This is a very, very rough draft. The parentheses with all caps in them are my sources. Sorry I haven’t put in the footnotes yet!
Minimum Sentencing Reform
Over the latter part of the 20th century, the number of both prisons and prisoners in the United States has increased greatly. The government adopted a policy of being tough-on-crime with the hopes that the crime rates in the country would decrease, making the American people feel safer, which would hopefully result in reelecting the legislators who made that happen.
In order to execute this tough on crime policy, lawmakers put into effect minimum sentencing requirements for specific crimes to make a basic standard for punishment across the country. Unfortunately, what these lawmakers did not consider was that not every single case can be evaluated in a one-size-fits-all sort of manner. In fact, many criminals who commit petty crimes end up spending more time in prison than someone who committed a much greater crime.
Why is this a problem? For one, running prisons is an incredibly expensive business, so the more prisons and prisoners we have, the more tax money needs to go to facilitating them. Additionally, for those who committed lesser crimes, their suffering not only burdens them, but it also forces hardships on any family members they might have. Overall, the quality of America could be greatly improved if the current sentencing system is evaluated and revised.
Prisons Today
Since 1980, the number of people imprisoned in the United States has tripled to almost 2 million people. America has the largest prisoner rate of any country in the world, and state spending on the prison system has grown at six times the amount of money spent on higher education. This over spending has resulted from the country’s tough-on-crime laws, which went into effect during a very drug heavy time. The main purpose of this change was to punish drug dealers and gangs.
Even though states have built more prisons to house these 2 million prisoners, the prisons are still becoming incredibly crowded. Currently, the prison system is 37% over populated. Therefore, prisoners are forced to live in tents, gymnasiums, and some are even given early release due to the lack of space. (PRISON OVERCROWDING). In some areas, three prisoners are forced to share the same bed. (PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX). Not only are these jails horrible living conditions for humans, but they also cost a lot of tax payer money: It ranges from $21,006 to $33,930 to house a signal prisoner for one year (differences in cost depend on which level of security the prisoner is under). (COST ARTICLE).
As the prison system gets larger, crime rates have certainly decreased. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense: removing criminals from society keeps them from committing crime within said society. Currently, the prison system holds roughly 150,000 armed robbers, 125,000 murderers, and 100,000 sex-offenders. No one would question that these people need to be kept from victimizing the innocent members of society. However, the statistics show that in 1980, about half of prisoners entering the system were violent criminals. In 1995, less than one third of prisoners were jailed for violent offenses. Those who make up the other two thirds of the prison population are people who have committed lesser crimes. In other countries, these non-violent crimes would be given punishments of community service, fines, or drug treatment. Yet the American justice system’s minimum sentencing laws require that they go to prison, the most expensive system of punishment. (PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX).
In order to start decreasing the number of people sentenced to prison, a major change would need to be made with the minimum sentence laws that require prison time for certain offenses. It may seem daunting to not put all criminals in prison, but many criminals can be punished in a different and even more effective way than going to prison for an extended period of time.
Minimum Sentencing Laws
There are three basic kinds of minimum sentencing laws. The first kind establishes a minimum sentence, just like it would be expected to. It states that a person accused of a crime must be imprisoned for “not less than” a specific amount of time. For example, someone convicted of manufacturing and/or distributing drugs (each drug has a minimum measurement to be considered for this law), the offender is automatically required to do at least ten years in prison. Second, there are statutes that require a specific, flat amount of time. Often times this type of minimum sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. The third kind of minimum sentence are “piggyback” statutes. These statutes add to a previous sentence depending on the specifics of the crime that occurred.
Not all of these requirements are entirely set in stone. With many of them, the lawmakers left in loop holes for first-time offenders, small-time, or non-violent offenders so that they would not have to undergo a ridiculous amount of punishment for a smaller crime. (FAS).
In 2004, there was a perfect example of a man victimized by piggyback minimum sentencing: a man named Weldon Angelos was arrested and sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana three times. When his drug selling was discovered, the police found that he owned a gun, though he did not use it in any way during his drug deals. His sentence is longer than the typical sentence for crimes of: second-degree murder and kidnapping or child rape. It is also more than four times the length of the federal sentence for a marijuana dealer who also shoots someone during the drug deal. The judge, Paul G. Cassell, who sentenced Angelos said the sentence was “unjust, cruel, and even irrational;” however, Cassell could not do anything to intervene due to the minimum imprisonment laws that are set. Over 60 former judges even stated that Angelos’s sentence is “extraordinary injustice,” yet Angelos was not on Obama’s most recent list of those prisoners receiving pardon.
Angelos should be permitted to utilize the loophole for small-time, one-time, non-violent offenders, but because he had possession of a gun, they assumed he had the possibility to become violent, and therefore, the judge had no choice but to sentence him to incarceration. For his gun, five years had to be added to the sentence he already received from selling marijuana.
Since the minimum sentence laws are not flexible for each individual situation, many people want to abolish these laws and give more control over to the discretion of the judge. They believe that the current system is an easy way to deal with crime, but it is very harmful in some cases and not as effective as it could be. (FAMM). On the other hand, people believe that minimum sentencing requirements are necessary to keep punishment consistent throughout the country. They believe that it keeps people from “getting lucky” by having an easy going judge. In addition, pro-minimum sentencing advocates believe that incarceration is the only way to ensure a reduction in crime because the criminals are kept out of society. (HERITAGE).
These new tough-on-crime laws have not only imprisoned Angelos for a ridiculous amount of time, but they have also done the same to thousands of criminals who did not commit any kind of violent crime. (SENTENCING REFORM). Obviously, imprisonment keeps criminals off the street, but is there a better, less expensive way to punish those who committed non-violent crimes?
Alternatives to Imprisonment
One of the main, suggested alternatives to putting people in prison is rehabilitation. About 70% of the nation’s inmates are illiterate and 200,000 suffer from some kind of mental illness. Additionally, 60-80% of inmates have experienced some form of substance abuse. Drugs are obviously an issue among prisoners; in fact, often times drugs are the reason that people are arrested in the first place. Yet, the amount of drug rehab positions has decreased by more than 50% since 1993, and only one in ten inmates who need drug treatment can receive it. (PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX). In New York, Michigan, and Texas crime rates still fell after prisons began to shut down, which was largely due to the start of rehab programs. (SENTENCE REFORM). Unfortunately, the majority of offenders who are sentenced in court are not even tested for substance abuse problems before they are sentenced, so the court might not even know if they need rehab. Rehab programs have been proven to reduce recidivism rates from 75% recidivism for people who did not attend rehab to 57% rehab for those who did. (LUXURY REHAB).
Experts believe that one of the main reasons that prisons do not have rehabilitation programs is due to the overcrowding. “We have the highest recidivism rate in the country because there is no room for rehabilitation,” Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said when commenting on California’s 173,000 inmates living in the space for 83,000. Slowly, people have realized that these crazy prison rates need to drop, and people need to get more help rather than punishment. In California, 70% of prisoners get re-incarcerated within only 3 years after they are released: this makes up a huge portion of those in prison. However, with proper rehabilitation, many prisoners are able to leave prison as a changed person instead of a punished person, likely to recede to their old, illegal habits.
On way that this rehab is actually occurring is through drug courts. Beginning in 1989, the government opened about 1,000 drug courts across the country so that small time offenders could be given a sentence of rehab rather than prison. This way, rehab is actually regulated and enforced, so people get the help they need in order to quit drug use. Additionally, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act offers the option of rehab instead of incarceration for first and second-time drug offenders. This act can also reduce prison sentence and qualify some offenders for early release. (PRISON REFORM).
In addition to rehab, probation is another alternative to imprisonment. The number of people on probation has grown by 29% since 1995. By putting people on probation and parole after they are released from jail, they are able to have a second chance. Instead of spending their time sitting in prison, they can get a job and work to support their family. If need be, they can even go to rehab. (PROBATION). Furthermore, community service is seen as a fantastic alternative for people who have committed very small crimes, such as unarmed theft. This activity both punishes the offender without overcrowding prisons, and it benefits society at the same time. The rate at which community service is completed depends on the area in question, but on average, about 80-85% of community service is completed, which is a pretty decent rate. Community service can also be a great alternative for juvenile offenders; often times teenagers are sent to a correctional facility of some kind, but community service gives them a second chance for self improvement without taking their childhood from them. (COMMUNITY SERVICE).
Conclusion
As a whole, the minimum sentencing laws in the United States are effective in reducing crime because they take prisoners off the streets. However, these laws are not very good for helping reform criminals to turn away from their criminal past. Instead of changing their behavior, prison just keeps them locked up for a little while, and then they can go back to their former habits once released. Subsequently, minimum sentences cause problems within the prisons themselves. They lead to overcrowding which results in harsh living conditions for people and a reduction in resources that could aid the prisoners. An increase in the number of prisoners also increases the tax money that all citizens have to pay since imprisonment is that most expensive form of punishment. Along with these issues, minimum sentence laws can even hurt those who did not commit serious crimes by forcing them to remain in prison for much longer than necessary.
To fix this problem, there are many alternatives that judges could turn to instead of just incarceration. For example, rehab has proven to have a great effect on reducing recidivism rates. These rehab programs can work in direct relation with drug courts, courts that enforce and oversee drug rehab for first or second time offenders. Other than drug courts, probation, parole, and community service work well as punishments for those who committed small, non-violent crimes, and the community can even benefit from it.
All of these changes could, for one, improve the conditions of today’s prisons, so that the people who must go to prison can still live in a reasonable environment. They could also keep people from falling victim to minimum sentence requirements by remaining in jail much longer than necessary. In order to do this, it is suggested that minimum sentence laws be abolished and more discretion be handed over to the judges.