Prison is Not the Only Answer: How to Help Solve the Economic Crisis

Introduction
A lot of people have different views on whether or not prison sentences are effective in both deterring future nonviolent crimes and helping a convicted offender realize and atone for his or her mistakes. Some might say that prison isn’t always effective because if the sentence is too long or short, then this might cause the prisoner to repeat offenses. Others say that the prisoners get what they deserve and shouldn’t be given a second chance. Meanwhile, millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent to keep these offenders behind bars. With that said, a question arises: are there alternatives to a prison sentence that are beneficial to helping these nonviolent offenders “go down the straight and narrow” while also lowering the overall crime rate and federal spending on the prison system in the United States?

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a nonviolent crime is defined as “property, drug, and public order offenses which do not involve a threat of harm or an actual attack upon a victim. Typically, the most frequently identified nonviolent crimes involve drug trafficking, drug possession, burglary, and larceny.” (Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons)

Under the belief that a prison sentence doesn’t work for everybody, if there are alternative punishments that can be applied to convicted individuals of nonviolent crimes, and if those punishments prove to be more effective in deterring future offenses, then society has the responsibility of applying these alternative punishments.

A substantial amount of supporting information must be analyzed in order to further strengthen this argument. This research paper is intended to use supporting evidence to support its thesis.

What Society Thinks of Prison Sentences and Nonviolent Offenders
When people think of nonviolent crime, they most likely think of a crime that does not involve the harming of either one’s self or another. A survey conducted in 2001 shows what the society considers to be nonviolent, as well as which nonviolent crimes deserve a prison sentence. Property crimes (vandalism, trespassing, etc.) are most associated with nonviolent offenses, followed by white collar crimes such as embezzlement. Other crimes were the possession and selling of drugs and traffic violations. Additionally, when the participants were asked whether nonviolent offenders were punished enough, more than half said no, and about 40 percent felt that prison wasn’t harsh enough on criminals (Over-incarceration Survey, pp.3-4). It sounds normal enough, but there were discrepancies found in the survey, the first being what society felt that prison sentences were intended to do for offenders.

While most might think that society smiles upon the traditional prison sentence, there is room for argument. According to the survey mentioned before, 25 percent of the participants felt that prison did an adequate job of rehabilitating prisoners, while 40 percent felt that prison sentences did a poor job of rehabilitating prisoners. Additionally, only about a quarter of the people who took the survey felt that prison sentences were meant to punish, while a staggering forty percent felt that prison was intended to rehabilitate offenders (Over-incarceration Survey, pp. 4). How can it be possible for people to accept the prison sentence as a means of rehabilitation while at the same time they don’t feel confident in its intended purpose? Also, if prison is meant to rehabilitate offenders, how harsh can prison actually be? Prison seems more like a means of atonement for criminals rather than a method of rehabilitation, and with such a large number of offenders in prison, people need to start thinking of the long-term effects that prison has on both the government and taxpayers.

Number of Prisoners in the United States and How it Affects Taxpayers
The amount of prisoners in the United States has increased with the passage of time. According to a Washington Post news article written by Nurith Aizenman, there are roughly two million individuals in prison in the United States alone, making the country hold the highest number of prisoners in the world (Washington Post, 2008, 1). The crimes committed may vary, ranging anywhere from stealing to drug trafficking, to more serious offenses such as murder.

The problem with sending all offenders to prison is that not all of the crimes committed necessitate a prison sentence. Additionally, some prison sentences that are administered by the courts are deemed too harsh because the terms are too long, although there are instances where the offender is allowed to receive some form of help, such as drug rehabilitation or mental health help in order to lower the term of their prison sentence (Theodore N. Ferdinand and M. Joan McDermott, 2002, pp. 6).

While it may seem fitting to send all offenders, both violent and nonviolent, to prison for extended periods of time, the reality that many fail to see is that the cost of having just one person remain in prison is outstanding. Some might even be shocked to hear that some states such as Maryland and Virginia are spending almost as much on corrections as they are on the education system. Other states are spending equal amounts of money or more on their prison systems. According to Nurith Aizenman’s article, “…Maryland is near the top, spending 74 cents on corrections for every dollar it spends on higher education. Virginia spends 60 cents on the dollar. Despite reaching its latest milestone, the nation’s incarcerated population has been growing more slowly since 2000 than it did during the 1990s…” (Washington Post, 2008, 1). While the article didn’t include how much every state in the country is spending on prison systems compared to educational systems, these numbers are outstanding. It’s startling to think that taxpayers’ dollars are being almost equally spent on prisons and schools. That money can be used on more important things such as education or new ways to pull society out of the economy crisis.

So what can be done to both save taxpayers money and effectively/efficiently punish offenders? For starters, lessening the term of prison sentences based on the severity of the crime could save funds. However, some may argue that lessening the prison sentences might not effectively teach the offender a lesson, and could even induce further offenses. This is where alternative punishment comes into play.

In her article, “What’s the Alternative?” Anne-Marie Cusac discusses a program that Milwaukee, Wisconsin has been using as an alternative to sending offenders to prison. This program offers inmates drug rehabilitation, counseling, and even a job if they manage to pass the program. The yearly cost of holding one prisoner in Milwaukee was $22,629, as opposed to a mere $1,610 a year for the rehabilitative program (Ann-Marie Cusac, pp. 1). Imagine that every prisoner in the United States costs the same as in Milwaukee:

Prisoners: Approx. 2,000,000
x Annual Cost of One Prisoner: $22,629
TOTAL: $45,258,000,000

Say, hypothetically, that the number of nonviolent offenders allowed to partake in this type of program is about 40 percent of the total number of prisoners in the country (roughly 800,000):
Prisoners in Rehab Program 800,000
x Annual Cost of Program $1,610
TOTAL: $1,288,000,000

The numbers speak for themselves. If there were 800,000 prisoners eligible to participate in the program, society would save a little over 40 billion dollars, which in turn could be used towards either more effective alternative punishments for offenders, or even education as Anne-Marie Cusac mentioned.

The state of Virginia is also trying a new method on its prisoners to save the state money. The program, which will be discussed further later in this paper, has actually proven useful in saving the state money and has received the approval of both judges and probation officers (Kleiman, Ostrom, and Kauder, pp.1). It can already be seen by these two examples that some states are realizing the true cost of simply sentencing all offenders to prison, which brings up another point: the effectiveness of prison.

Does Prison Always Work?
This argument is one that can be debated until the end of time. As mentioned in the introduction, there may never be an agreement on whether or not prison works. Prison can be effective in deterring future crimes, but it can also cause more harm than good. Some might argue that offenders get what they deserve, but according to Braswell and Whitehead’s research, some criminals don’t even need to be in prison, as citizens of the United States felt that the crimes committed were nonviolent and petty (Seeking the Truth, pp. 55).

Additionally, Braswell and Whitehead also showed that only about twenty-seven percent of offenders in 1992 were sent to prison for committing a violent crime (Seeking the Truth, pp. 55). This is rather startling, especially since most of the nonviolent crimes that were committed were drug-related.
Keeping these statistics in mind, the question society needs to be asking itself is, does prison always work? Again, a debate will undoubtedly arise almost every time such a question is brought up. However, advocates for the inclusion of alternative punishment argue that putting all offenders behind bars is not what all offenders really need. For instance, Theodore N. Ferdinand and M. Joan McDermott discuss a case in their essay regarding a young mother who had offered to take care of six children, on top of three of her own. The woman chose to leave all of the children at home while she went out to a local bar, and when she returned, her house was on fire and she’d lost seven of the nine children. The authors then write,

“When she learned of the disaster, the young woman was overwrought and called plaintively for her own children who, along with five others, had died. Was she a dangerous woman who deserved severe punishment for her reckless crime? Was she overwhelmed by life’s demands and psychologically unable to assume even the simplest duties of a parent? Though Camillia Foulks’s case poses a dramatic example, it was not unlike many, many others that come through the courts, some presenting defendants who deserve harsh punishments, whereas others obviously need help and guidance. The solution is often presented as involving either punishment or treatment, but that is a false dichotomy; most need both.” (pp. 87-88).

The point Ferdinand and McDermott are trying to make is that there are some people who commit crimes in which they don’t necessarily mean to commit. Yes, the woman probably was aware of the risks, but that doesn’t mean she needs to be given a harsh prison sentence. The deaths of her own children could be considered punishment enough to some peoples’ standards. Additionally, simply sending her to prison without giving her a chance to seek help is just plain wrong, because like Ferdinand and McDermott said, the woman may have been under an enormous amount of stress, which could’ve caused her to make the mistake.

Unfair Sentences Imposed on Minors
Another example can be taken from Bryan A. Stevenson’s essay, Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14- Year Olds to Die in Prison. This essay discusses the seemingly unfair sentencing standards of some states in the U.S. on juveniles. Some states actually allow these adolescents to be sent to prison. Stevenson writes, “Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life history. Some of the children were charged with crimes that do not involve homicide or even injury; many were convicted for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily responsible for the crime…” (Cruel and Unusual, pp. 1). Because of some of inability of some states to impose lesser sentences/alternative punishments on minors, many young offenders, both of violent and nonviolent crimes, are often sentenced to life in prison for their crimes. In some instances, trying juveniles as adults may seem fitting, but a fine line must be drawn, especially since adolescents at that age are not necessarily able to make good judgment calls all of the time. According to Stevenson’s essay, scientists have shown that many of these thirteen- and fourteen- year old children have been shown to lack the ability to control their impulses. Additionally, these teenagers were more likely to give in to peer pressure and be influenced by older teens/adults (Stevenson, pp. 7). Can the evidence be any clearer? With the use of counseling and/or mental rehabilitation, these teenagers can be given the chance to learn from their mistakes while getting better. Life sentences will not always allow teens to realize what they’ve done wrong. In fact, some adolescent offenders were also shown to have suffered from some form of mental illness, but again, because some states are unable to change their harsh punishments, these offenders will not be given the chance to receive an alternative form of punishment. Something must be done to stop this from occurring.

Types of Alternative Punishment
As mentioned before, Virginia has implemented a “risk-assessment” program into its judicial system. This in-depth program allows judges to decide whether or not a nonviolent offender should either be sent to prison or receive an alternative punishment, or sometimes both. There are several factors involved, including employment status, previous criminal records, the severity of the offense, and whether or not others were involved in the crime (Kleiman, Ostrom, and Kauder, pp. 3). If an offender is found eligible to receive an alternative punishment, it is at the discretion of the judge, meaning the offender isn’t given a choice in what type of alternative punishment he or she receives. These punishments can range from house arrest to boot camp, and sometimes even weekly visits to a local correctional facility (Kleiman, Ostrom, and Kauder, pp. 5). However, this risk assessment program is only currently practiced in Virginia for the time being. Still, there are other types of alternative punishments, such as counseling and rehabilitation, drug treatment programs, and employment programs like the one mentioned earlier in this document. These punishments are a liberalist’s dream since they promote the conditioning and well-being of those who have done wrong. Surely as society moves forward in the new millennium there will be new and innovative alternative punishments that will be used to further help both the offender(s) and society itself.

Why Alternative Punishment Should be Practiced Throughout the Country
Some might be skeptical about the use of alternative punishment as opposed to the traditional prison sentence, but there are some valid reasons as to why alternative punishment should be used. For instance, studies have shown that offenders who have been sent to drug treatment programs have reduced both the nonviolent and violent crime rat in the United States. Additionally, these programs have shown to reduce recidivism and make the transition from prison back into society easier for offenders (Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety, pp. 2). If society wants these offenders to get the help they need so that they may return to their families and get their lives back, it only seems sensible to implement this type of alternative punishment into the criminal justice system.

Mike Huebsch, an Assembly Speaker from West Salem in Massachusetts, is a firm believer in the use of alternative punishment when it is an option for offenders. Huebsch said during an interview that he believes that the safety of the public comes first, which means changes must be made in the criminal justice system in order to ensure that nonviolent offenders don’t continue to commit crimes once they are released from prison. Huebsch also said that each offender must have his or her case looked at more carefully in order to determine whether or not an alternative punishment can be applied, and what kind of alternative punishment would be suitable for that particular offender (Crime/Alternative Punishment, Interview). In other words, society has to shift forward and revise its current criminal justice system in order to ensure that the crime rate continues to decrease, as well as the number of incarcerated individuals. It is important to note that not all prisoners in the United States are eligible to receive some form of alternative punishment. Obviously those who have committed violent crimes shouldn’t be considered since they’re too much of a risk to society, but what about those who are eligible? If the use of alternative punishment deters future crimes and promotes the well-being of an offender while also saving the government billions of dollars, then there can be no doubt that it is essential to the growth of the United States.

Conclusion
All of the information presented in this document eventually leads back to the same argument: if alternative punishment works, then society has the responsibility of applying such punishments to the criminal justice system. It would be nice if the crimes committed in the United States weren’t as high as they are, but the sad truth is that the number of those who are incarcerated and recidivism of similar offenses will continue to occur if nothing is changed. Like all changes that are made in a society, it will take time to push forward with alternative punishments, but should society choose to walk this path, then it will be worth the wait.

Works Cited

Aizenman, N. C. (2008, February 29). New High In U.S. Prison Numbers. Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Braswell, M. C., & Whitehead, J. T. (1999). Seeking the Truth: An Alternative to Conservative and Liberal Thinking in Criminology. Sage Publications, 24, 1-15. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from Sage database.

Cusac, Anne-Marie. “What’s the Alternative?” The Progressive 10 July, 2001.

Ferdinand, T. N., & McDermott, M. J. (2002). Joining Punishment and Treatment in Substantive Equality. Sage Publications, 13, 1-31. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from Sage database.

Kleiman, M., Ostrom, B. J., & Kauder, N. B. (2004). Risk Assessment: A New Approach to Sentencing Non-Violent Offenders. Caseload Highlights, 10, 1-11. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from Sage database.

Mike Huebsch — Crime/Alternative Punishment. (2008, October 2). Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://video.wkbt.com/watch.php?id=3772

Over-incarceration Survey. (2001, January 22). Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/overincarceration_survey.pdf

Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons. (2004, October 2). Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/pnoesp.txt

Stevenson, B. A. (2007). Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14- Year Olds to Die in Prison . Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative.

Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety. (2008, January 6). Retrieved November 9, 2008, from
www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf

Advertisement