FREE ESSAY ON PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS

PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately
501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has
jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the
continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning
in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and
represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized
nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given
that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might
assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by
the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies. 
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of
courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to
crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements
today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range
of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the
cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more,
the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies
that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment
for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a
more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our eyes
and blindly carry out sentencing which is neither fair, nor warranted, given the
circumstances. 
I would like to address two primary areas in punishing offenders that I believe need
attention, Mandatory Minimums and Three Strikes Policies. Our lawmakers must take on
these misguided policies, which have thus far been inefficient and ineffective. They must
do this in order to curb our rising prison populations and return us to a level playing
field of fair punishment for all persons regardless of race, sex, or ethnic background. 
The mandatory minimum sentencing policies that now exist in every state have been used
disproportionately for drug offenders, who now constitute one of every four inmates
nationally. Because of the severe and rigid sentencing scheme mandated by the drug laws,
low-level drug offenders face years in prison. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, of the total population of drug offenders in custody, the average maximum
sentence for first time felony offenders convicted of drug related charges range between
87.6 months for Class B felonies to 42.4 months for a Class E felony. These statistics
also reveal that one in five of the drug offenders incarcerated had no prior felony
convictions. Nearly two-thirds of these drug offenders also were never convicted of a
violent felony in the past. 
What we are dealing with here is non-violent, first time offenders and judges have no
choice in most states but to incarcerate them for lengthy periods of time which only
places more pressure on our prison systems. As I stated earlier, I have a down the middle
approach to punishment, not too hard or not too soft. Stiff prison sentences can be
appropriate for addressing violent crimes and protecting our communities. But such
sentences are misguided and destructive when it comes to these types of nonviolent drug
offenders. Also, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons they cost the American
taxpayer approximately $20,747 per inmate per year. Another bi-product of mandatory
sentencing is a disparate impact on non-white offenders. The United States Sentencing
Commission and Federal Judicial Center have found that among offenders who engaged in
conduct warranting mandatory minimums, white offenders were less likely than blacks or
Hispanics to receive the mandatory minimum term. I believe there are better alternatives
to this policy that can more effectively express our values and accomplish our goals
without increasing our prison populations and disparaging minorities.
Another sentencing policy that is having a major impact on punishment and its fairness
are the so called "3 Strikes Laws" that many states have enacted. These laws impose a
mandatory life sentence without parole on offenders convicted of certain crimes.
Supporters of these laws claim that they will have a deterrent effect on violent crime.
Actually, if you think about violent crimes and the way they are committed, most are not
premeditated! Therefore removing the argument that criminals would think twice about
committing the crime for fear of ending up in prison for the rest of their life. The
point is, they don't take the time to think about the crime they're committing in the
first place, let alone what the consequences will be. 
These laws could actually lead to an increase in violence. Criminals could be more likely
to resist arrest if they realize that they would be going down for the last time. Imagine
if you're a police officer arresting a twice-convicted felon for his third felony
offense. He would have nothing to lose by using any means necessary to escape. 
Here is the best hypothetical situation I can come up with to illustrate how unfair these
laws can be. "An 18-year old high school senior living in Washington State pushes a
classmate down to steal his $150 Michael Jordan sneakers -Strike One. He gets out of jail
and shoplifts a jacket from the Wal-Mart, pushing aside the clerk as he runs out of the
store - Strike Two; then he gets out of jail, goes straight, and moves to Hawaii. While
there, he goes on to college at Hawaii Pacific University and gets his Bachelors degree
in Justice Administration. Nine years later he moves back home and gets into a bar fight
when someone insults his wife, and intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose.
Criminal behavior to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century,
yet it is Strike Three. Under this states "Strike 3" laws, he is sent to prison for the
rest of his life, end of story. The sad part to this story is that it is very real in
principle and happens every day in our court systems across the United States. In my
opinion this punishment is a miscarriage of justice and tears against the very fabric of
beliefs this nation was founded upon. The bottom line is that these laws directly
contradict the principle expressed in the Eighth Amendment known as "proportionality". It
states in part "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". In other words, under our system of criminal
justice, the punishment must fit the crime.
Once a defendant is adjudicated or found guilty the most trying facet of a judge's job
can be the sentencing or punishment phase. No other person can have so much
responsibility and power in determining how society will treat its transgressors. Most
judges are either elected or appointed to their positions because of our supposed
confidence in their impartial views when it comes to dispensing justice. However, the
trend in the past few years has been for legislatures to minimize the discretion given to
judges at sentencing, partly in an attempt to treat similar defendants more similarly and
to avoid the effect of rogue judges. These policies have effectively taken some of the
important discretion away from the very people who are supposed to be the most intimately
involved in our due process. Legislators are too far removed from this process to be
mandating broad strokes of punishment without considering each and every case on its
merits. If we want to improve our criminal justice system and develop a long-term
strategy for addressing the overcrowding in our prisons, then both "3 Strikes Laws" and
Mandatory Minimums must be changed.