Policy Paper: Reducing High Rates of Incarceration in the United States

Introduction

The scale of incarceration in America in the last 40 years is unprecedented. The United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized country. In fact, the nation holds a penal population of about 2.2 million adults which is by far the largest in the world (Ntional Research Council). Surprisingly, one-quarter of the world's prisoners are held in American prisons yet American population constitutes only 4.28% the total world population (Glaze et al., 8). The United States incarceration rate is so high such that out of 100 adults, 1 is in prison or jail, an incarceration rate which is 5 to 10 times higher than rates in Western Europe and other world democracies (Travis et al. 67). High rates of incarceration in the United States have worrying consequences for the nation's prosperity. A large portion of the taxpayers' income that should have been directed to development is channeled into prisons for the establishment of new houses, feeding and providing medical care for the inmates. Incarceration related costs amount to an aggregate of one trillion dollars (taking into consideration important socials costs as well as actual prison expenditures) amounting to a significant 6% of the gross domestic product (McLaughlin et al. 35). This is by far a high expenditure that exceeds budgetary allocations to key areas of development such as education (McLaughlin et al. 35). The high rates of incarceration in the United States are attributed to "just deserts" approach to punishing criminals; correcting high incarceration rates and corresponding costs (consequences) requires a restorative justice approach to corrections systems.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Problem and Its Causes

The issue of high incarceration rates in the United States began in the 1970s. The American societies had undergone significant political and social change, but crime rates still were high and were seen as a threat to the stability of the communities. A solution to increasing crime rates aroused a debate which gained a prominent place in national policy debates. Unfortunately, the resulting policies viewed crime as an evil that required harsh punishment "just deserts: or tough reward for wrongdoing which eventually favored incarceration for criminals following an argument that keeping criminals in prison is uprooting wrongdoers from the society and thus keeping societies free from crime and making it safe.

Mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines which dictated the length of imprisonment for particular crimes was and is still the main cause of high rates of incarceration in the United States. For example, any suspect found guilty of a violent crime is served a sentence of life without parole (Schmalleger et al. 60). Similarly, those charged with burglary would serve a minimum sentence of 5 months in some states. These minimum sentences without parole saw several people ending up in prison for long periods leading to congestion in jail.

Also, the intensified war on drugs in the 1980s led to the formulation of domestic policies that harshly punished drug dealers by throwing them in prison for long imprisonment sentence. Consequently, 41 000 people were incarcerated for dru8g offenses in 1980 and the number rose to 500,000 in 2011 (Criminal Justice Degree Hub). This shows that intensified war on drugs directly increased the rate of incarceration in the United States as the law focused on keeping drug dealers out of the society designating them a special place in jails.

Moreover, the United States adopted immigration [policies that allowed law enforcement officers to detain illegal immigrants who have since ballooned the prison population. In 1994, the population of immigration detainees was 5,000 which rose to 19,000 in 2001 before skyrocketing to 33,000 in 2010 (Criminal Justice Degree Hub).

The "just deserts" approach to punishing criminals advocated by the policies adopted by the United States government beginning in the 1970s whereby crime was rewarded with deserved punishment (which was equivalent to long imprisonment) eventually resulted in congested prisons prompting for establishment of new ones as well as use of huge portions of national budget to sustain exploding prison populations. The nation now regards a high number of incarcerated individuals who would be productive to the economy. The nation is also witnessing high recidivism as a result of inefficient prisons meaning that incarceration has not efficiently reduced crime rates (Cullen et al. 49). The "just deserts" approach to criminal punishment has failed, and an alternative means is required.

Solution

Reducing incarceration rates in the United States requires policy changes that will introduce a new approach to the correctional system. An appropriate approach is a restorative justice system as opposed to "just deserts." Restorative justice is a modern approach to criminal justice that focuses on offender rehabilitation through reconciliation with victims and the community (Daly 89).

Pragmatic Argument

The ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to minimize crime. Two competing approaches to criminal justice are retribution (just deserts) and restorative justice. Whereas retribution seeks to serve justice through severe punishment as vengeance for a criminal act, restorative justice aims at reconciling the offender and the victims and reintegrating them into the society. In both systems, crime is controlled. However, from a pragmatic reasoning perspective whenever utility and probability values are known one should follow a course of action that has the greatest expected utility (Frank 998). Restorative justice system improves the experience of the victims while reducing reoffending. In practical terms, restorative justice ensures that the victim is compensated for the loss and that the offender pays back to the community through free service to the community, and the criminals do not end up in prisons where they increased, they burden the taxpayer.

Moral Argument

Some things are right and others are wrong. It is right to punish wrongdoers, but it is wrong to punish taxpayers in the process. Restorative justice attempts to balance serving justice to the victims while ensuring that taxpayers do not incur costs for their upkeep. Restorative justice seeks to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them back in the society as soon as possible and regain their productivity as opposed to keeping them in prison and causing social costs. Moreover, the offenders whose cases are petty and demonstrate rehabilitative ability will be kept in the community and not in prison hence incarceration rates will drastically fall.

Analogical Argument

Restorative justice, just like retribution, aims to make the offender realize his or her wrongdoing and the need to stay away from such wrong actions in the future. In addition, restorative justice meets both victim and offender satisfaction as well as preventing recidivism which is a common problem in retribution (Latimer et al., 128). Therefore, despite the fact that restorative justice and retribution focus on punishing the wrongdoer, restorative justice gets ahead in responding to criminal behavior by repairing the harm caused by the harmful behavior rather than further humiliating the wrongdoer. That way, the offender realizes the need for maintaining peace with community members leading to decreased crime.

Conclusion

High incarceration rates in the United States are a direct result of an approach to criminal behavior in which retribution or just deserts blinded policy-makers promising to seclude criminals from society. However, such an approach to criminal justice would not be sustainable because it has increased the number of incarcerated population which in turn has been a burden to the taxpayer. To correct the mess, an alternative to retribution, restorative justice, is required which aims at rehabilitating the wrongdoers so that they do not repeat wrong actions in future as they pay for their wrongdoing. Restorative justice is a viable solution to reducing incarceration because it focuses on reforming wrongdoers and reintegrating them in the society thus reducing the number of people headed for imprisonment which in turn cuts the taxpayers' spending in the upkeep of prisoners.

Works Cited

Criminal Justice Degree Hub. "Life In Lockup: An In-Depth Look At Reasons For Incarceration In The U.S. - Criminal Justice Degree Hub." Criminal Justice Degree Hub. N.p., 2018. Web. 24 Nov. 2018.

Cullen, Francis T., Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Daniel S. Nagin. "Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science." The Prison Journal 91.3_suppl (2011): 48S-65S.

Daly, Kathleen. "Restorative justice: The real story." Restorative Justice. Routledge, 2017. 85-109.

Frank, Michael C., and Noah D. Goodman. "Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games." Science 336.6084 (2012): 998-998.

Glaze, Lauren E., and Erika Parks. "Correctional populations in the United States, 2011." Population 6.7 (2011): 8.

Latimer, Jeff, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. "The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis." The Prison Journal 85.2 (2005): 127-144.

McLaughlin, Michael, et al. The economic burden of incarceration in the US. Washington University, 2016.

Ntional Research Council. The growth of incarceration in the United States. Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Schmalleger, Frank, et al. Criminal justice today. Prentice Hall, 2014.

Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, and F. Stevens Redburn. "The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences." (2014).