective means of rehabilitating its prisoners, thus making them even hard. This is actually a cruel and inhuman form of punishment.
To solve the problem of overcrowding in Californian prisons, it is necessary for the state to consider three important initiatives as the solution. First, low-level offenders such as those persons found guilty of addiction to drugs should not be imprisoned, but rather they require special treatment to help them change behaviour and quit drugs (Moore & Elkavich, 2008).
They should actually be rehabilitated rather than imprisoned. Studies have shown that more than 56% of such people are more likely to recover from the behaviour and return to normal lives than those who are held in prisons (Pollock, 2011).
Secondly, California should soften its three-strike laws on drugs, which make it impossible for low-level offenders get special treatment from drug criminals.
For instance, 60% of the people in California have voted in favour of slight softening of the state’s drug laws in order to ensure that some of their relatives and friends who are in prisons for low-level offences are repatriated (Pollock, 2011). Analysts in criminology have also argued that the approval rate could have been higher for a deeper revision of the state laws on drugs. In fact, other states like Ohio and Kentucky have already been experimenting with this alternative, and have reported better progress in decongesting their state prisons (Pollock, 2011).
Moreover, it is suggested that California should consider repatriation process in which well-behaved inmates are allowed to earn their freedom. In addition, it is suggested that the state initiate community correction process by expanding parole as well as probation for low-level offences (Moore & Elkavich, 2008).
In this way, it is possible to reduce the number of inmates in state prisons because studies have shown that low-level offenders make more than 55% of the total number of inmates in American prisons (Pollock, 2011). In fact, the number could be higher in Californian prisons because a good number of drug-related prisoners in the state are actually low-level offenders who could be released on condition that they change their behaviour.
Such a program, which is based on assessing the behaviour change when in the prisons, is likely to encourage prisoners engage in constructive activities. In addition, it is necessary that under this program, the state of California embark on prisoner education that will involve prisoners undergoing rigorous lessons on behaviour change and psychological intervention to help drug addicts quit the behaviour and engages in community development (Kuziemkoa & Levittb, 2008).
It is evident that the state does not emphasize on prisoner education or put efforts to monitor behaviour change within its prisons (Moore & Elkavich, 2008). This could be a good alternative in reducing the accumulating number of prisoners.
In conclusion, California needs better methods in dealing with drug related offenders because this group of people have contributed to overcrowding in state prisons (Kuziemkoa & Levittb, 2008). Although the state has embarked on transferring inmates from state prison to county prisons, this should not be considered a solution because the county prisons are also running under the risk of overcrowding. It is therefore suggested that the state embark on softening its drug laws and embark on initiatives to allow inmates earn their freedom through behaviour change and embracing rehabilitation and education.
References
Kuziemkoa, I., & Levittb, S. D. (2008). An empirical analysis of imprisoning drug offenders. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2043–2066.
Moore, L. D., & Elkavich, A. (2008). Who’s Using and Who’s Doing Time: Incarceration, the War on Drugs, and Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 98(5), 782-786.
Pollock, J. M. (2011). Prisons: Today and Tomorrow. New York, NY: Jones and Bartlett.