Mass Incarceration in the United States
The number of people in United States’ prisons started to increase after the 1970s after drastic changes were made to the criminal justice system. The United States’ government together with civil society groups has launched investigations into why it leads other countries when it comes to the number of the incarcerated behind bars but no practical solution has been implemented to deal with the problem. The United States government formed The Committee on the Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States under the guidance of the National Institute of Justice (Lobel, 2020). The committee was also formed to analyze the evidence on the causes and effects of the high rates of incarceration in the United States. Despite such reports being released every year, the number of the incarcerated continues to increase every year. It is estimated that approximately 2.3 million people are behind bars in the United States (Lobel, 2020). As the number of people supporting prison reforms increases, it is important to analyze some of the causes, consequences and solution to the issue of mass incarceration in the United States.
Literature Review
Causes of Mass Incarceration
The War on Drugs
Levad (2019) recalls that the 1960s was the era when the number of the incarcerated in the United States began to increase. The 1960s were the years after the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression when drug culture had become deeply embedded in American society. Drugs quickly became a national epidemic in the 1960s prompting the government to come up with stringent measures to address the vice. The government’s campaign against drug use and possession was famously called the War on Drugs and it saw the US criminal justice system come up with more punitive measures hence shifting from being a rehabilitator to a punisher (Levad, 2019). The war on drugs saw thousands of people thrown in jail with offences where they would have otherwise been fined. The people that were incarcerated during this period were majorly Hispanic and African Americans since most of them came from neighborhoods or areas where drug use was rampant (Levad, 2019). While offenders managed to serve their time and be released, most studies indicated a significant relationship between certain races like blacks and Latinos and their probability of re-incarceration or recidivism. Most of the people that went back to prison had a criminal history of drug charges or non-felony offences. The possibility of individuals incarcerated with drug offences of going back to prison is always high because most of them are drug addicts. Immediately they are released from jail, they go back to illegal activities like drug peddling and use. The war on drugs led to the incarceration of thousands of people because people were given prison time regardless of whether the offence they had committed was minor or not.
Sebastian, Palloni and Jerrett (2020) estimates that approximately 50% of America’s prison population is held under drug related charges. An individual arrested on suspicion of drug dealing would most likely end up in jail. The war drugs has not beard any positive fruits as thousands of Americans are incarcerated every year while the rate of drug abuse and violence remain high in the United States. Although the government has supported its stance on drug related crimes, there is nothing positive to show instead an increase in the number of people that have been incarcerated.
The Three Strikes Law
The three strikes law has been cited by many as one of the major causes of mass incarceration in the United States. The three strikes law was first implemented in the United States by the justice department in its efforts to address a spike in violent crimes. The three strikes law may lock up an offender to a mandatory life sentence if they commit one serious felony and two previous convictions (Sebastian et al., 2020). The law was enacted so as to increase the punishment for those found guilty of repeatedly engaging in violent offences. Currently, more than 28 states have some form of three strikes law. Sebastian et al. (2020) state that the three strikes law was initially enacted in California in 1994 after the murder of Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds. The law has been criticized for imposing a life sentence for almost any crime even if they are minor as long as the offender had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes (Adams, Klinsky, & Chhetri, 2020). Although the law was intended to keep violent offenders like murderers, rapists and child molesters in jail where they belong in has led to the incarceration of thousands of people who are not supposed to be serving life sentences. Adams et al. (2020) state that today more than half of the inmates under the three strikes law are serving life sentences for non-violent crimes. An investigation carried out by the Three Strikes Project revealed that a significant number of offenders serving life sentences under the law were sentenced due to offences like possessing less than a gram of drugs, attempted break ins into soup kitchens and stealing a dollar from parked vehicles (Adams et al., 2020). Statistics from existing literature also reveals that the law disproportionately affects members of the minority population. Approximately 45% of people serving life sentences under the Three strikes law are African Americans (Adams et al., 2020). The law is also disproportionately applied against the physically disabled and the mentally ill.
The fact that the three strikes law recommends a mandatory 25 to life prison sentence has led to the incarceration of people on less serious crimes. The law is among the leading contributors to the high number of the incarcerated in the United States. Most of the offenders serving life sentences under the three strikes law could be punished using other alternatives like fines. However, the increasing number of people being sentenced under the three strikes law continues to increase the number of people being incarcerated in the United States.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Turney (2017) states that mandatory minimum sentencing is another major contributor to the increased number of people that have been incarcerated in the United States. The laws deny judges the freedom to look at individual cases and to account for the actual circumstances of the crime. The law also denies the judge the opportunity to look at the characteristics of the individual while imposing the fine. The revision of the federal drug laws by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 saw them carry very long maximum sentences. The law recommends up to 40 years for certain quantities of drugs and life sentences for larger quantities (Simon, 2017). Federal drug offenders are likely to get long sentences if they are found guilty. For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 recommended a minimum sentence of five year for drug related offences 500 grams of cocaine, 5 grams of crack or 1 kilogram of heroine (Simon, 2017). Mandatory minimum sentencing has been responsible for the sentencing of thousands of individuals in the United States. Judges are usually restricted to what is provided by the law and they cannot carry out independent assessments based on the situation and circumstances of the case. Mandatory minimum means that judges have only one option of recommending prison terms instead of other alternatives.
Exorbitant Bail
Dolan (2017) observes that exorbitant bail is another factor that has contributed to the high number of offenders in American prisons. It is estimated that close to half a million people are in prison at any given time awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail. The majority of people who cannot afford bail are more likely to be convicted because they cannot also afford proper legal representation. Research cited by Dolan (2017) indicated that people who are awaiting trial and have managed to make bail are less likely to be convicted and imprisoned compared to those that are unable to afford bail. The exorbitant bail in the United States majorly affects minorities and the poor because they come from poor backgrounds and cannot afford the bail. The poor and minorities are left with no other option but to remain in jail awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail. Their inability to pay bail increases the number of people in American prisons at any particular time.
Impacts of Mass Incarceration on the Criminal Justice System
While the policies that resulted to mass incarceration in the United States were aimed at making American societies more secure, they have achieved the opposite. Mass incarceration has had various adverse effects on the United States. The criminal justice system is one of the areas that have been heavily affected by mass incarceration. One of the major effects of mass incarceration on the criminal justice system is the fact that it has prevented it from achieving its objective. The criminal justice system in the United States was founded on the premise of ensuring the safety of communities and the rehabilitation of offenders before reintegrating them top society (Lobel, 2020). Mass incarceration has changed the objectives of the American criminal justice system to take a punitive approach. Instead of rehabilitating offenders, the criminal justice system in the United States is more concerned with punishing offenders, even those with minor offences. The introduction of laws like the three strikes law and mandatory minimum sentencing means that the criminal justice system is not concerned with the rehabilitation of offenders and punishing them using the harshest punishments possible.
The American criminal justice system is aimed at ensuring the safety of American and preventing offenders from harming life and property. However, mass incarceration has diverted the criminal justice system from its objectives. Ever since the number of the imprisoned in the United States began to increase, crime rates in the country have remained high. Supporters of mass incarceration initially believed that their policies would reduce criminal activities in the country by discouraging others from taking part in crimes. The policies, however, achieved the opposite and crime rates and other offences have been on a steady increase. Instead of reducing crime rates and improving the safety of people in communities, the American criminal justice system has instead worsened the situation. The incarceration of thousands of people has destabilized communities, leading to the emergence of more offenders (Levad, 2019). For example, most African American communities have been adversely affected by mass incarceration because a large proportion of those incarcerated are black men. The absence of black males in their families leads to instability with the younger boys lacking role models or people to offer guidelines (Levad, 2019). With time, such children mature and enter into a life of crime. The criminal justice system has, therefore, contributed to increased crime rats in the country instead of working to address it.
Mass incarceration has also led to inefficiencies within the criminal justice system. The large number of people in American prisons awaiting trial means that there is a backlog of cases. While the number of inmates has more than quadrupled in the last few decades, the number of judges and other professionals within the criminal justice system has not increased (Fosten, 2016). Such a scenario means that judges are forced to handle more cases than required hence leading to mistakes when making judgments. The shortage of staff within the criminal justice system means that suspects have to wait for longer periods before their case can be heard and determined. Such inefficiencies affect the reputation and credibility of the US criminal justice system since individuals believe that they are denied the opportunity to properly defend themselves.
Furthermore, Sebastian et al. (2020) argue that mass incarceration has negatively affected the American criminal justice system because it makes it appear biased. Mass incarceration has disproportionately targeted minority groups like blacks and Latinos. Currently, approximately 45% of the prison population is black hence giving a picture that the criminal justice system is biased towards minorities (Sebastian et al., 2020). The perception of baseness has made many people, especially from minority communities lose faith and trust in the criminal justice system. Most offenders from minority communities are more likely to be convicted and sentenced than their white counterparts. While the criminal justice system has in the past tried to implement various measures to make it appear just and fair, the fact that the majority of those arrested belong to one ethnic minority does not help its cause.
The presence of teenagers or youth in the criminal justice system is another example of how mass incarceration has negatively affected the American criminal justice system. Mass incarceration has resulted in hundreds of young offenders being detained in juvenile detention centers spread across the country (Adams et al., 2020). Sentencing children or young offenders does not help them improve their behavior. Instead, it places them with other offenders who negatively affect them. Adams et al. (2020) note that juvenile offenders are likely to spend their entire life in the criminal justice system. Most young offenders are bound to continue with their criminal ways even after they have been released from the juvenile system. Instead of helping young offenders change their ways, the criminal justice system contributes to the deterioration of their behaviors. Juvenile offenders do not need prison time for them to be rehabilitated, they instead require guidance, love and role models for them to turn their behavior around (Turney, 2017). Placing young offenders in the prison system together with other offenders denies them the chance to get advice and mentorship from responsible members of the society hence contributing to the deterioration of their behavior. It is, therefore, evident that mass incarceration has affected the criminal justice system in the United States because it provides avenues for the incarceration of young offenders who would have been rehabilitated through other means.
Impacts of Mass Incarceration on Minorities
The analysis of the numbers of the incarcerated in the United States reveals that the majority of those serving time come from minority communities like African Americans and Latinos. While it is always beneficial to lock up a potentially dangerous person, the incarceration of many individuals from specific communities could have devastating effects on the communities. Simon (2017) observes that when the number of offenders removed from a particular community is too high, it may harm the community. Although it is always recommended to protect communities from offenders, going too far by locking up many people from the same communities could have potentially harmful effects. The mass incarceration of offenders from a single community could result in collateral damage. Since a significant number of those locked up are African American and Latino men, most of their societies are left without male figures. Most of these men are fathers, brothers and may be essential to their respective family units. According to Dolan (2017) locking up many African American men during the 1970s and 80s greatly affected the dynamics of African American families. Most families lost their breadwinners and father figures. Women, who mostly depended on their husbands to provide for their families were forced to become the head of their families and look for work (Dolan, 2017). Most women would do more than one job to keep their families afloat because their husbands, brother, or father were locked up in jail. Young boys also lost their father figures forcing them to look up to other people, mostly gang leaders for guidance (Dolan, 2017). The fact that most women were forced to work to keep their families afloat meant that they spend less time with their children and could nt guide their character development. As a result, most of the boys whose fathers or brothers were locked up due to mass incarceration started engaging in criminal activities and were soon locked up. The cycle has since continued to this day as gang violence becomes prevalent in the United States.
Lobel (2020) asserts that removing too many people from troubled neighborhoods only serve to worsen the situation rather than improving it. The majority of prisoners who are released after serving their life sentences return back to their neighborhoods. Such neighborhoods are poor and isolated inner cities. Since mass incarceration has changed the criminal justice system from focusing in rehabilitation to punishing offenders, most of them go back to their communities unchanged and with the same criminal behaviors. The unprecedented number of inmates being released has compounded the problems in such neighborhoods. For example, many prisoners enter the system with different problems like alcohol, drug and mental problems. In most cases, such offenders are not offered any help by the correctional department due to reduced funding for rehabilitation programs and scaling down of state mental facilities (Lobel, 2020). This means that prisoners with problems like mental health go through the system without being rehabilitated. Unfortunately, it is such inmates that are released back to their communities. The inmates are returned to the communities the same way that they are taken away and in some instances they are even worse off.
Although there are released inmates that may want to change their ways and become responsible members of the society, they are faced with many challenges that may push them to return to their criminal ways. Prisoners are faced with collateral consequences which prevent them from leading a life that other citizens would live. For example, released inmates may in some instances be legally denied some social benefits like access to public housing, college loans and grants and the right to work or live in certain areas (Levad, 2019). Although such policies were enacted on the basis that offenders should not benefit from the public largess, they negatively affect the safety and security of minority communities. Lack of access to such social benefits makes it hard for released inmates to survive hence leading them back to criminal activities (Levad, 2019). For example, denied offenders the right work means that they cannot feed themselves and their families unless they engage in criminal activities.
From the analysis of the arguments provided, it is evident that the criminal justice system in the United States through mass incarceration has adversely affected minority communities like blacks and Latinos.
Recommendations
The investigation of the history and impacts of mass incarceration reveals that it has had more adverse effects than benefits. Mass incarceration has destabilized communities and increased public spending on correctional facilities. Mass incarceration has also led to an increase in crime rates in the United States although it was intended to combat the vice. Levad (2019) states that mass incarceration needs to be stopped because it represents the greatest civil rights injustice in current times. Most of the people behind bars are disproportionately Latinos and blacks. It is evident that the criminal justice system supports deep rooted racial inequity.
Several strategies can be implemented to get rid of mass incarceration. One of the main strategies that should be adopted is the elimination of prison for lower level crimes. The current criminal justice system in the United States views prison as the default sanction for anyone that breaks the law. The justice system should not work that way (Levad, 2019). People who commit lower level crime should be subjected to alternative punishments like fines. Crimes like selling marijuana and petty theft should not be punished by long prison sentences as is the norm.
The reduction of sentence minimums and maximums is also another measure that can be adopted to combat mass incarceration. While it is justified to punish individuals that commit serious crimes like robbery, there is little evidence that sentencing such individuals for long periods rehabilitates it. Research indicates that longer prison stays do not lead to lower recidivism (Lobel, 2020). Law makers should, therefore, consider reducing the time that prisoners spend in prison when it is not necessary. State judges need to reduce the minimum and maximum sentences and make them proportional to the crimes committed.
Furthermore, instead of building and equipping more prisons, the government should consider investing the money on crime prevention policies. The government should consider investing in reentry programs, schools, college funds and police to improve public safety and reduce the number of people going to jail (Lobel, 2020). For example, reinvesting $20 billion in the economy could lead to an increase in job opportunities, meaning that individuals will have something to do instead of depending on crime.
Conclusion
Finally, the criminal justice system should do away with the Truth in Sentencing and the Three Strikes Law. These two laws take way the ability of judges to independently analyze each case with the prevailing circumstances and evidence (Lobel, 2020). They also force judges to recommend prison terms when there could be other alternatives that could have helped in rehabilitating the criminals.
References
Adams, M., Klinsky, S., & Chhetri, N. (2020). Barriers to sustainability in poor marginalized communities in the United States: The criminal justice, the prison-industrial complex and foster care systems. Sustainability, 12(1), 220. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010220
Dolan, R. (2017). Addicted to rehab: race, gender, and drugs in the era of mass incarceration. Health Affairs, 36(11), 2030-2031. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20l7.1069
Fosten, G. K., PhD. (2016). Perspectives on social inequality, criminal justice, and race in the United States: A critical analysis. The Journal of Pan African Studies (Online), 9(9), 122-141.
Levad, A. (2019). Repairing the breach: Faith-based community organizing to dismantle mass incarceration. Religions, 10(1), 42. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel10010042
Lobel, J. (2020). Mass solitary and mass incarceration: explaining the dramatic rise in prolonged solitary in America’s prisons. Northwestern University Law Review, 115(1), 159-210.
Sebastian, D., Palloni, A., & Jerrett, J. (2020). The consequences of incarceration for mortality in the united states. Demography, 57(2), 577-598. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00869-5
Simon, J. (2017). Is mass incarceration history? Texas Law Review, 95(5), 1077-1101.
Turney, K. (2017). The unequal consequences of mass incarceration for children. Demography, 54(1), 361-389. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0543-1