The student will write a 10–12-page Literature Analysis on specific problem in criminal justice. It should
not be a descriptive paper but one that critically examines the problems and the competing solutions.
The student should make an argument if need be. The paper must utilize at least 12 significant,
scholarly resources that are significant to the topic (current, relevant, credible, and each carries its
weight) with a clear and meaningful connection between all the resources. The paper must properly
follow current APA style. Detailed instructions can be found in Blackboard. If a student is struggling with
current APA format, he/she may refer to the Additional Information folder for help. Organize and format
your paper according to APA style. If you need more help understanding how to analyze scholastic
literature consult the corresponding section in your APA manual. Y
Include the following elements in your paper:
Title page including a running head
Abstract and key words
Body
References
The body of the paper consists of all of the questions a person would ask if you mentioned the
hypothesis to them. What is it I am researching? What is the current problem? What is the solution?
What do my critics say about the problem and my solution? What does the literature say about the
problem and my solution? What gaps in the literature will my solution address? If successful, what are
the implications of my research? And a conclusion. Conclusion (Make sure you reflect back upon your
thesis statement and make adjustments as needed.)
Review the Literature Analysis Rubric to see how this assignment will be evaluated.
CJUS 550
LITERATURE ANALYSIS
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION
STUDENT’S NAME
DATE
CJUS 550
LITERATURE ANALYSIS: TOPIC IDENTIFICATION & BIBLIOGRAPHY TEMPLATE
Proposed Topic: Prison Boom
The paper attempts to explain the social effects of excessive rates of imprisonment in the
United States of America, which include: keeping people marginalized and weakening low-
income families.
Proposed Thesis Statement:
While many activists and researchers have argued otherwise, positively and negatively,
on the incarceration process in the US, there is an alternative sentencing/rehabilitation that can
be offered. The paper will recommend alternative sentencing, better social and prison policy, and
possible restoration of petty criminal offenders.
Preliminary Bibliography
Berger, D. (2014). Struggle Within: Prisons, Political Prisoners, and Mass Movements in the
United States. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2014.
Drucker E. M. (2011). A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Imprisonment in the US.
New York: The New Press, 2011.
Murakawa, N. (2014). The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison the US. New York:
Oxford University Press,2014.
Perkinson, R.(2010). Texas Tough: The Rise of the US Prison Empire. New York:
Picador, 2010.
Raphael, S, and Michael A. S. (2013). Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2013.
Richie, B. E. (2012) Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America’s Prison Nation.
New York: New York University Press.
CJUS 550
Annotated Bibliography
Berger, D. (2014). Struggle Within: Prisons, Political Prisoners, and Mass Movements in the
US. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2014.
The book is critical in recounting the history of criminal offenders and their
imprisonment. Although the book doesn’t discuss the prison boom and criminal offenses
that lead to prison, its historical significance is significant for the paper. The historical
understanding of the sentencing of criminal offenses and the prison boom is significant in
understanding the current trends in imprisonment.
Drucker E. M. (2011). A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Imprisonment in the US.
New York: The New Press, 2011.
The author explores the prison in America in his book. He employs a unique approach to
understanding mass imprisonment. To achieve this, he explores the concept of the prison
boom as an epidemic. This implies that criminal offenses that lead to most of the
detention are also an epidemic. The book will be helpful as it will assist in understanding
how criminal offenses and prison are related and why it should be considered as an
epidemic.
Murakawa, N. (2014). The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison in the US. New York:
Oxford University Press,2014.
The book is a secular bible for criminal justice in the US. Naomi’s book is loud, clear,
and passionate. She focuses on political development, which, according to the author,
raises grounds for prison boom. The author is concerned with the boom in prison, which
she writes is partially racially conservative. In the book, the author is concerned about
how some petty criminal offenders can receive light sentences away from prisons and
remain active in the family. The book will be vital in understanding federal crime
legislation and possible better sentencing for offenders.
Perkinson, R. (2010). Texas Tough: The Rise of the US Prison Empire. New York:
Picador, 2010.
This book is distinguished from other books in this bibliography because of its tone. The
author helps us in understanding the history of the prison boom in America, focusing
mostly in Texas. Texas is home to the largest prison, and the author claims that criminal
punishment in America is very harsh. The book compares the age of slavery to the
current age of the prison boom. The author presents themes in his book that will aid the
paper in understanding criminal justice and sentencing. One of the themes is that the
CJUS 550
prison has always failed since its primary purpose is to be rehabilitative. Nonetheless,
that has not been the case; another critical theme is that societal inequality always leads
to discriminatory justice. The book is well researched and is essential in helping
understand the corrective institutions and the significance of rehabilitation centers for
criminal offenders.
Raphael, S., and Michael A. S. (2013). Why Are So Many Americans in Prison? New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2013.
Just like most of the books in this bibliography, this book attempts to discuss why most
of the criminal offenders end up in prison. The book takes a unique approach as it
employs the use of empirical evidence to understand prison boom and crime analysts. In
his empirical research, the author points out that policy choices are the leading cause of
the prison boom for criminal convictions. He also discusses possible crime control that he
believes will reduce cases of criminality. This book is helpful as it presents us with a
historical and empirical justification of prison boom and criminal sentencing.
Richie, B. E. (2012) Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America’s Prison Nation.
New York: New York University Press.
The author is concerned with the contradictions she has witnessed. She is primarily
concerned with powerless women who are at danger when it comes to criminal
sentencing. The book is crucial as it uses real-world stories with abstract content. Real
criminal stories are essential to the paper as it will bring the touch of the real situation in
the criminal world. The book is also helpful to the article as it attempts to understand if
people with less power are more prone to sentencing when it comes to criminal justice.
Conclusion
The understanding of the prison boom as a result of criminal offenses is key to the
American. This paper endeavors to answer the question and how alternative rehabilitation for the
socially good of criminal offenders is essential. The bibliography selected gives the historical
point of the prison boom and how it is most related to criminal offenses. The bibliography
clearly outlines the social ills as a result of imprisonment, and alternative corrective measures
with less social evils have been suggested in the bibliography.
CJUS 550 1
LITERATURE ANALYSIS
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION
STUDENT’S NAME
DATE
CJUS 550 2
Abstract
While many activists and researchers have argued otherwise, positively and negatively, on the
U.S. incarceration process, there is an alternative sentencing/rehabilitation that can be offered.
With the current form of punishment being incarceration, several research pieces explain the
dissatisfaction following the rising incarceration rates and suggest alternative measures to
imprisonment. At least ten articles analyzed in this article condemn the public health crisis
brought by the prison doom in the case of juveniles and adults. Another reason incarceration is
not proffered is the economic benefit prioritized over behavior change and the successful
integration of charged offenders into society. The articles recommend alternatives such as
intensive court and community supervision techniques and pro-social alternatives such as
increased visitation, institutional programs, “dual victims” notion, priming interventions, and
employment and education programs. Evidence from two states, including Ohio and Kentucky,
who have implemented RECLAIM and ASW respectively, has provided evidence-based practice
to prompt implementation of such alternative measures. Some of the literature analysis gaps are
the scarcity of alternatives and the importance of not using recidivism as a success metric;
prisoner misconduct and education programming could be used. If rehabilitation efforts are
successful, recidivism rates will reduce, and individuals would successfully be re-integrated into
the community.
CJUS 550 3
Literature Analysis
Introduction
While many activists and researchers have argued otherwise, positively and negatively,
on the U.S. incarceration process, there is an alternative sentencing/rehabilitation that can be
offered. Currently, the major response to social disorder and crime for countries across the world
includes the overuse of imprisonment. According to Prison Studies, over ten million individuals
are in prison globally (Jacobson, Heard & Fair, 2017). Jurisdictions leading in such numbers
include the United States, whose prison population rose from five hundred thousand individuals
in 1980 to two and a half million in 2008. There are various complex reasons why the prison
population is unrelentingly growing, but the consequences are vivid. Ernest Drucker published
his book in 2011, called A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in
America, which elaborates on the inhumane, degrading, and overcrowded conditions that
imprisonment over-use have caused (Drucker, 2019). It harms the marginalized groups and the
poor disproportionately. The prison systems’ capacities are limited in dealing with a fraction of
prisoners who are actual and serious threats to the safety of the public. In fact, more risks are
associated with increased prisoner populations both to themselves and individuals outside or
inside the prison perimeters. The imprisonment over-use most exploits the public purse. Prisons
require money to maintain hence resulting in resource constraints. A lot of research identifies the
growing awareness of prison failures as solutions to social problems. It is followed by a growing
acceptance that such problems could also be effectively tackled outside the criminal justice
realm. The United States report at least 600,000 individuals re-entering the society each year
(Drucker, 2019). However, the country also reports the highest recidivism rates than any other
country. Therefore, it is not enough to release individuals from prisons and help individuals
CJUS 550 4
survive blows and the debilitating effects of the punishment taint. But why deal with the results
of punishment when we can be tough on crime and smart about it. An era must be ushered where
accountability does not translate to punishment for the sake of punishment. There are
accountability forms and alternative sentencing methods that help in restoring an offender to a
productive society member, and at the same time, offering restoration and healing to the victims
of crime.
There is a great wave of dissatisfaction with the U.S. system of criminal justice. At a time
in the country, when crime rates seem to be at a low rate, there has been an expansion in
correctional costs at the expense of other essential public services. The era of touch on crime had
enacted policies such as the drug wars, habitual offender legislation, and mandatory sentencing
are causing a prison boom. Joe Russo et al. (2017) are among the individuals envisioning a better
future for correctional sectors, one that will include proactive roles in improving offender
outcomes and the safety of the public. It is in agreement that the correctional sectors' primary
role must include facilitating positive change in behavior through leveraging technology,
science, and practices based on evidence such as parole, community-based initiatives, and
probation. They ought to be funded adequately and significantly implemented. Some of the
approaches include proportionate sentencing, which is based on how dangerous an offender is. It
also includes the provision of better opportunities that prepare inmates to re-enter society and
develop safer and smaller correctional facilities close to the offender’s social support and ensure
adequate resources to support successful reentry to society. But there is a problem within the
corrections sector. Joe Russo et al. (2017) explain that the sector is not ready for comparable
flexibility. The policy formulation and decision-making process follow an upstream hierarchy;
the clientele is not selected. It means that changing policy in this sector would take considerable
CJUS 550 5
time. It is therefore suggested that three new changes are paramount. There should be adequate
training and education for the staff and a cultural change. The adoption of a rehabilitation culture
will require collaboration and sustained political support and policies based on data.
Balafoutas et al. (2020) highlight the scarcity of research analyzing the incarceration
effects on behavior such as increased insecurity and lo costs of social capital in any country. He
highlights the mantra of the Human Rights European Courts to be, “while punishment remains
one of the aims of imprisonment, the emphasis in European penal policy is now on the
rehabilitative aim of imprisonment.” He then poses the question of how successful prisons have
been in promoting pro-social activities and their future integration into economic and social life.
Individuals who have been in prison relate well with their counterparts more than the out-group;
hence rehabilitation could work with appropriate instruments. Priming intervention is suggested,
which involves the out-group not basing identification on criminal records as the salient identity
and education on the supposed effect of rehabilitation to be a change in behavior and successful
re-integration of an individual into the society.
Duwe (2017), point out the benefits associated with several behavior-focus programming
in institutions. He recommends interventions that include social support, which has been
instrumental in reducing recidivism and misconduct and is cost-efficient. However, the United
State's systems of corrections have greatly underused such programs. Programs such as IFI
(Freedom Initiative of InnerChange) and COSA (Circles of Accountability and Support) are
practical examples of cost-effective programs that utilize community volunteers (Duwe, 2017).
Additionally, efforts to increase visitation or visitor-friendly policies such as incorporating video
visitations cost less and promote public safety. In terms of employment and education programs,
CJUS 550 6
Duwe (2017) suggests post-secondary education, which is highly associated with better offender
outcomes in terms of recidivism and misconduct.
The Public Advocacy Department of Kentucky reports of the positive outcomes of the
Worker Program involving Alternative Sentencing (ASW). Cape (2017) describes the context of
ASW developed as a response to rising incarceration rates and the increased leverage of plea
bargaining. The U.S. system of criminal justice has been a characteristic feature. Like Joe Russo
et al. (2017), Cape (2017) highlights the top-down approach used with plea bargaining; long
sentences are used to leverage swift case closing. The ASW is a defense strategy where a client
participates in presenting their interests in court to seek help via community services. The
defense teams advocate for the liberty interests of the client; the attorney, in this case, wants to
keep the individual from being incarcerated. The alternate sentencing plan involves a needs
assessment to rehabilitate people facing incarceration. This program in Kentucky is unique in
that plans are a defense mechanism, not just a prosecution response. It warrants robust client
participation- a needs assessment is done first, then a plan is formulated and then follows a court
presentation. The ASW targets cost-effective unessential incarceration (no incarceration for non-
violent offenders charged with drugs or related offenses). It also aims to increase engagement in
services based on the community to reduce future incarceration possibilities. According to Cape's
(2018) findings, there has been a savings of about three million dollars and, at the same time, a
more humane way of addressing disorders associated with mental health illness and disorders of
substance use. The ASW members involve communities in their programs and include a
coordinated effort with the agencies of criminal justice. The ASW in Kentucky has presented the
value of utilizing these alternative measures hence adding to the increased implementation
among Kentucky courts.
CJUS 550 7
Justice Marshall Thurgood said, “Fairly viewed, pretrial detention of a juvenile gives rise
to injuries comparable to those associated with the imprisonment of an adult (McCarthy,
Schiraldi, & Shark, 2016).” In their article, McCarthy, Schiraldi, & Shark (2016) question
America and its system of youth incarceration about what it gets out of it and ask if better ways
of handling youths who are on the wrong side of the law. They have identified that youth centers
and training schools are just but names and are close to youth prisons. Youth incarceration was
conceived out of bad motives and is failing due to its foundational aims. It is associated with
high costs and high recidivism rates. It is highlighted that the youth prisons harbor 100 kids in a
space designed for only 40 individuals. Towards the end of the 19th century, youth crime has
been noted to reduce. However, an era persists with an image of thugs (youth offenders) and law
enforcement that over-relies on incarceration. The stubborn nature of refused closure for youth
prisons leaves many beds empty, awaiting individuals to fill them. These youth prisons are abuse
endemic as identified in Casey’s No Place for Kids written in 2011. It included sexual violence,
violence amongst themselves, excessive use of physical restraints, and solitary confinement.
Therefore, there are only high costs but ineffective outcomes. Anne Casey launched the
Alternative Initiatives to Juvenile Detention (JDAI) in 1993 to challenge the grossly rooted
beliefs that incarceration works and advocated for reform. Inhumane, punitive, and harsh settings
do not lead to positive rehabilitation or development. Approaches chosen must include those that
priorities accountability and development over senseless punishment. As a reinvestment strategy,
funds ought to be allocated into alternatives based on the community. The government has to
fund crime, reducing strategies, and fund prisons for adults or juveniles are not the solution.
Alternatives based on the community utilize the advantages that come with delivering
interventions in the offender's natural environment. Schweitzer, Labrecque & Smith (2017) give
CJUS 550 8
evidence of the RECLAIM initiative, which stands for Reasoned and Equitable Community and
Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors, implemented in Ohio that successfully reduced
recidivism, especially among the youth.
The same prison boom for juveniles also undermines behavior change for adults. Valdek
(2018) points out the major strategy utilized in crime reduction to include incarceration.
According to the citizens, this was the most significant way to tackle law offenders because they
believed the institutions incapacitated their efforts to commit crimes; it kept them locked up.
Incarceration, despite its wide scope, has received serious backlash because of its doubted
efficiency. According to Valdek (2018), prison is a platform for offenders to meet in a
centralized location. It is an opportunity for the first time offenders of the law to develop and
learn novel skills. Valdek (2018) and Mathew (2019), in his article Alternatives to Incarceration,
reveal the disturbing fact not mentioned in various studies concerning the secondary crime
motives that may be consequences of incarcerating the breadwinner in a family. Socially, an
incarcerated individual's life is destroyed because his social prestige and personal life are
disrupted. Valdek (2018) discusses alternative measures such as fines meant to constraint the
offender. The other approach is through electronic monitoring and house arrests, especially for
individuals charged with drug charges or in domestic violence cases. He also proposes
community service with intensive supervision. This is a positive method because the community
provides employment opportunities. For individuals who have been caught with the charges of
drunk driving, shock incarceration is used. This is mainly for first-time criminals sentenced to a
few months in prison to deter them from going back to crime. However, Valdek (2018)
highlights the limitation of shock incarceration. Imprisoning all drunk drivers only increases the
prison population unnecessarily. Compared to incarceration, which requires 24/7 running with
CJUS 550 9
adequate staffing, more money could be saved with community-based approaches. Mathew
(2019) backs up Valdek (2018) by suggesting alternatives with the community and intensive
court supervision. These alternatives could repair the harms the victims went through,
rehabilitating offenders, and treating the mentally ill and those with substance abuse disorders.
Rehabilitating individuals in their natural environment helps them keep their relationships with
their families and stay employed. These are the appropriate punishment for non-serious and non-
violent offenders. It also includes restitution, community services, and probation.
James et al. (2017) aimed at comparing how the general public perceived rehabilitation
compared to the retribution of offenders, especially among drug dealers. Despite the little
consideration for rehabilitative measures, current policies dictate an era that still considers
punishment's punitive measures. With policies such as the Law of the Three Strikes, minimum
mandatory sentences, Laws of Truth-in-Sentencing, increased length of sentences and high
incarceration rates emphasize retribution compared to rehabilitation. Individuals charged with
drug offenses account for 48.6% of incarcerated individuals. While policies point to the
preference of their incarceration, the public does not support this. Most individuals prefer that
individuals sentenced for drug crimes receive drug therapy and treatment, hence rehabilitation
more than retribution. When the public was asked to comment if implementing such measures
would make the justice system “too soft,” 90.42% said no, and when asked if harsher
mechanisms ought to be implemented, 89.36% disagreed (James et al., 2017). However, society
has a long way of exhibiting what they say. Most drug offenders cannot turn their lives around
because of the society labels, which result in discrimination. Therefore, if the society truly
supports more rehabilitative and lenient measures, then it is high time for the legislature to
consider a public outcry.
CJUS 550 10
Dresner (2020) examines how the victim’s rights movement has been used to support
radical requests such as capital punishments because of safety demands. Crime victims have not
been receiving the dignity they merit, and the mantra that was responding to crime reassures the
crime victim of their autonomy is just a farce because the ultimate victim is the state and not the
real victim of crime. When an approach such as the war on drugs was launched to fight offenses
of possession, both the victim and defendants were prone to mistreatment. The victims are used
simply as instruments used in accomplishing the state’s goals. They are not people rich in
personhood but evidence, advantages, and witnesses to the incarceration machinery. Judgment is
what drives the criminal justice system of any state. Their work is to judge whether individuals
deserve empathy, whether they deserve wrath or mercy, leniency, or enhanced sentencing. The
country and its citizens are not locked into the victim vindication pursuit that is only focused on
violence, courtrooms, and cages. When offenders and victims' viewpoint is dichotomous, it only
results in the inconsideration of human rights. Great work has been started to replace the carceral
system that is needs-focused. According to Dresner (2020), incarceration has been popularized
because of monopoly. Individuals do not have a choice to pursue other selections or routes. They
are not aware of their existence or the effects of incarceration. Therefore, if the infrastructure put
up focuses only on the victim and not the state, then it is highly likely that the survivor would not
choose methods that propagate harm or mischief to the offender. Both individuals must have
autonomy and respect as individuals hence restoring and putting up their autonomy in a
constructive way.
Most researches utilize recidivism as a measure of program/punishment success.
However, my research suggests other success metrics, such as prison misconduct and educational
programming. This literature analysis also presents success stories for various states such as
CJUS 550 11
Kentucky and Ohio. If these results are presented nationally, then the question and doubts about
implementation will be lesser every day, expanding the implementation rate. The research
provides tons of examples of various incarceration alternatives and how they could be
implemented hence no excuses. However, a recommendation for future research may include the
standardization of community-based incentives; to find out how serious an offense is or not,
which would help ease implementation and close the blur lines that may undermine it.
Among the various impacts of this research will include the “dual victims” notion of violence
and incarceration, which is more relational to crime’s reality that the false belief that the
offenders are evil and the victims are innocent.
It is high time we realize that the innocent victims of crime could also be crime
perpetrators. It could be in terms of demographics (crime perpetrators and victims are
disproportionately young African Americans from low-income backgrounds) and individually
(meaning violence would always bring about violence and cyclical trauma.) It is vivid that few
alternatives to incarceration exist, but this does not mean they do not exist. The literature
analysis cites evidence-based outcomes in states such as Ohio and Kentucky. Their outcomes
have been positively associated with reduced recidivism and better integration with society after
serving their sentences. The dialogues have to shift and practical implementation of alternative
measures implemented. Suppose the implementation of alternative incarceration measures is
successful. In that case, there will be more money directed to other sectors that need attention,
better crime handling, reduced population in prisons for juveniles and adults, reduced recidivism
rates, and more productive individuals re-entering the society. So far, the benefits outweigh the
cons, hence a risk the country should be willing to take.
Conclusion
CJUS 550 12
It is vivid that punitive measurements only make statements that do not achieve the state's
crime-reducing goals. Instead, the recidivism rates are increased, the public purse is continually
exploited, and individuals are socially affected through discriminatory labels. Through a cost-
benefit analysis, incarceration does more harm than good to individuals' socio-economic state in
any country. Therefore, there is a need for a paradigm shift to approaches that focus more on
behavior change than filling institution beds. While many activists and researchers have argued
otherwise, positively and negatively, on the U.S. incarceration process, there is an alternative
sentencing/rehabilitation that can be offered. These approaches include intensive court and
community supervision techniques and pro-social alternatives such as increased visitation,
institutional programs, “dual victims” notion, priming interventions, and employment and
education programs. It is not enough to release prisoners to reduce incarceration rates in the
country; it is important that individuals are disciplined based on their needs and successfully
reintegrated into society.
CJUS 550 13
References
James B., Katie H., Brian S., and Georgie A. W. (2017). Perceptions of Rehabilitation and
Retribution in the Criminal Justice System: A Comparison of Public Opinion and
Previous Literature. Journal of Forensic Sciences and Criminal Investigation. Retrieved
from https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/pdf/JFSCI.MS.ID.555669.pdf
Balafoutas, L., García-Gallego, A., Georgantzis, N., Jaber-Lopez, T., & Mitrokostas, E. (2020).
Rehabilitation and social behavior: Experiments in prison. Games and Economic
Behavior, 119, 148-171.
Cape, C. L. (2017). ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING WORKER PROGRAM.
Dresner, S. (2020). Empathy and Worthiness: The Modern Victims' Rights Movement and the
Growth of Mass Incarceration
Drucker, E. (2019). Mass Incarceration in the United States: From Punishment to Public Health.
In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-
release outcomes. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
Jacobson, J., Heard, C., & Fair, H. (2017). Prison: Evidence of its use and over-use from around
the world.
Mathew, M. V. (2019). Alternatives to Incarceration. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime,
1-5.
CJUS 550 14
McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V. N., & Shark, M. (2016). The Future of Youth Justice: A Community
Based Alternative to the Youth Prison Model.
Russo, J., Drake, G. B., Shaffer, J. S., & Jackson, B. A. (2017). Envisioning an Alternative
Future for the Corrections Sector Within the US Criminal Justice System. Rand
Corporation.
Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2017). Reinvesting in the lives of youth: a
targeted approach to reducing recidivism. Criminal justice policy review, 28(3), 207-219.
Valdek, S. L. (2018). DOES INCARCERATION REHABILITATE THE PERPETRATOR?
THE ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT METHODS EFFECTIVENESS COMPARED
TO INCARCERATION
.
