|
Tough Crime, Tougher Sentence
by Michelle Calderon, staff writer for AnaiRhoads.org
Over the past 25 years, the rate of incarceration in the United States has dramatically increased. "The U.S. prison population nearly tripled from 330,000 in 1980 to over one million in 1995" (Neubauer, 2001, p. 121). Much of this increase occurred since the mid-1980s, when the introduction of sentencing reforms such as mandatory minimum sentences, determinate sentencing, and "truth in sentencing" increased penalties for specific crimes. These reforms were adopted because of a growing public perception that offenders were treated too leniently. Tougher and longer sentences were implemented in the hopes of not only keeping dangerous people off the streets, but also to deter further occurrences of criminal behaviors.
However, data show that public opinion may be based on incomplete or misleading information. One example is that of homicide. Now, homicide can include various types of crimes that range from a vehicular DUI manslaughter to pre-meditated murder. Obviously not all equate the severity of what one may conclude from such statistics. “You might see in a newspaper report that the average prison sentence for homicide is seven years”, which sounds very low to an average citizen (Neubauer, 2001, p. 121). But, how many of those were actually pre-meditated murders? Another misconception would be the amount of prison time served for various crimes actually differing significantly from time actually served by most prisoners. Many experts contend, that a more accurate picture of time served is reflected by looking at both the sentences served by released prisoners, who tend to serve less time, and sentences of offenders still in prison. These data in fact, show the system is not as lenient as is commonly perceived. “Survey data from prisoners and corrections officials also show that prisoners serve more time than commonly believed” (Sabol, 1999).
Although tougher sentencing has had some success in getting more violent offenders off the streets, it has also led to a far greater increase in the number of offenders incarcerated for drug offenses and to an increase in the number incarcerated for property and other nonviolent offenses. The overwhelming result show an imbalance of proportionality between prisoners incarcerated for drug and property offenses versus the proportion locked up for violent acts. Putting drug offenders in prison might help reduce violent crime if the offenders incarcerated were "drug kingpins." However, the characteristics of drug offenders in prison do not fit that image. Most incarcerated drug offenders are not violent offenders. In fact, "85 percent of drug offenders have no history of prior incarceration for violent crimes. One third are incarcerated for possession, use, or miscellaneous drug crimes. 40 percent of federal drug offenders have no current or prior violence on their records. More than half (53 percent) committed a crime that involved neither harm nor threat of harm to a victim. The 200 percent increase in incarceration of violent offenders has been accompanied by an estimated 9 percent reduction in violent offenses." (Sabol, 1999).
In addition, the substantial increase in the number of imprisoned drug offenders, has had little or no effect on drug dealing or use. Instead, increasing the length of sentences for drug offenders is costing an additional $1.5 billion a year nationwide. Mandatory sentencing has also led to greater racial disparity in treatment by the justice system. African Americans are drawing longer prison sentences than whites. Sentencing reforms have also led to more blacks than whites going to prison following arrest. Black men now have a “28 percent lifetime chance of incarceration, compared to the 7 percent chance for white men” (Sabol, 1999). The result is that sentencing reforms have had a far greater disruptive impact on black communities.
While the intent of the cause is justified, the effect of tougher sentencing is questionable. Perhaps an alternative would be the path to take. "Increasingly, judges are turning to tightly supervised placement in drug treatment programs as an alternative to incarceration. There are those who feel that “alternatives to prison are likely to be more effective if they are developed strategically, in conjunction with economic opportunities." (Neubauer, 2001, p. 121).
References:
Neubauer, D. (2001). Debating Crime: Rhetoric and Reality. (121).
Sabol, W. (1999). Crime Control and Common Sense Assumptions Underlying the
Expansion of the Prison Population. Retrieved October 7, 2005, from:
http://www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID=7491
Back
|
