1) For low-risk offenders who pose minimal threat to public safety, there should be some sort of middle ground between imposing no punishment and imprisonment. Incarcerating all nonviolent offenders for minor crimes and offenses is simply not sustainable policy. The use of intermediate sanctions has gained popularity among the states as prison overcrowding continues to rise. Intermediate sanctions provide for great flexibility in tailoring the sanction to either be more lenient or severe based on the particular crime. All fifty states offer the intermediate sanction of house arrest as an alternative to prison (Tonry, 1997, p. 10).
2) The three strikes legislation is in need of major reform. California has one of the highest prison populations and, appropriately, one of the harshest three-strikes legislative regimes. Under the California three strikes laws, if a defendant accumulates three felony convictions, this automatically triggers a minimum 25 year prison sentence (Ricciardulli, 2002, p. 2). While the first two felonies must be “violent” or aggravated” the third strike, which results in 25-life imprisonment, is triggered by any felony at all (Ricciardulli, 2002, p. 2) By overhauling the current three strikes laws, either eliminating it entirely or ensuring that the third strike is only prompted by an aggravated or serious felony offense, this would greatly reduce prison populations.
3) Another means to reduce prison population is to increase the use of work-release or pre-release programs. The program would permit certain offenders to serve the remainder of their sentence either in mainstream society or in a supervised facility. Offenders would be able to work in the community, earn a living, and become self-sufficient. The benefits of a work-release program are two-fold. First, it gives offenders a purpose in life and gives them a sense of self-respect and pride. Second, it allows them the opportunity to develop needed job skills to be able to reintegrate back into society once their sentence has been served.
4) Many offenders are serving time in prison because of alcohol and drug abuse problems. Instead of locking these people up, the system should focus on getting them the treatment they need to recover and become functioning, productive members of society. An untreated offender, once released, will simply revert back to old habits and will end up imprisoned again. To address this problem, there should be more treatment options and care available to offenders both in prison and after their release. Studies show that offenders who receive drug treatment in prison have a more successful transition process from prison to the outside world (Leukefeld, et al, 2009, p. 24).
5) Truth in sentencing laws require offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence (Shepherd, 2002, p. 509). The practical significance of truth in sentencing laws is that inmates are not eligible for early release or probation. These laws result in offenders serving long sentences, contributing to prison overcrowding. More than half of the states have truth in sentencing laws. One way to reduce prison population is to lessen the harsh effects of truth in sentencing law. A 50 year old inmate who is required to serve 85 percent of a 50-year sentence will most likely be in prison for the rest of his life. By lessening the burden of truth in sentencing laws or reducing the amount of time offenders must serve, this would work to decrease prison population.
6) The prison industry is a booming business. To meet the growing demands of prison populations and inmates, the government has contracted out the construction and services of prisons to many private corporations. It is no secret that the economic vitality of the private prison industry depends on steadily rising incarceration rates and rigorous sentencing laws to keep offenders in prison for a longer time (Anderson, 2009, p. 127). What is more troublesome is that private prison corporations contribute substantial amounts to lawmakers in order to pass laws which impose harsher sentences (Anderson, 2009, p. 128). The goals of private prisons, which is to maximize income and increase inmate populations, is in contrast with what should be the overarching goals of the criminal justice system.
7) One of the reasons that many released inmates recidivate is simply due to lack of education or vocational skills. Prisons should offer enhanced educational and vocational opportunities for inmates. Inmates cannot reasonably be expected to succeed in society without any education or job training. Inmates who receive education or job training will, in the long run, fare much better than those who do not.
8) One successful way to reduce crime, and in turn, reduce inmate population, is through the implementation of community policing. This model of policing focuses on police cooperation with the members of the community to engage in problem solving and crime prevention (Docobo, 2005, p. 1). This style of policing encourages a partnership between the community and police rather than an “us against them” mentality. Community policing has witnessed effective reduction in crime rates in areas both small and large. The city of Chicago has implemented a community policing strategy and seen positive results (Heymann, 2000, p. 422). The Chicago CAPS program was organized to better facilitate community policing through sustained police involvement in the affected communities, including face-to-face meetings with residents and through the creation of advisory committees which identified key issues and recommended solutions (Heymann, 2000, p. 425-426). The overall effect of community policing was a noticeable reduction in crime rates. Crime prevention can successfully reduce prison populations.
9) A key policy to reduce prison population should focus on reducing drug abuse and alcohol abuse among teenagers. Since the “War on Drugs” began in the 1990s, policymakers and lawmakers have tried to eliminate drug use and demonstrate the adverse consequences of such action (Baradaran, 2015, p. 251). There is a definite link between teenage crime and violence and drug or alcohol abuse. Thus, stronger policies should focus on preventing drug and alcohol abuse among teenagers.
10) A number of states have moved to legal marijuana. Although some argue that marijuana is a gateway drug, most of society has come to tacitly accept that the side-effects of marijuana are not all that deleterious. Marijuana, however, remains an illegal substance at the federal level. On a nationwide level, marijuana should be legalized because it will remove the many pot users and smokers from potential criminal liability. It is a waste of the government’s time, resources, and energy to prosecute and sentence these low-level “drug offenders” to prison, or even to bring them into the criminal justice system and file a criminal case against them. In the interest of reducing prison populations to only the most violent and habitual offenders, marijuana should be legalized so these individuals do not get mixed in with hardened criminals in the criminal justice process.
Too Much Judicial Discretion
Judges are given wide discretion in carrying out their judicial functions. There is very little accountability for judges. Most judges are not directly accountable to the citizenry, unlike the Legislative or Executive branches, respectively. A Congressman must be elected and receive the voting approval of the people of the district in which he or she seeks to represent. The President is elected through the popular vote and the Electoral College acting on behalf of popular consensus. And if the Congressman or the President acts against the wishes of the people, the political process permits the people to vote this individual out of office and replace him or her with a new elected representative.
But judges, unlike Congress or the President, are not normally elected by the people. Instead, an incumbent political actor appoints judges. A judge, therefore, is entirely insulated from the political process. Federal judges are given life tenure and cannot be removed for any reason except “good cause.” The idea behind life tenure was to ensure the independence of the judiciary from various political pressures. Thus, even if a judge renders wildly unpopular decisions, a judge cannot be removed from the bench for issuing a decision that contravenes popular opinion.
A further element that adds to judicial discretion is the concept of immunity. The notion of immunity denotes that government officials should not be civilly liable for acts performed in the scope of their official government functions and duties (Shaman, 1990, p. 1). Immunity is meant to give these officials a safety net so that they can perform their jobs vigorously and will not be deterred by a potential civil lawsuit from aggrieved citizens (Shaman, 1990, p. 1). Most government officials are given qualified immunity, which permits civil liability only if the official had the requisite knowledge that their conduct was illegal (Shaman, 1990, p. 1).
But judges receive absolute immunity in their official capacity (Shaman, 1990, pp. 1-2). What this means is that even if a judge acted maliciously or for purely improper reasons, the judge could not be held civilly liable because of absolute immunity (Shaman, 1990, p. 2). There are only a few cases which reject the doctrine of absolute immunity for judges and allow a suit to proceed. In Pulliam v. Allen, the Supreme Court held a federal judge civilly accountable for denying a plaintiff constitutional rights (Zaluda, 1985, p. 525). The overwhelming majority of courts, however, find that absolute immunity bars any civil suit against judges acting in their official capacities.
During the sentencing phase, judges traditionally have a wide latitude of discretion. A judge can consider the aggravating or mitigating factors of the case and decide an appropriate sentence. The three strikes law under California, however, poses as problematic for judicial discretion. While judges are given discretion to see to it that justice is served, judges often fail to exercise this discretion in an appropriate manner. For instance, in People v. Taylor, the defendant already has two ”strikes” and amassed his third when he tried to break into a church to steal food (Riccairdulli, 2002, p. 24). Under the three strikes law, since this was the defendant’s third strike, the defendant was eligible for 25-life in prison (Riccairdulli, 2002, p. 24). The defendant was homeless, and had no violent prior convictions (Riccairdulli, 2002, p. 24). The judge, however, refused to exercise discretion to dismiss a “strike” and sentenced the defendant to the maximum of 25-life in prison (Riccairdulli, 2002, p. 24).
Cyber Crime
In the digital age of today, computers are ubiquitous. The Internet makes it possible to connect with billions of users all over the world. A wealth of information can be shared instantaneously through the use of computers and the Internet. But with progress comes the natural consequences. The vast amounts of information transmitted through the Internet has given birth to wide range of cybercrimes. The speed and efficacy of the Internet enables criminals to operate with unprecedented ease (Fedorek, 2004, p. 10). The costs of cybercrime are astronomical. In 1992, Forbes estimated that cyber crime cost $500 million to $5 billion in damages (Fedorek, 2004, p. 10). These costs are so high because government, businesses, and individuals all rely on computers and the information stored on computers to carry out daily-functions and operations (Bagdasarova, 2015, p. 1031).
In a traditional crime, the crime takes place in a physical location. It is usually quite obvious where the crime took place because there is a crime scene or a victim. Geographical boundaries traditionally determined jurisdiction of a crime. But computers pose an entirely new problem for law enforcement and prosecutors. A cyber criminal could commit a crime on the other side of the world that affects millions of paper. Because the Internet is simply one big open space and is not defined based on geographical borders or boundaries, it is international in scope (Bagdasarova, 2015, pp. 1012-1013).
Cybercrime is a unique crime that is difficult for law enforcement to combat. The instantaneous nature of cyber-communications and the transmission of information is ideal hunting grounds for cyber criminals to intercept this information and exploit it. Because the Internet provides users with the capabilities of transcending international borders, investigating and prosecuting those responsible for cyber crimes is an especially problematic task. Traditional geographic national have no bearing on cyber crime. Effectively combating cybercrime will require international cooperation in the exchange of information and properly identifying cyber criminals. It is likely in the near future that nations will join forces and enter into some kind of international treaty to work together in order to fight against cyber crime and prevent the enormous losses that flow from these crimes.
References
Anderson, L. (2009). Kicking the national habit: The legal and policy arguments for
abolishing private prison contracts. Public Contract Law Journal, 113-135.
Bagdasarova, S. (2015). Brave new world: Challenges in international cybersecurity
strategy and the need for centralized governance. Penn State Law Review, 1005-
1032.
Baradaran, S. (2015). Drugs and violence. Southern California Law Review, 227-306.
Docobo, J. (2005). Community policing as the primary prevention strategy for homeland
security at the local law enforcement level. Homeland Security Affairs 1(1): 1-12.
Fedorek, T. (2004). Computers + connectivity = new opportunities for criminals and
dilemmas for investigators. New York State Bar Journal, 10-17.
Heymann, P. B. (2000). The new policing. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(2): 407-456.
Leukefeld, et al. (2009). Drug abuse treatment beyond prison walls. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 24-30.
Ricciardulli, A. (2002). The broken safety valve: Judicial discretion’s failure to
ameliorate punishment under California’s three strikes law. Duquesne Law
Review, 1-66.
Shaman, J.M. (1990). Judicial immunity from civil and criminal liability. San Diego Law
Review, 1-28.
Shepherd, J.M. (2002). Police, prosecutors, criminals, and determinate sentencing: The
truth about truth-in-sentencing laws. Journal of Law & Economics, 509-525.
Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. U.S. Department of
Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165043.pdf
Zaluda, J.A. (1985). Pulliam v. Allen: harmonizing judicial accountability for civil rights
abuses with judicial immunity. American University Law Review, 523-556.
