e The ideal way to address the aggressive sentencing that is taking place with
minorities is to prevent the crimes in the first place.[1] As the old adage goes, an
ounce of prevention, beats a pound of cure. This approach is both biblically and
practically sound, as it seeks to address the root of the problem and not just the
result of the problem. However, in order to do so, one must look at the root
problems and all the connections that they have with one another.
e e e e e e e e e e Chief issues in most impoverished inner cities are the lack of jobs, poor
education systems, and a need for better police-community relations.[2] When
good paying jobs are not available, young people will look to anywhere and any
means to make money. This is often a reality when schools lack the ability to
teach to and train students for jobs in trades. The viable industries that are losing
people, are not gaining them because of poor education systems. The last
component requires that police-sponsored outreach programs be brought back to
endangered communities. Instead of having a constant police state where
everyone is a criminal, present opportunities for youth to grow and be better and
they will do better.
e e e e e e e e e e The aforementioned problems are resolved by putting things into place
that prevent crimes from happening and sentencings from being a necessity.
However, the question posed was how to address over-sentencing or the over
criminalization of minor offenses? First, there is a need to reduce or eliminate
bonds for first-time minor offenders. Second, create genuine rehabilitative
programs that teach life skills, provide job opportunities, and the ability to
complete education, if needed. The third thing created initiative in communities
through churches and other civic organizations that give would-be and first-time
offenders an opportunity to make amends.[3]
e e e e e e e e e e Have these things considered when and if an individual happens to
commit a minor crime. If the individual was part of an initiative and happens to
commit a crime to help support their family, have their earlier efforts taken into
consideration. If the individual has the promise of a job or job training, in the
place of jail sentence with the stipulation of any future offenses would constitute
instant jail time, there could be a drop in the allure of the criminal life.[4] Again,
the ultimate goal would be to eliminate the grounds for crimes, but in any effort
changing the way that the problem is currently addressed is just as helpful.
Bibliography
Lilley, David R. "Did Drug Courts Lead to Increased Arrest and Punishment of
Minor Drug e Offenses?"
Justice Quarterly
34, no. 4 (2017): 674-698.
Lilley, David R., Megan C. Stewart, and Kasey Tucker-Gail. "Drug Courts and Net-
Widening in U.S. Cities: A Reanalysis using Propensity Score e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
Matching."
Criminal Justice Policy Review
31, no. 2 (2020): 287-308.
Phelps, Michelle S. "Ending Mass Probation: Sentencing, Supervision, and
Revocation."
The Future of Children
28, no. 1 (2018): 125-146.
Tonry, Michael. "Sentencing in America, 1975–2025."
Crime and Justice
(Chicago,
Ill.) 42, no. 1 (2013): 141-198.
[1] Michelle S. Phelps, Ending Mass Probation: Sentencing, Supervision, and
Revocation."
The Future of Children
28, no. 1 (2018): 125.
[2] Michael Tonry, "Sentencing in America, 1975–2025."
Crime and Justice
(Chicago, Ill.) 42, no. 1 (2013): 175.
[3] David R. Lilley, Megan C. Stewart, and Kasey Tucker-Gail. "Drug Courts and Net-
Widening in U.S. Cities: A Reanalysis using Propensity Score Matching."
Criminal
Justice Policy Review
31, no. 2 (2020): 298.
[4] David R. Lilley, "Did Drug Courts Lead to Increased Arrest and Punishment of
Minor Drug Offenses?"
Justice Quarterly
34, no. 4 (2017): 679-680.
