i 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.
i i i i i i i i i i 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.
i i i i i i i i i i 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]
i i i i i i i i i i 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 i 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 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 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.
