Currently, over-crowded prisons are currently the most serious social issue facing the state of Illinois. Most of the prison population here comprises the mentally ill and low-level offenders who often fall ill and go untreated in state prisons. This makes it harder to secure spaces for the most serious or violent offenders who finally mix with the non-violent criminals (Fellner and Vinck, 2012). Normally, proper medical attention for sick inmates has become a problem. Moreover, there is another problem of aging inmates who only increase prison costs and add other housing difficulties. Over the past decade, local community and state legislators have enriched their reputations by introducing tough measures to gain votes at elections (Aviram, 2015). For instance, they have become tough on criminals, giving maximum sentences to even smaller crimes and putting more state population in prison. As such, they have seduced the public and voters to believe that crime is rampant in Illinois and the only solution is longer prison sentences for criminals. This policy paper aims to propose a change to this culture of putting prisoners in our already over-crowded prisons. This will help reduce prison costs.
The Current Bill or Law Including the Title
The 2007 Second Chance Act, titled to authorize federal funding for federal and state reentry programs was signed into law in 2008 (Gideon & Sung, 2010). The purpose of this Act is to increase public safety by reducing recidivism. It also seeks to assist the state of Illinois to address the issue of over-congested prisons by returning inmates to communities. The Act focuses on four key areas: reuniting inmates with families, substance abuse, housing and jobs (Aviram, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why the Current Law Is Not Effective for This Population
The bill has only three sections, which address the issue of how long a prisoner may stay in prison. The first section prolongs the limits of the time an inmate is guaranteed consideration from six to twelve months (Fellner and Vinck, 2012). The second section contains a program for elderly and family reunification for non-violent offenders but unlikely to be a relief to many individuals. The third section is a section that increases the portion of a prison sentence, which an inmate can serve in home confinement (Gideon & Sung, 2010). I feel that this bill is ineffective for the elderly inmates because no section specifically addresses the aging population. The bill only helps those who are getting out of prison to re-enter their communities and not to re-offend (Aviram, 2015). Certainly, the bill does not include a section for the elderly inmates. Therefore, it does not let elderly prisoners out early.
The Specific Section to Change and the Justification
Though the Second Chance Act (2007) included an elderly offender release section, it was only temporary and only functioned for a few years (Gideon & Sung, 2010). I would change the section about the compassionate release to allow an elderly prisoner to request for a transfer out of prison and onto home confinement. This would be done through a formal request to the Attorney General. Then, committing new crimes or violations of the release conditions could spark a revocation of the home detention, and the individual would be sent back to the state prison. In addition, it had extremely narrow criteria that only benefited approximately 80 inmates despite the increasing population of elderly inmates (Fellner and Vinck, 2012). Therefore, it makes sense to make this section of the bill broader and permanent because it would help reduce the costs of prison and treat the elderly with dignity by granting them incarnations in their own homes.
The Act includes a section that allows some non-violent criminals aged above 60 years and who have served at least a third of their prison sentence to transfer to home confinement (Aviram, 2015). The proposed change would hence expand this section of elderly release, giving the opportunity to some non-violent inmates who have already served a good percentage of the life imprisonment without parole sentence. However, before assigning inmates to home confinement, the Bureau of Prisons (BoP) should establish that the elderly prisoner does not pose a threat to the society or public. Inmates convicted of sex and violent offenses should not be eligible for transfer.
For decades, the BoP has been emphasizing on using long mandatory minimum sentences (Ogletree & Sarat, 2012). Therefore, state inmates have been getting older, more expensive, sicker and thus less dangerous to the society. Housing an aging prison population compared to younger inmates is expensive. In fact, older inmates have much lower rates of becoming repeat offenders (Aviram, 2015). As such, expanding the Act to include cheaper home supervision for this population would be suitable public safety and fiscal policy article. As a result, it will prevent our prisons from turning into nursing homes for the elderly.
The Champion (Change Agent) For the Law Change from Your State Advocates and Their Appropriateness
The process of compassionate release for the elderly inmates is long and challenging because it needs demanding evaluation and paperwork (Aviram, 2015). Therefore, various stakeholders including state legislators, federal legislators, local state nursing organizations and social workers must work together to effect the proposed change.
Release Aging People in Prison (RAPP), and Prison Fellowship are advocacy organizations that have supported legislation like this before (Ogletree & Sarat, 2012). RAPP supports early release of elderly prisoners based on the argument that these people pose no threat to the society and have already served a good percentage of the prison sentence behind bars. RAPP and Prison Fellowship are among the numerous organizations, which will advocate for this Act and help inmates go through the application and evaluation procedure.
Social workers will also play a significant advocacy role. In essence, National Association of Social Workers (NASW) will unite with other local advocacy organizations to support the proposed change by mailing letters to legislators and motivating them to fund and support the Act (Gideon & Sung, 2010). Moreover, social workers will offer most of the services funded by this Act. Some of these services include employment training, education, housing, mentoring mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment.
Though this Act is not connected directly to crime legislation, it has implications for state legislators, federal legislators, local state nursing organizations and social workers as well as provide a model for the participation of these change agents in virtual lobbying.
Overall, there has been a dramatic increase in the aging prison population. In future, this population will continue to grow at an even alarming pace. Various factors contribute to the rising number of elderly inmates. Such factors include the general aging of the population and the tough-on-crime policies. In addition, inmates tend to age faster because of prison conditions and previous lifestyle before prison. Some prison centers are currently a reminiscent of nursing facilities with bars. This essay gives a proposal for policy change. It provides an immediate solution since failure to act on this issue could yield further social and economic problems.
References
Aviram, H. (2015). Cheap on crime: Recession-era politics and the transformation of American punishment . Univ of California Press
Fellner, J., & Vinck, P. (2012). Old behind bars: The aging prison population in the United States . New York, N.Y: Human Rights Watch.
Gideon, L., & Sung, H.-E. (2010). Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ogletree, C. J., & Sarat, A. (2012). Life without parole: America's new death penalty? . New York, NY: New York University Press.
