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.)