RESEARCH PAPER
Research Paper: Corrections, Sentencing, Imprisonment, and Death Penalty
Student Name
School
CJUS 640: Psychology & The Legal System
Professor
Date
1
RESEARCH PAPER
Abstract
This paper examines critical issues in the U.S. criminal justice system, focusing on sentencing
disparities, inadequate medical treatment for incarcerated individuals, and recidivism. Sentencing
disparities, particularly those based on race and gender, undermine fairness in the legal system.
Black and Latinx individuals, especially males, are disproportionately affected by harsher
sentences, especially in death penalty cases, while women often receive more lenient sentences
due to societal gender norms. Additionally, incarcerated individuals face significant barriers to
adequate healthcare, with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions usually untreated.
Female prisoners face unique challenges, including limited access to reproductive healthcare and
specialized services. High recidivism rates, particularly among those sentenced to incarceration
rather than rehabilitation or probation, suggest that the punitive approach may exacerbate
criminal behavior. Evidence shows that nonviolent offenders are more likely to re-offend after
imprisonment, highlighting the need for alternative sentencing options such as probation or
rehabilitative programs. The paper advocates for comprehensive policy reforms, including
standardized sentencing guidelines to reduce racial and gender disparities, improved healthcare
access in correctional facilities, and expanded rehabilitation opportunities. These
recommendations aim to create a more equitable and effective criminal justice system that aligns
with fairness, justice, and redemption principles, reflecting Christian values of mercy and
restoration.
Keywords: sentencing disparities, recidivism, medical treatment, criminal justice,
reforms, Christian perspective.
2
RESEARCH PAPER
Research Paper: Corrections, Sentencing, Imprisonment, and Death Penalty
The criminal justice system is critical in maintaining public safety and administering
justice. However, significant issues within the system, such as sentencing disparities, inadequate
medical treatment for incarcerated individuals, and high recidivism rates, undermine its
effectiveness and fairness. Sentencing disparities, particularly those affecting racial and ethnic
minorities, reveal inequities in the application of justice. For example, research shows that Latino
defendants are considerably less likely to face charges for death-eligible crimes compared to
White defendants, highlighting systemic biases (Petersen, 2017). Furthermore, inadequate
healthcare services in correctional facilities disproportionately affect vulnerable populations,
leaving inmates without access to essential medical care. High recidivism rates, especially
among those who have served prison sentences instead of receiving probation or rehabilitation,
suggest that the current punitive approach often exacerbates criminal behavior rather than
preventing it. Addressing these interconnected issues requires meaningful policy reforms to
promote fairness, improve healthcare access, and reduce recidivism. This paper examines these
challenges and proposes solutions to create a more equitable and effective justice system.
Issues
Sentencing Disparities
Sentencing disparities, particularly those involving race and gender, continue to challenge
the equity of the criminal justice system. These disparities manifest in various stages of the
justice process, from arrest and prosecution to sentencing and imprisonment, raising questions
about fairness and impartiality.
Gender-based sentencing disparities have been well-documented across multiple
jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, and France. Research indicates that
3
RESEARCH PAPER
women who commit crimes are less likely than men to be arrested, prosecuted, or sentenced to
incarceration. For example, women not only receive shorter sentences but are also more likely to
have their charges reduced or cases dismissed entirely. This trend is often attributed to gender
stereotypes portraying women as less dangerous and more in need of protection compared to
men (Philippe, 2020). Even in cases involving violent crimes, women and men are equally likely
to face imprisonment, but women receive significantly shorter sentences compared to their male
counterparts (Costanzo & Krauss, 2020). These patterns suggest that societal perceptions of
gender roles influence judicial decisions, potentially disadvantaging male defendants who are
viewed as more culpable.
Gender disparities also extend to capital punishment. Women represent a small fraction
of those sentenced to death or residing on death row. Factors such as societal views of women as
less threatening and deserving of leniency contribute to their lower representation in capital
cases. Additionally, women are more likely to enter plea deals or have their charges downgraded
to avoid the death penalty. Consequently, while women comprise 10% of capital defendants,
they account for only 2% of those on death row (Cobb et al., 2024). These disparities
demonstrate the complex interaction of gender norms and judicial practices, revealing a
systematic bias in the treatment of male and female defendants.
Racial disparities are equally pervasive in sentencing, particularly in cases involving the
death penalty. Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately represented on death row,
comprising over half of this population despite accounting for a smaller percentage of the U.S.
population. This overrepresentation highlights the systemic biases within the judicial system, as
prosecutors are more likely to seek the death penalty in cases involving Black defendants,
particularly when the victims are White (Cobb et al., 2024). Moreover, homicides involving
4
RESEARCH PAPER
White victims are significantly more likely to result in capital prosecution and death sentences
compared to those involving victims from minority groups. This suggests that victim race plays a
substantial role in determining the likelihood of a death penalty sentence, perpetuating a
hierarchy of perceived victim value.
Such racial biases extend beyond capital cases. Sentencing outcomes for Black and
Latinx individuals are often harsher compared to White defendants convicted of similar crimes.
For example, factors such as socioeconomic status, perceived threat, and implicit biases
contribute to disproportionately severe penalties for racially marginalized groups (Cobb et al.,
2024). These disparities erode public confidence in the justice system, highlighting the urgent
need for reforms to mitigate the influence of race and ensure equal treatment for all individuals.
Medical Treatment
The provision of adequate medical treatment within correctional facilities is a critical
issue, as prisoners often experience significant barriers to care. While all incarcerated individuals
face challenges in accessing necessary healthcare, women, in particular, encounter unique
difficulties due to their specific health needs. Inadequate medical treatment not only undermines
the human rights of prisoners but also leads to preventable illnesses and deaths.
A significant portion of the incarcerated population suffers from chronic illnesses and
mental health conditions, yet access to adequate medical care remains inconsistent. Many
correctional facilities prioritize cost-saving measures over healthcare delivery, resulting in severe
consequences for inmates. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma require
continuous management and treatment, but prison administrators often fail to ensure timely care.
Studies reveal that over half of inmates with chronic illnesses in local jails have never received a
medical examination during their incarceration (Lamberton & Vaughn, 2022). This neglect can
5
RESEARCH PAPER
lead to severe health complications or even death, as evidenced by cases like Tammy Perez,
whose life-saving medication was withheld, ultimately resulting in her death (Lamberton &
Vaughn, 2022).
In addition to chronic physical conditions, mental health care in corrections is equally
problematic. Prisons house a large number of individuals with severe mental illnesses, yet
whether or not they receive treatment is often at the discretion of prison officials. Mental health
conditions that do not meet the threshold of "seriousness," as defined by correctional standards,
are frequently ignored, leaving many inmates without essential care (Costanzo & Krauss, 2020).
This lack of treatment exacerbates preexisting mental health issues, creating a cycle of neglect
and worsening health outcomes.
Female inmates face even greater barriers to healthcare, as correctional systems often fail
to accommodate their unique health needs. Women in prison are more likely to suffer from
chronic illnesses and reproductive health issues that require specialized attention. However, only
a small fraction of facilities regularly monitor women's chronic health conditions (Lamberton &
Vaughn, 2022). Access to reproductive care, including gynecological exams, prenatal services,
and hormonal treatments, is often limited or entirely absent, leaving many women vulnerable to
untreated illnesses.
Barriers to care are particularly pronounced for women due to systemic challenges.
Female inmates report long waiting lists for medical services, limited access to necessary
medications, and healthcare staff who lack empathy or the necessary skills to address their needs.
Furthermore, the lack of continuity of care, poor health literacy, and inadequate transitional
planning upon release exacerbate health disparities among incarcerated women (Ahmed et al.,
6
RESEARCH PAPER
2016). These barriers not only compromise the physical and mental well-being of female
prisoners but also contribute to fear and distrust of the correctional healthcare system.
Recidivism
Recidivism, or the tendency for individuals to reoffend following their release from
incarceration, poses a significant challenge to the criminal justice system. Research consistently
demonstrates that individuals sentenced to prison are more likely to reoffend compared to those
who receive probation or participate in rehabilitation programs. This disparity raises critical
questions about the effectiveness of incarceration as a deterrent and highlights the need for
alternative sentencing strategies that address the root causes of criminal behavior.
Studies comparing recidivism rates between prison and probation consistently reveal that
incarceration increases the likelihood of reoffending. One influential study, which controlled for
variables such as age, offense type, and criminal history, found that individuals sentenced to
prison were significantly more likely to be rearrested than those who received probation
(Costanzo & Krauss, 2020). For example, property offenders who were incarcerated had a 17%
higher likelihood of reoffending compared to probationers. Drug offenders and violent offenders
also exhibited higher recidivism rates following prison sentences. These findings suggest that
prison time often exacerbates criminal behavior rather than deterring it.
The criminogenic effects of incarceration are further supported by large-scale reviews of
numerous studies. Prison environments often foster antisocial behavior by exposing inmates to
criminal networks and reinforcing negative social dynamics. Additionally, the stigma of a
criminal record and the barriers it creates in securing legal employment contribute to the cycle of
reoffending. Nearly 67% of former inmates are rearrested within a few years of release, with
7
RESEARCH PAPER
over half returning to prison within three years (Costanzo & Krauss, 2020). This data
demonstrates the ineffectiveness of incarceration in preventing future crimes.
The differential effects of incarceration and probation extend across gender lines, with
jail sentences increasing the likelihood of recidivism for both men and women. Research
indicates that men sentenced to jail are 140% more likely to re-offend compared to those placed
on probation, while women face a 117% increase in recidivism odds (Caudy et al., 2018).
Furthermore, individuals who receive jail sentences not only have higher rates of reoffending but
also tend to recidivate more quickly than those sentenced to probation.
These findings highlight the criminogenic nature of jail, particularly for individuals
assessed as high risk for reoffending or those with unmet treatment needs. Jail sentences fail to
address underlying issues such as substance abuse, mental health challenges, and lack of
education or job training, which are critical factors contributing to criminal behavior. Instead,
they often exacerbate these problems, creating a revolving door of incarceration and reoffending.
Recommendations
Sentencing Disparities
Sentencing disparities, particularly those rooted in race and ethnicity, require targeted
policy reforms to ensure a more equitable justice system. Black and Hispanic individuals,
especially males, face disproportionate imprisonment rates and longer sentences than their White
counterparts, as observed in both federal and state jurisdictions (Ulmer et al., 2016). Addressing
these inequities involves restructuring sentencing guidelines, enhancing judicial accountability,
and increasing transparency in legal processes.
A critical policy recommendation is the implementation and enforcement of standardized
sentencing guidelines. Ulmer et al. (2016) suggest that much of the sentencing disparity arises
8
RESEARCH PAPER
from discretionary decisions by judges and prosecutors. Reducing this discretion through clear
and uniform guidelines can mitigate the influence of implicit biases. Federal courts, which
exhibit lengthy sentences for minorities, could particularly benefit from reforms that limit
judicial subjectivity and enforce equitable sentencing practices across all cases.
Collecting and analyzing data on sentencing outcomes by race, ethnicity, and other
demographic factors is essential for identifying patterns of disparity. Establishing independent
review boards to oversee sentencing decisions can enhance accountability. By publishing regular
reports on disparities and their contributing factors, jurisdictions can promote transparency and
drive informed policy changes. This approach is especially relevant for states like Pennsylvania,
where disparities are less mediated by legally prescribed variables (Ulmer et al., 2016). By
implementing these policy recommendations, the justice system can take significant strides
toward eliminating sentencing disparities and ensuring fair treatment for all individuals,
regardless of race or ethnicity.
Medical Treatment
Inadequate medical care within correctional facilities is a pressing concern, particularly
for female inmates who face unique health challenges and barriers. Policy recommendations to
address these deficiencies must prioritize comprehensive health assessments, health literacy
education, and robust support networks to improve health outcomes during incarceration and
post-release.
One of the most critical policy measures is the implementation of comprehensive health
evaluations at both intake and release. These assessments should focus on identifying chronic
conditions, mental health needs, and gender-specific health issues, such as pregnancy and breast
health. Ahmed et al. (2016) highlight the importance of these assessments in bridging gaps in
9
RESEARCH PAPER
knowledge about available healthcare services and basic health principles. Ensuring thorough
evaluations and providing inmates with clear explanations of their health conditions and
treatment options can enhance overall care.
Improving health literacy is essential to empower inmates to take charge of their health.
Policies should mandate the development and dissemination of accessible health materials
written in plain language to ensure comprehension among individuals with varying levels of
education and literacy (Ahmed et al., 2016). Correctional facilities should incorporate health
education programs emphasizing preventive care and the long-term importance of maintaining
physical and mental health. By equipping inmates with this knowledge, they can make informed
decisions about their well-being during and after incarceration.
To sustain improvements in health care, correctional facilities should establish health
support networks that include both professionals and peer mentors. These networks can guide
inmates in navigating complex healthcare systems and provide emotional support during their
incarceration. Furthermore, transitional support programs should be implemented to assist
inmates after release, reducing the risk of recidivism linked to untreated health conditions
(Ahmed et al., 2016). Follow-up visits and check-ins can reinforce the continuity of care and
demonstrate that society values their well-being, which may encourage self-care and
reintegration. By addressing these policy areas, correctional systems can create a more equitable
and effective healthcare framework that not only meets inmates' needs during incarceration but
also prepares them for healthier lives post-release.
Recidivism
Reducing recidivism among individuals sentenced to jail requires evidence-based policies
that emphasize alternatives such as probation or rehabilitation programs. Research shows that
10
RESEARCH PAPER
imprisonment tends to have a criminogenic effect, increasing the likelihood of reoffending,
particularly for property and drug-related crimes (Mears et al., 2012). Addressing this issue
involves tailoring interventions to mitigate the adverse impacts of incarceration and promoting
rehabilitative strategies that are more effective in reducing repeat offenses.
Traditional probation and intensive probation have been shown to be less criminogenic
than jail sentences, making them preferable alternatives for many offenders. Policies should aim
to expand the availability of probationary options, especially for nonviolent offenders. Intensive
probation programs, which include increased supervision and rehabilitative services, offer a
promising middle ground by addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior without the
harmful effects of incarceration (Mears et al., 2012). These programs should be adequately
funded and supported to ensure their efficacy and accessibility.
Jail sentences should be complemented by rehabilitative programming that addresses
substance abuse, mental health needs, and employment readiness. Evidence suggests that
providing offenders with the tools to reintegrate into society reduces the likelihood of
reoffending. For example, drug treatment programs or educational initiatives can significantly
lower recidivism rates by targeting the factors that contribute to criminal behavior (Mears et al.,
2012). By prioritizing probation, intensive supervision, and rehabilitative strategies over-
incarceration, policymakers can create a justice system that promotes long-term desistance rather
than perpetuating cycles of criminality.
Christian World View
From a Christian perspective, the principles of justice, mercy, and redemption should
guide policies related to corrections, sentencing, imprisonment, and the death penalty. Scripture
emphasizes accountability for wrongdoing while also highlighting the value of each individual
11
RESEARCH PAPER
and the potential for transformation. Policies addressing these areas should balance public safety
with opportunities for rehabilitation, reflecting the biblical call to love and restore others (Mark
12:31, ESV).
Christian teachings advocate for fair treatment and impartiality in administering justice.
The issue of sentencing disparities, such as disproportionate incarceration rates for minorities,
undermines this biblical principle. The call for fairness in Micah 6:8 (ESV) aligns with
recommendations to minimize sentencing disparities by standardizing guidelines and reducing
discretionary biases (Ulmer et al., 2016). Incorporating equity in sentencing ensures that all
individuals are treated with dignity and respect.
The Christian faith emphasizes the possibility of redemption for all individuals. Policies
that favor probation and rehabilitation over incarceration align with this perspective.
Imprisonment, particularly for nonviolent offenders, often fosters further criminal behavior,
contradicting the potential for restoration (Mears et al., 2012). Rehabilitation programs and
alternatives to incarceration, such as community-based interventions, reflect Christ’s example of
offering forgiveness and second chances (John 8:11, ESV).
Addressing inadequate medical care for incarcerated individuals also reflects biblical
values. Providing comprehensive health services, especially for marginalized populations such as
female inmates, aligns with Christ’s command to care for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40,
ESV). Implementing policies that enhance access to healthcare and health literacy within prisons
is not only humane but also an act of Christian compassion (Ahmed et al., 2016). Incorporating
Christian principles into correctional policies fosters a justice system that balances accountability
with opportunities for healing and growth. This approach mirrors the biblical call to uphold
justice while extending grace and support to those in need.
12
RESEARCH PAPER
Conclusion
The criminal justice system faces significant challenges that hinder its ability to
administer justice equitably and effectively, particularly regarding sentencing disparities,
inadequate medical treatment for incarcerated individuals, and the issue of recidivism. The
evidence presented in this paper highlights the systemic biases that disproportionately affect
racial and ethnic minorities, as well as the gendered disparities within the justice system.
Furthermore, the failure to provide adequate healthcare to incarcerated individuals, especially
women, exacerbates health disparities and undermines fundamental human rights. Additionally,
the high recidivism rates associated with incarceration, particularly for nonviolent offenders,
suggest that alternative approaches, such as probation and rehabilitation, are more effective in
reducing repeat offenses. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive policy reforms that
promote fairness, improve healthcare access, and prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. By
implementing standardized sentencing guidelines, improved medical care, and rehabilitative
strategies, the criminal justice system can be transformed into one that promotes justice and the
potential for individual redemption. Ultimately, these reforms align with Christian principles of
justice, mercy, and redemption, emphasizing the importance of compassion and fairness in
pursuing a more equitable system.
13
RESEARCH PAPER
References
Ahmed, R., Angel, C., Martel, R., Pyne, D., & Keenan, L. (2016). Access to healthcare services
during incarceration among female inmates.IInternational Journal of Prisoner
Health,12(4), 204-215.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-04-2016-0009
Caudy, M. S., Tillyer, M. S., & Tillyer, R. (2018). Jail versus probation: A gender-specific test of
differential effectiveness and moderators of sanction effects.ICriminal Justice and
Behavior,45(7), 949-968.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818766375
Cobb, T. A., Stinson, J. D., & Sanders, C. L. (2024). Race, sex, and age disparities in death
penalty sentencing: A systematic review.IJournal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice,22(1),
45-65.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2024.2322931
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2020).IForensic and legal psychologyI(4th ed.). Macmillan Higher
Education.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. https://esv.literalword.com/
Lamberton, C., & Vaughn, M. S. (2022). Correctional medical care for female prisoners: Legal
issues surrounding inadequate treatment of chronic and/or preexisting health
conditions.IThe Prison Journal (Philadelphia, Pa.),102(4), 493-
514.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221109824
Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., & Bales, W. D. (2012). Gender differences in the effects of prison
on recidivism.IJournal of Criminal Justice,40(5), 370-
378.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.009
Petersen, N. (2017). Examining the sources of racial bias in potentially capital cases: A case
study of police and prosecutorial discretion.IRace and Justice,7(1), 7-
34.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716645842
14
RESEARCH PAPER
Philippe, A. (2020). Gender disparities in sentencing.IEconomica (London), 87(348), 1037-
1077.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12333
Ulmer, J., Painter-Davis, N., & Tinik, L. (2016). Disproportional imprisonment of black and
hispanic males: Sentencing discretion, processing outcomes, and policy
structures.IJustice Quarterly,33(4), 642-
681.Ihttps://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.958186
15
