Alternative Sentencing

So I’ve been going on and on about the causes of prison overcrowding, but what are some things we can do to actually fix these overcrowding problems? Well, Alternative Sentencing is one idea that many have put forward as a method to help curb the burgeoning prison population.

The American Bar Association has found that many criminal justice professionals question the necessity of locking up people for so long if they are just going to go back to prison. This has led to thoughts about alternatives to incarceration, since it is clearly not rehabilitating offenders. The ABA has come up with several policy suggestions, the first being that if an offender has not committed a very serious offense or does not pose a risk to public safety, that the offender “should be eligible for community placement, and for community-based treatment programs, diversion, and deferred adjudication.” (2009).

We should also take a look at what various states have been doing over the past few years to reform their prisons and see what is and isn’t working. For example: Minnesota wrote a law that “Permitted early release from prison for persons convicted of a crime as the result of an addiction” (King, 2007). King draws up some recommendations based on what is working in various states: expanded use of drug treatment as a sentencing option, expanding options to reduce probation and parole revocations, reconsider policies regarding time served in prison, repeal mandatory minimum sentencing, reconsider life and long-term sentences, and to review state sentencing and corrections policies (2007).

Drug Courts have just recently begun to become popular and there is research to suggest that they are indeed effective (Eckley 2006). This has the added benefit of helping court congestion as well, with the amount of drug offenders being prosecuted; it shouldn’t come as a surprise that specially created courts such as Drug Court would benefit many cities. Eckley states that a 30 month study done at a drug court in Portland, Oregon indicated significant savings to taxpayers, although he also cautioned that these results might not be typical in every city. Eckley cites that those “drug courts with effective court-supervised treatment programs work is confirmed by research studies showing graduates of drug court programs succeed, but terminated participants fail.” Essentially, this means that for the drug court to be effective, those in drug court must complete the full course, and if they do, that it is very effective.

Hoelter has some suggestions for pushing forward with Alternative sentencing. Hoelter describes the need for a development of political will, that politicians need to be strong in resolve that “rehabilitation of offenders is acceptable and worthwhile and can be achieved through well-funded, evidence-based programs in the community” (2009). Hoelter does admit that this is easier said than done, but combats this with the fact that prisons are more than likely only increasing our crime problems by sending a 19 year old petty drug dealer to prison for 5 years and then releasing him at 24 with no job skills, a barrier to employment, and no other training. How do we expect these people to get off the path of criminality when we put it in those terms? It’s a little ludicrous, especially given the current job climate. The last thing anyone needs is more barriers to employment right now. Admittedly, they did commit a crime, but won’t five years in prison only exacerbate the problem by ensuring this young man becomes a life long criminal?

Another suggestion of Hoelters is to promote free speech among correctional leadership. According to Hoelter, at various criminal justice conferences, correctional administrators will argue that “police must divert more minor offenders, drug treatment programs must take more clients, mentally ill offenders should go to psychiatric facilities, medically fragile inmates should be released, and noncitizen inmates should serve their time in their own countries.” The problem is that they won’t tell congress this, because it’s not what they want to hear. We need to stop having our correctional administrators be glorified yes men and start allowing them to assert themselves in defining the problem of overpopulation in the prisons and how to solve it.

Hoelter brings up another startling fact, at least in regards to the Federal Courts and Prisons: “Currently, many U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, federal probation officers, and even federal judges have a limited, and in many instances anecdotal, knowledge of alternatives to incarceration”. Hoelter argues that we need to educate our courtroom workers and advocate for alternatives to incarceration and how to apply them. To go along with that, Hoelter stresses that “more research is needed that evaluates whether alternatives to incarceration, such as community service, can be effective in meeting the goals of sentencing.” This would help judge’s confidence that they were not coming off as soft on crime if the appropriate alternative to incarceration was shown to be effective in reducing recidivism.

Ultimately, there are a lot of options out there for alternative sentencing and we need to look at how effective each is as an alternative to incarceration. We need to drastically expand our experiments with alternative incarceration if we want to cut down the prison population in any meaningful way, and that will take a shift in mentality as well as a shift in policy.

Anonymous, . American Bar Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions. (2009). Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(1), 62-76. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1979102831).

Changing Direction?:State Sentencing Reforms 2004-2006 (Feb. 2007)
Ryan King. Federal Sentencing Reporter. New York:Apr 2007. Vol. 19, Iss. 4, p. 253 (8 pp.)

Timothy S Eckley. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade. Judicature, 90(1), 43-44. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1129352811).

Sentencing Alternatives--Back to the Future
Herbert J Hoelter. Federal Sentencing Reporter. New York:Oct 2009. Vol. 22, Iss. 1, p. 53-58 (6 pp.)

Mandatory Minimums, Truth in Sentencing, and Three Strikes Laws

I’ve talked briefly about the above sentencing laws previously, but I’d like to take a more in depth look now and really spell out why these laws are so harmful to the prison system and ultimately doing more harm than good.

First there is mandatory minimum sentencing, which was tried before and repealed due to poor efficiency. The Boggs act was established in the 1950s, which created two-to-five year minimum sentences for first time drug offenses, including simple possession (Gill, 2008). This later increased even more by the Daniel Act to no effect other than to lock up these offenders for even longer sentences. These were later repealed in 1970 (PBS). Congress had concluded that the mandatory minimums that were imposed had done nothing to curb drug use and furthermore the laws were unduly harsh. Unfortunately, this only lasted 16 years, before mandatory drug law sentencing would return under President Reagan.

These mandatory minimum sentencing laws are out of control. One need only look at the previous 100-1 disparity in crack and cocaine sentencing. Until very recently, a person found with 5 grams of crack would get the same mandatory jail time as someone found with 500 grams of powdered cocaine. This was recently changed to an 18-1 ratio, under a bill passed by the senate and championed by Dick Durbin, a Senator from Illinois (Abrams, 2010). Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying “There is no law enforcement or sentencing rational for the current disparity between crack and cocaine powder offenses, and I have strongly supported eliminating it to ensure our sentencing laws are tough, predictable and fair.” This marks the first time since 1970 that any mandatory minimum has been repealed.

Truth-In-Sentencing laws are another problem. These laws often require inmates serve the vast majority of their prison time in prison, making them ineligible for parole or able to reduce their sentence with good behavior. Trachtenberg suggests that these laws have put prison wardens in a tough predicament, stating: “By abolishing parole and good-behavior credits, states have created nightmares for prison wardens, who no longer have carrots to offer prisoners in exchange for civilized conduct. In addition, prisoners who do behave well and cease to threaten the community cannot rejoin society, meaning taxpayers fund needless incarceration.” (2009). This seems to be a running theme with these types of laws, that they take away flexibility from the system and in doing so weaken the ability of administrators or judges to use discretion. This is not a positive step, rather a step backwards.

Think of all the bone headed zero tolerance policies that schools come up with, suspending kids for bringing aspirin to school because it is technically a drug. Intention is never considered with these types of laws; it is a blanket move in an attempt to deter the crime. However, when we take discretion out of the process, all we end up with is inequality, with offenders serving nearly all of their jail time who would otherwise be paroled. We are currently sending the message that we do not trust our judges to make decisions. That they are not fit to determine how much time someone should serve if they commit a certain offense.

Three Strikes laws are another similar problem to the previous two, with the idea being that after someone commits three felonies, they can be jailed for life. They do not need to be violent felonies to get locked up for their entire life. Take the case that went to the Supreme Court as an example: Ewing v. California, where Gary Ewing’s life sentence was upheld after he stole a total of $1200 worth of Golf Clubs. He was sentenced to life in prison for stealing a rather minor sum of $1200 and we will be paying far more than that yearly to keep him imprisoned. Again we see the same broad approach to tackling crime that we saw with truth in sentencing or mandatory minimums. We as a society can’t afford to go on like this, we need to get back to punishment fitting the crime.

Looking at all these different laws intended to increase the amount of time offenders serve in prison, we seem to be taking the approach that locking up anyone who commits a crime for longer is better for society. We are sending the message that when you commit a crime, America is giving up on you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

Trachtenberg, B.. (2009). INCARCERATION POLICY STRIKES OUT. ABA Journal, 95(2), 66. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1642950271).

Abrams, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/durbin-cocaine-bill-passe_n_525625.html