Facilitator:
Arguments raised against the efficiency of the Truth-In-Sentencing (TIS) in reducing crimes are essentially relevant. It is apparent that the procedure is costly, and it often fails to realize constructive results. Besides, the significance of TIS concept in reducing crimes should not be disapproved under simple grounds. Evaluating the actual implication of this concept is essential. It is common knowledge that every approach has its strengths and weakness. In this context, the paper promotes a position that besides the TIS weaknesses, the strategy is essentially effective in reducing crimes.
Initially, it is indisputable that TIS is an effective policy that acts as a deterrent to crime since culprits are aware that they ought to serve most of the resulting verdict in jail if they are convicted. Accordingly, the policy is effective in reducing crimes because individuals desist from committing crimes in fear of serving long sentences. This could not have been the case in the absence of TIS procedures where criminals could easily be released posing a possibility of recurrent crimes (Tonry & Hatlestad, 1997).
Furthermore, TIS procedures provide a strategic approach of protecting the rights of the public and the victims. For example, these laws ensure that perpetrators are held in captivity for a long period (Tonry & Hatlestad, 1997). This means that TIS offers a practical approach of isolating harmful criminals from the society hence reducing the possibility of the occurrence of crimes. For example, it is apparent that victims of serious crimes such as sexual assault are likely to get stunned after realizing that their victimizer is back in their community (Crime Victims United, 2013).
Studies have also confirmed that TIS policy is effective in reducing crimes. For example, a study investigating crimes statistics in Arizona indicated that the strategy reduced the number of reported crimes by 17.7% after the state adopted the TIS policy in 1994 (Arizona Sentencing Report, 2011). Lastly, dismissing TIS on the position that the strategy is costly is misinformed because crime control is a challenging practice that society should be willing to fund, as the consequences of the crimes may be entirely detrimental.
References
Arizona Sentencing Report (2011). “Prisoners in Arizona” Retrieved from http://azsentencing.org/
Crime Victims United (2013). “Truth in Sentencing” Retrieved from http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/issues/truthinsentencing.htm
Tonry, M., & Hatlestad, K. (1997). Sentencing Reform in Overcrowded Times: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
