By now, human beings on each side of the divide, whether proposing or opposing, have realized that mass incarceration is not a valid system. Most people have understood that something is fundamentally wrong with the system where people are handed heavy sentences for picayune crimes. Consequently, people have had their lives ruined after serving time in prison during their prime years. This project aims at exploring why mass incarceration is ineffective and inefficient.
One of the significant concerns with mass incarceration which is regarded as the most reliable explanation that the measure is the warped idea is that it does not give enough room for individuals who should be in prison. There are a limited number of cells available in both private and public prisons despite their explosion. It is odd when the cells are filled with people whose transgressions are nonviolent offenses or minor drug crimes. Consequently, there are serious concerns about our priorities regarding the emphasis of locking people up in jail for small mistakes. The primary objective of the criminal justice system is to formulate minimum behavior standards for dwelling in a community. In other words, the sentencing structure should be a reflection of what is considered as acceptable behavior by the society (Kilgore, 2015).
Research studies have been conducted to assess and measure the reduction of crime by incapacitation. In the study, the researchers went through the court records where it was notable that people coming similar offenses were handed down different rulings according to the judge assigned the case. The research was extended to what befell the prisoners, and it was concluded that each year spent behind bars raised the odds of reoffending significantly. Similarly, individuals sent to prisons for minor offenses end up committing critical crimes subsequently, as they spend more time in jail. The research concluded that any significance linked to removing criminals out of the society was more of off-set increasing crimes by turning minor offenders to hardcore criminals. Notably, a significant number of prisoners have arrested again after release due to more offenses. This, therefore, results in high recidivism. This takes us to a more intriguing question: Why do prisons turn individuals into career criminals (Clear, 2009).
A person’s wages, salary or earning potential is obliterated by prisons. One is disqualified from various jobs, voting, and housing when they become convicted felons. In the recent studies conducted regarding imprisonments, it was observed that post-release employment rates are significantly reduced with each year spent behind bars. This result to a person living up and depending on public help. Incarceration also decreases the chances of a marriage surviving or getting married. While one is in prison, they get exposed to criminal networks and skills while their legal powers are degraded as a result of spending time away from the labor force. Upon release, this kind of exposure becomes the most preferred alternative (Pager, 2008).
In instances where long sentences would discourage or deter people from committing offenses, it would render prisons an active system. Most critics of the incarceration systems argue that a year spent in jail ought to decrease rape cases, assaults, burglaries, violent robberies and deter a significant number of citizens from getting hooked on systematic drug abuse. This argument took into considerations the foregone economic potentials and the prison costs. However, it is observed that the resultant deterrent impact is not as robust as it should. Instead, it is far from being achieved.
Another argument regarding the ineffectiveness of prisons is that juveniles would refrain from committing offenses upon turning the age of 18 where they are likely to suffer more time in jail. The long sentences in prison would be a useful deterrent if this made the juveniles stop making transgressions. However, the system does not meet this criterion. There are a variety of reasons as to why the idea fails to condone crimes. One is that the criminals tend to be young thus they become impulsive and discount the future. Therefore, the possibility of being sentenced to longer prison time is not sufficient to pose as a deterrent. The other explanation offered is that despite turning 18 years of age, there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the length of their incarceration (Kilgore, 2015). From previous studies, most people have realized that the amount of time sentenced depends on the jury overhearing the case, the prosecutor, the evidence presented and how busy the courts are. These factors determine the chances of the convict to end up with a plea bargain. While spending time in prison is not much of a deterrent, the system of mass incarceration holds a lot of uncertainties in the possibilities of actually getting locked up in prisons and extends to the future regarding meaningfully impacting the behavior of a person (Wagner, 2016).
However, there is an exception which occurs in instances where there is a critical degree of certainty regarding the punishment. For example, the Californian 3-strikes regulation which levies draconian rulings in 3-time transgressors which has near assurances despite the crimes in question being reasonably minor. It has been concluded, after evidence-backed research studies, that a person is less likely to commit a third crime after committing two strikes already.
So, what system or moves can work if mass incarceration has failed to deter crimes?
Just like anyone, potential criminals are responsive to incentives. Such individuals are bound to obey the rules and law in instances where they feel the risks and costs associated with offenses has significantly increased in a meaningful way. This explains the increase in the perceived probability of being caught due to the active deterrent. Researchers have noted that an increase in detentions has a significant role in the decrease in criminal activities. Therefore, the most natural initiative of raising the perceived probability is by placing more cops on the streets. Increased alerts on terror activities result to an increase in the number of cops on the roads (Wagner, 2016). While it is not clear whether this move reduces terrorism, there is a significant reduction of cases of burglary and auto-theft.
Conclusively, while longer and heavy sentences are not effective in reducing crimes, more police officers will deter crimes due to the perceived risks that criminals get. Most individuals commit offenses with the idea that they will not get arrested. However, seeing more cops changes their perspective and raised the perceived risks of committing a crime.
References
Clear, T. R. (2009). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
Kilgore, J. (2015). Understanding Mass Incarceration: A People’s Guide to the Key Civil Rights Struggle of Our Time. The New Press.
Pager, D. (2008). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press.
Wagner, P., & Rabuy, B. (2016). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2016. Prison Policy Initiative, 14.
