Mass incarceration has long been a problem in the America criminal justice system especially since the number of people who are locked up continues to increase even with a declining crime rate. The high rates of incarceration within minority groups is also a major concern in the country as it increases the social disadvantage of these groups. The alternatives to incarceration have been suggested as a possible solution to the problems that accompany mass incarceration in the U.S. These are other types of punishment that an offender can be exposed to besides being put in prison. The main focus of these alternatives is to replace punitive justice with rehabilitation so that offenders can easily reenter society after the punishment. These alternatives are also meant to reduce recidivism, the cost of running correctional facilities, and prison overcrowding.
Discuss the Issue
Alternatives to incarceration are punishments besides imprisonment that are given to people who break the law. Imprisonment comes with various disadvantages for an individual, the criminal justice system, and society as a whole (Carrington & Hogg, 2018). Convicts are rarely able to resume normal life in the community and may end up getting rearrested, the financial cost on the criminal justice system is exponential, and society losses important members to the system (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2018; Rotter & Barber-Rioja, 2015). Unlike common belief that alternative punishments are soft on crime and thus inappropriate, these methods place serious demands on offenders and entail constant supervision within the community. In fact, alternatives to incarceration have been found to have useful benefits for offenders as well as victims of crime. For instance with a method that requires the offender to speak to the victim and learn how their actions have affected them, the victims of crime are able to find closure for their trauma and thus move on with their lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Examples of alternatives to incarceration
Periodic detention is a form of sentencing that allows an offender to be held in prison periodically. For instance, the offender can be in prison from Friday to Sunday each week, but be allowed to lead a normal life the rest of the week. While the freedom of the offender is partially restricted as a form of punishment, their contributions to society are not completely lost (Pryor et al., 2017). The offender is able to continue working, they maintain contact with their family members, and avoid getting pulled further into crime by associating with dangerous criminals. Furthermore, this alternative costs less to operate as prisons are only operational during specified periods.
Juvenile delinquents are one of the vulnerable groups that is negatively affected by incarceration. Most juvenile offenders usually have no criminal record and are arrested for non-violent crimes (Pryor et al., 2017). Even when they are arrested for more serious offences, they often have no criminal intent and could be under the influence of drugs. Programs such as anger management, community-based supervision, and drug rehabilitations can save young offenders from wasting time in the prison system (Jamieson, 2005; Bailey, 2003). Furthermore, people are more willing to fund rehabilitation for juvenile offenders as opposed to other forms of punishment. Creating community-based alternatives that build relationships with young people and help them make wise decisions in life are instrumental in decreasing the rate of juvenile crime.
Sexual offenders form a significant percentage of delinquents in the U.S. Although the criminal justice system has reformed how this group is classified and treated over the years, there is a need to differentiate between different types instead of classifying them together (Bailey, 2003). For instance, there are sexual offenders who start off as pornography addicts and if this is noted early on, they can be placed in treatment programs before they hurt anyone. Like mental illness, these offenders should be treated within a public health framework.
Drug addicts are more prone to deviance than other groups and finding a way to help offenders of non-violent crimes that have underlying drug issues can help reduce crime and recidivism (Carrington & Hogg, 2018). When drug addicts get into the prison system, they don’t necessarily stop using drugs as there are prison gangs that manage to smuggle them in (Clark, Dolan, & Farabee, 2017). They are more likely to associate with violent criminals as a result which increases their probability to commit other crimes within and outside the prison. Alternatives such as community service, tracking devices, and increased supervision for a decrease in time served are applicable to this group.
Drug courts and mental health courts are viable alternatives to incarceration that are being used in some American states. People who have mental health issues form the greatest percentage of American prisoners have an underlying mental health issue which implies that solving this problem can reduce crimes (Pryor et al., 2017). Most American prisons do not have sufficient resources to help inmates with mental health issues as a result of the deinstitutionalization of mental health institutions that happened in the 20 th century.
Alternatives to incarceration that have worked in other places
The state of New York has implemented an effective alternatives to incarceration (ATI) program. Judges can choose place offenders with misdemeanors or felonies in this program instead of giving them a prison sentence. There are four categories including the general population, substance abusers, women, and youth, that are the focus of the ATI program. The program has produced a 60% success rate and offenders who fail the program receive a mandatory prison sentence, which offers an incentive to succeed.
The State of Maryland have implemented an incremental approach that began with an objective to reduce the state's prison population 14 percent and save $247 million over the next decade (Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, 2018). This approach has had a positive effect on the lives of children by reducing the number of incarcerated parents. The Justice Reinvestment Act 2016 has removed mandatory minimum drug penalties and changed prison sentences that are imposed for technical violations of parole supervision (Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, 2018). Administrative parole can be applied to some non-violent offenses. One of the reasons that Maryland approved alternative sentencing is because and researched why alternative sentencing is needed and one of the main reasons is because of research results that revealed that nonviolent crimes accounted for most prison sentencing.
Significance of the Problem
There are many offenders who only commit crime due to underlying behavioral problems which make them more prone to deviance. Without tackling the underlying issue, such people will be caught up in a loop of recidivism. These include mental health patients, people from underprivileged backgrounds, and juvenile offenders (Klingele, 2013). Consideration of alternative punishment is therefore significant as it can help such offenders solve their issues and thus lead a healthy life that is free of crime. This benefits the community by promoting the health of its people.
Alternatives to incarceration allow courts to have more sentencing options which makes it easy to tailor a punishment according to the offender's needs. People and their circumstances are unique and they therefore react differently depending on the situation. Therefore, imprisonment may not always be effective. For instance, a juvenile offender will be affected severely by imprisonment as they may face harassment in prison and are exposed to more violent criminals (Jameison, 2015). Imprisonment may also remove hope for a bright future and may cause these offenders to descend substance abuse. Therefore, they may end up being more violent upon release and thus more prone to future deviance. Alternative punishment protects vulnerable offenders and ensures that they are rehabilitated which in the long run reduces crime rates in the society and promotes public safety.
Incarceration is expensive and alternatives offer a more cost effective way to deal with offenders. It cost at least $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison every year, and much more for states prisons (Pryor et al., 2017). This is money taken out of the tax payer’s pocket. Considering that prisoners are not kept in the best conditions, the high rate of incarceration, and recidivism, this is a high price to pay. Furthermore, prisoners make no significant contribution to the economy while in prison and after their release because most people do not hire convicts. Therefore, they become a burden to society (Bailey, 2003). Money used to fund prisons can be used to advance development programs such as education, and public health.
Alternatives to incarceration act to strengthen families and communities. Imprisonment separates the offenders from their families, sometimes for decades at a time. Alternatives forms of punishment allow people to keep in touch with their families and the community as a whole, raise their children, and keep their jobs (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2018). This contributes to the economic strength of the community because offenders continue to earn money and pay taxes.
The reduction of crime is another significant advantage of using alternative punishment. Statistics show that incarceration is accompanied by high rates of recidivism. While prison removes offenders from the community, the high level of recidivism is evidence enough that prison does not rehabilitate criminals or deter crime. More than 40% of all people leaving prison are rearrested within three years of their release and this number increases to 76% within five years (Pryor et al., 2017). Alternatives to prison ensure that most non-violent offenders never see prison in the first place and this cancels out the possibility of recidivism.
Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts help prevent offenders from committing new crimes. Some problems that increase the probability of deviance such as mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness, can be addressed outside the criminal justice system more appropriately (Bailey, 2003). The American justice system has placed multitudes of people on drug related charges and most of these plus many more have mental illnesses. Instead of spending millions of dollars putting these people behind bars only to have them return after release, it would be more economical and effective to solve these underlying problems. Alternatives to incarceration offers this option.
Other advantages of using alternative punishment include that it would be an effective solution for prison overcrowding; a problem that has haunted American correctional facilities for years now. This is achieved by reducing the number of minors and non-violent offenders in prisons. The U.S has a high incarceration rate. While about 5% of the global population is imprisoned, the U.S holds 25% of that population (Pryor et al., 2017). Punitive justice has increased the rate of imprisonment even as crime rate decreases all over the country (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). Alternatives reduce the number of people awaiting trial in local jails, who despite not being sentenced face restrictions that prevent them from participating in the society. Considering that some of these people are innocent, it is a waste of time and resources to keep them in jail.
One of the main concerns of mass incarceration has been the high rate of African American imprisonment. One in three black boys is likely to be imprisoned as compared to one in seventeen white boys. It has become a vicious cycle where African American boys that grow up without a father due to incarceration also get into crime and end up in prison. The justice system would be giving such children a chance to redeem themselves and thus break the cycle. It would help African Americans reduce the rate of recidivism which is the highest among the country’s racial groups by ensuring that they do not go to prison in the first place (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). Women incarceration has increased tremendously in the past two decades and alternatives would be effective in solving this problem (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). Social issues such as low economic status, drug abuse, and mental health would be the main focus of alternative punishment methods when working with these groups for the best outcomes.
The correctional system has been corrupted by privatization and alternatives would help fix this problem. Private prisons are responsible for nearly 25% of all state and federal prisoners and while incarceration deprives individual freedom, separates and offender from their family, drains government and community resources, and fails to rehabilitate offenders, private prison companies reap tremendous benefits. Their business model is dependent on locking up more people and it is wrong to stake the country’s economy on other people’s freedom. Furthermore, there is no evidence that private prisons save the government money and their conditions are often not to standard. Private prisons have often been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions. Alternative punishment ensures that people do not get to these prisons in the first place.
Solution
There are three choices that the department has in regards to implementing an alternatives to imprisonment solution. The first is to do nothing despite all the evidence against it. Following this option, the department will continue using the existing policies to deal with punishment for offenders. Maintain the status quo has its advantages in that it maintains stability as people know what is expected of them. As with any project, funds to initiate it are always an issue to consider and doing nothing ensures that funds are not a concern. The reason why money to implement this project can be an issue is that existing prisoners cannot be released, the new policy has to run alongside imprisonment. Subsequently, measures to release more people on parole and offer them a better rehabilitation deal must be formulated and implemented which would cost the department a lot of dollars. Considering that the success of these programs is not guaranteed in this area even if it has worked in other states, the cost of implementing the policy must be weighed against possible advantages.
In contrast, refusal to implement the policy would advance a culture of suffering in the community. Many non-violent offenders are held hostage by the justice system due to policies such as minimum sentencing for drug related charges (Carrington & Hogg, 2018). There are many people whose lives have been destroyed by incarceration, especially those that belong to vulnerable groups such as women, African Americans, Latinos, and juvenile offenders. These groups are already disadvantages socially and they end up being the most incarcerated. Children are also affected when their parents are imprisoned and they become more likely to commit crimes themselves (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2018). The cost of implementing this policy in the long run is significantly less than continuing to run public and private prisons. Therefore, the cost of doing nothing outweighs its benefits.
The incremental approach involves gradually introducing aspects of the policy over time. This method is usually effective because it allows change without shocking the system too much. In essence, the advancement of this method depends on success in a previous step. This method has been successful in implementing the policy in Maryland and could be the best option yet. The incremental method will require that the policy be divided in to parts that can be implemented independently. Since we would want to focus on helping people who have been involved in non-violent crimes with special focus on vulnerable populations, this would be used as a guideline.
In the first phase the policy can focus on juvenile offenders and helping them into community based supervisory programs. Once this phase was complete, mental illness and drug courts where solutions are tailored to help offenders with these problems would follow. Upon success, the third phase can involve periodic detention which would help people stay connected with their communities while paying for their offences. The policy should allow for the escalation of punitive action into fulltime imprisonment if the offender does not succeed in completing the alternative program. This ensures that people are motivated to stay in the alternative program and keep people from committing crime because they believe that they can get off with an easier sentence. The incremental approach helps to determine whether the policy is working based on the results of each phase and adjustments can easily be made without affecting the entire system.
The third approach is full implementation and it involves rolling out the policy and immediately phasing out the old policy. Full implementation can be hectic because change comes too fast and people have a tendency to resist change. However, alternatives to imprisonment ensure that there are more funds for much needed community development projects especially in vulnerable populations. It also improves the economy because offenders continue to hold jobs that earn them money.
Impact to department
The policy implementation will require changes to be made to the department staff so that they can perform the new functions of ensuring that those eligible for alternative punishment are reached and placed in appropriate programs. There should be people assigned to supervisory functions so that the progress of the implementation can be monitored. Training on the new policy will also be rolled out so that department employees are able to spearhead the implementation and are cautioned about the resistance to change so they can avoid it.
Impact to budget
The policy implementation will cost the department money, especially if we choose to use the incremental approach as the old program will still be running alongside it. The department will require to outsource funds in the beginning to pay for the new policy. However, in the long run, the policy will save the department money which reflects to the wider community. Therefore, some of the funds that are usually allocated to run the correctional facilities can be allocated to other departments such as education, and health where there are shortages.
Christian worldview
The Christian worldview would advocate for the implementation of restorative justice. Punitive solutions must recognize that crime is a threat to community, not just a violation of law and that efforts to rebuild lives, not just build more prisons are required to solve these problems (Banks, 2017). There is a need to protect society from those who threaten life, inflict harm, and take property, as this destroys the bonds of community because crime endangers individuals, and robs communities of a sense of well-being and security (Schnurr, 2000). However, punishment that has no direction is not a recommended Christian response to crime. Punishment must have a purpose and should act include treatment and restitution such that both the criminal and victim should benefit from it.
A Christian worldview rejects simplistic solutions such as "three strikes and you're out" and minimum mandatory sentencing imposed on some minor offences. Such rules often affect vulnerable groups negatively as they are more likely to be caught up by the law without consideration to the specific circumstances that led them there. This viewpoint recognizes that crime has complicated causative roots and the methods to fight it are equally complex (Schnurr, 2000). The bible says in the book of Proverbs 31: 8-9 (New King James Version), “ open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” It is therefore the duty of Christians to advocate for these vulnerable groups and seek out true justice, which has been denied by the American criminal justice system. Alternatives to incarceration are thus effective for restorative justice on vulnerable populations as there is no standard one-size-fits-all solutions for crime (Banks, 2017). Community-based solutions, especially for non-violent offenders are encouraged because they focus on treatment and restoration for the criminal and healing for the victim.
Policies that treat young offenders as adults are immensely unfair because these children are not equal to adults in conscience and may not be fully aware of their actions. Juvenile offenders with minor offences usually feel remorseful and want a second chance to rectify their mistake. The Bible talks about repentance and forgiveness and as long as a person accepts their mistake, they should be given a chance to do better. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9, New King James Version) Placing children in adult jails is a sign of failure as it shows our negligence in raising children with a respect for life, providing a nurturing and loving environment, or addressing serious mental or emotional illnesses (Schnurr, 2000). The Bible says in Proverbs 13: 24 (New King James Version), “he who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly.” However, discipline is not equivalent to incarceration. It should restore the youth and teach them a lesson and in most cases, imprisonment only teaches juveniles to be more hardcore criminals.
The Christian world view ultimately challenges the culture of violence prevalent in our society. We must always endeavor to promote life and not to destroy it through incarceration. The cycles that are born of the imprisonment system in the United States have destroyed lives and made it harder for some people to live a normal life. Christian are called to fight for justice reform to ensure that more people survive punitive action. This can only be achieved through employing alternative forms of punishment.
Conclusion
Ultimately, mass incarceration has not reduced crime and violence in the United States and it is time for the country to make reforms that change this. Since criminal justice policy varies with state in the U.S, localized efforts are required to change the face of criminal justice in the country. Alternatives to incarceration offer hope in reducing the level of mass imprisonment especially among minority groups and decreasing crime rate while offering restitution for the victims of crime. The department and the community would benefit immensely from implementing this policy and it is my hope that you will consider this report and its recommendations.
References
Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) Programs - NY DCJS. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/ati_description.htm
Bailey, D. (2003). Alternatives to incarceration. PsycEXTRA Dataset , 34 (7), 54. doi:10.1037/e301162003-033
Banks, A. M. (2017, June 21). Evangelical leaders push for criminal justice reform. Retrieved from https://religionnews.com/2017/06/20/evangelical-leaders-push-for-criminal-justice-reform/
Carrington, K., & Hogg, R. (2018, October 20). QPC Inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism Submission . Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/122487/
Clark, N., Dolan, K., & Farabee, D. (2017). Public health alternatives to incarceration for drug offenders. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal , 23 (3), 222-230. doi:10.26719/2017.23.3.222
Jamieson, J. (2005). Book Review: Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Youth Justice , 5 (1), 66-67. doi:10.1177/147322540500500107
Klingele, C. M. (2013). Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision. SSRN Electronic Journal . doi:10.2139/ssrn.2232078
Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. (2018). Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy . Retrieved from https://sentencing.umn.edu/sites/sentencing.umn.edu/files/maryland_study_on_alternatives_to_incarceration_2018.pdf
Pryor, W., Barkow, R., Breyer, C., Reeve, D., Bolitho, Z., & Wilson Smoot, J. P. (2017). Federal alternative to incarceration court programs . Retrieved from United States Sentencing Commission website: https://sentencing.umn.edu/sites/sentencing.umn.edu/files/federal_alternative-to-incarceration_court_programs_2017.pdf
Rotter, M., & Barber-Rioja, V. (2015). Diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration. Oxford Medicine Online . doi:10.1093/med/9780199360574.003.0021
Schnurr,, D. M. (2000). Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm#policy
Wagner, P., & Rabuy, B. (2017). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017. Prison Policy Initiative , 14 . Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html
Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2018). How Parental Incarceration Harms Children and What to Do About It. National Council of Family Relations , 3 (1). Retrieved from www.ncfr.org
