As the economy sputters evident with widespread budget woes, many states now release inmates early ( Brown, 2013). This program is aimed at reducing the different States' prison population, consequently saving money. Notably, the new early release initiative offers a second chance to nonviolent offenders. The selected inmates are liable to finish their sentences at home. Furthermore, the program includes monitoring from prison officials, and the selected inmates are required to wear electronic monitoring devices. Essentially, the individuals selected for parole are still inmates, although they serve their sentences at home. These inmates are required to stay at home until the sentence is complete.
The substantial growth of the prison population can be attributed to policies that have expanded the use of imprisonment for drug use and sale, felony convictions, and the imposition of long sentences to prison inmates. The proponents to these policies suggest that longer prison sentences are effective in reducing crime. However, in reality, the increase in individuals' incarceration rates does not constitute a lower crime. In effect, the increase in incarceration has yielded in prisons incapacitation and deterrence. Furthermore, the cost magnitude of the increased prison population is significant. Notably, the financial costs of running the prisons are borne by taxpayers ( Henrichson & Delaney, 2012). The fraction of the tax generated provides funding for federal and state prisons and the criminal justice department. Additionally, the opportunity cost of spending taxpayers money funding the jails is also considered as the financial cost of prisons diverts resources from worthwhile public programs ( Henrichson & Delaney, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Greene & Mauer (2010) , literature analysis of published reports on the early release policy suggests little or no support of the use of electronic monitoring devices and their effect in reducing re-offending. However, the early release policy uses (EM) electronic monitoring as a substitute for prison sentences. As mentioned before, the inmates are fitted with the devices and freed to serve their sentences at home. It is important to note that in addition to electronic monitoring, the inmates are also monitored by parole officials. Besides wearing the electronic monitoring ankle device, the inmates are required to have a daily occupation. The choice of a daily occupation is made individually or with the help of a probation officer. The aforementioned arrangement is coupled with regular sobriety checks for the inmates by the prison service. Impressively, the records of the early release group indicate minimal re-offending. Nonetheless, there is no support for the argument that the use of EM is significant in reducing the re-offending extent. Still, the history of the inmates suggests no records of previous criminality.
The negative effects of the early release include the missing critical information that is in an inmate's history ( Jacobson, 2005). There is a high probability of past charges being overlooked, such as weapon charges and domestic violence. Therefore, it is important to ensure community safety after the release, and this is achieved through hiring public safety officers, planning prior to the release, and establishing a game plan ( Scott-Hayward, 2009). In addition, early release from jails causes detrimental psychological effects to many inmates. The sudden release rush places stress on inmates that have served long sentences. For most of the inmates, the lack of environmental control causes them to re-offend and, worse off, commit suicide. The majority of the inmates cannot handle societal pressure alone, and thus they need guidance and counseling. This risk is avoided through slow-release programs that aim at assisting the inmates in obtaining jobs, housing, and identification cards. Needless to say, many inmates on the early release program still require psychological help.
The reduction of drug incarceration offenses through the reassessment of illegal drug abuse as both a justice policy and health issue stood out for me. The alternative herein suggests that health care measures be used in reducing the economic cost of prisons. Brown (2013) denotes that this is a more effective response that consequently improves public health.
References
Brown, E. K. (2013). Foreclosing on incarceration? State correctional policy enactments and the great recession. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 24 (3), 317-337.
Greene, J. A., & Mauer, M. (2010). Downscaling prisons: Lessons from four states . Sentencing Project.
Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. Fed. Sent'g Rep. , 25 , 68.
Jacobson, M. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration . NYU Press.
Scott-Hayward, C. S. (2009). The fiscal crisis in corrections: Rethinking policies and practices . Vera Institute of Justice.
