Introduction
In the 1970s, there was a dramatic increase in violent crime rates across the nation. In response, policymakers and lawmakers began to crack down on crime. The “get tough on crime” paradigmatic shift of the criminal justice system has had far-reaching effects. Laws were passed that reflected a zero tolerance policy for certain offenses, carrying with it mandatory prison time. With more crimes eligible for imprisonment, more and more people are incarcerated in. The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world (Johnson and Johnson, 2012, p. 43). The numbers are staggering. From 1977-2010, the federal and state prison populations grew from 300,000 to in excess of 1.5 million (Klingele, 2013, p. 1016). Prison overcrowding has become a major problem in America.
Overcrowded prisons create a host of issues for the criminal justice system to address. The preeminent goal of incarceration is to ensure public safety. This works in tandem with the goal of general deterrence. The theory is that the possibility of harsh punishment, such as imprisonment, deters persons from committing crimes. Criminals are incarcerated so they are deterred from committing further acts. Dangerous and violent criminals are imprisoned so they no longer pose a threat to society. Even nonviolent criminals are imprisoned pursuant to various policy choices, such as drug users, possessors, and distributors. When lawmakers and policymakers took the stance in the 1970s that the legal system would get treat crime aggressively, they did not envision the full ramifications or sweeping impact that widespread incarceration would have.
Alternatives to Imprisonment
It is a huge financial strain on the state to incarcerate mass amounts of inmates in prison. As funding dwindles, states must find alternative methods of incarceration. What makes imprisonment so expensive is the institutional aspect of it. The prisoner is no longer a functioning, contributing member of society when incarcerated. The state assumes the responsibility for all the prisoner’s expenses. Because incarceration is the most costly form of corrections, many policymakers have implanted alternative programs to incarceration.
One far less expensive option is probation, or community supervision. Instead of incarceration, when a person is on probation, the individual remains at home and in the community at large. Probation is an attractive option for certain nonviolent offenders that pose little risk of harm. A person on probation is allowed to continue working and participating in community activities. Because the state does not assume custody of a person in the case of probation, probation programs are a fraction of the cost of incarceration. Offenders in probation programs continue living at home and can earn money from their employment. The state does not have to step in and tend to the expenses of offenders on probation because these offenders have the ability to support themselves financially.
The most appealing aspect of probation is its huge cost-savings to the state taxpayers. As a result, many states have implemented probation and community supervision programs in lieu of incarceration for certain qualifying offenders. There are relatively minimal expenses related to probation programs and far less state involvement than incarceration. Proponents of probation also argue that it is far more rehabilitative than incarceration and that offenders in probation programs are less likely to reoffend that offenders who are incarcerated (Phelps, 2013, p. 5). Thus, probation is a more effective method of reducing recidivism than traditional imprisonment.
Not all offenders are candidates for probation-type programs. It would be hard to argue that a violent murderer should remain in the community instead of imprisonment. However, long prison sentences are large contributors to the overarching problem of prison overcrowding. As more prisoners receive longer and longer sentences, many inmates are entering the prison, but even fewer are leaving. Adding to the problem of lengthy sentences is Three Strikes legislation, which has been enacted in many states. The effect of Three Strikes laws doles out automatic life sentences to offenders that have “struck out” under the system. California has one of the most aggressive Three Strikes regimes, on top of one of the highest incarceration rates in the nation.
One way to reduce prison overcrowding due to harsh and prolonged sentences is to implement some sort of early release program. At least one state has experienced success through implementation of such a regime. Washington has a system where prisoners can qualify for early for good behavior and participation in certain approved programs (O’Hear, 2015, p. 18). The program allows prisoners to reduce their sentence by a maximum of one-third when a prisoner has accumulated “earned release time” or ERT (O’Hear, 2015, p. 18). Certain offenders, such those who have committed serious felonies, are only eligible to reduce their sentence by a maximum of ten percent (O’Hear, 2015, p. 18).
Conclusion
As prison overcrowding is steadily on the rise, policymakers and law enforcement must work together to find a feasible long-term solution. Crime will not magically disappear overnight, so new and innovative methods of handling offenders must be utilized. Since incarceration is so costly, it should be reserved for the most deserving and high-risk criminals. The two system-wide solutions to address the prison population dilemma are the more frequent use of probation/community supervision programs and the increased usage of similar programs to Washington’s early release program. Community supervision keeps the offender almost entirely out of the corrections system altogether. The low level of correctional supervision makes probation programs the most cost-friendly choice. If incarceration is necessary, however, early release programs offer attractive options for both prisoners and policymakers. References
Brown v. Plata, 134 S. Ct. 1 (2011).
Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. A. (2012). Bail: Reforming policies to address overcrowded jails,
the impact of race on detention, and community revival in Harris County, Texas.
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 7(1): 43-85.
Klingele, C. (2013). Rethinking the use of community supervision. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 103(4): 1016-1065.
O’Hear, M. M. (2015). Let the good time roll: Early release for good behavior in prison.
Wisconsin Lawyer, 17-20.
Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass
incarceration. Law Policy, 35(102): 51-80.
