According to James Gilligan, a criminologist from Harvard University, imprisoning nonviolent individuals leads to their transformation into violent individuals. This occurs because the American prison system houses both nonviolent offenders and dangerous criminals together. Regardless of viewpoint, prisons create an environment that harms the overall well-being of their residents.
Among all nations worldwide, the United States has the highest incarceration rate. This leads to overcrowded prisons and inadequate sleeping conditions for prisoners, which range from sleeping on floors or in tents to being crowded into converted broom closets and gymnasiums. Additionally, some inmates are forced to share double or triple bunk beds in cells that were originally intended for single occupancy. It is essential to analyze the factors contributing to this situation.
The U.S. Judicial System has adopted the notion that imprisonment is the primary means of punishment, but its current framework is severely deficient. This system falls short by depriving individuals of their possessions and privacy, subjecting them to continual violence, confining them in cramped cells, and stripping away any sense of meaning from their existence. Although this approach may be effective in penalizing violent criminals, it is unsuitable for nonviolent offenders.
According to Carson, nearly 70% of the current prison population consists of people who have been convicted for nonviolent offenses. Additionally, the United States spends approximately $100 million annually on building new correctional facilities. This places an unfair burden on taxpayers and supports an ineffective correctional system. The use of taxpayer money to imprison nonviolent criminals ultimately leads to increased resentment, hostility, and a higher probability of repeat offenses. Therefore, I firmly propose exploring alternative approaches like rehabilitation and restitution as better alternatives to incarceration.
Nonviolent criminals should be punished differently than violent inmates because their experience of being confined with violent offenders does not benefit them. Drug offenders, for example, are more of a public health issue rather than a public safety concern, and nonviolent offenders can receive effective education. Unfortunately, we fail to provide opportunities for convicts to develop empathy or take responsibility for their actions and practical means for them to make amends to their victims. It is unjust to place nonviolent offenders in environments like prisons that are populated by violent murderers and rapists. According to Lozoff’s research, approximately 240,000 incidents of brutal rape occur within our prison systems every year.
The majority of the victims are young, nonviolent male inmates, many of whom are teenaged first offenders. They experience unimaginable trauma and are primarily nonviolent criminals who cannot or do not wish to defend themselves. Consequently, numerous individuals become violent upon their release from prison, which serves as a harrowing demonstration of how incarceration impacts nonviolent individuals negatively. To illustrate this point further, contemplate the instance of a young man arrested for joining a peaceful march that escalated into violence due to some hooligans throwing objects at the police.
As a result of his moral convictions, he was arrested and sent to prison in lieu of paying a fine. While serving his two-day sentence, he experienced the distressing ordeal of being sexually assaulted by several aggressive inmates. This cruel and degrading assault occurred over two decades ago, and despite undergoing extensive therapy, he has not fully recuperated mentally (Lozoff).
The decision made by the prison superintendent to assign him to a risky cellblock, aiming to both intimidate and educate him, still has a significant impact on his life. His ability to function properly in society is compromised, as he continues to suffer from mental and physical consequences that hinder his normal lifestyle. It becomes evident that this method of incarcerating non-violent individuals yields unsatisfactory outcomes.
According to the NYSCC, prisons do not deter criminals but instead incapacitate them and render them unsuitable for other roles. The criminal justice system unjustly incarcerates non-violent offenders for extended periods without offering opportunities for successful rehabilitation or meaningful family interaction.
In my opinion, it is crucial to implement preventive programs, rehabilitation, and restitution alongside the punishment of nonviolent offenders. The primary goal of sentencing is to appropriately penalize individuals for their actions that have harmed society while also offering them treatment to aid in their reintegration as productive community members. Treatment may include educational or vocational training, as well as therapy, serving as a means to rehabilitate convicted criminals and promote their positive contributions to society.
Community control programs provide alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. These programs, which include probation, house arrest with electronic monitoring, community service, hallway house, and substance abuse treatment when necessary, involve scheduled supervision and restrictions on daily activities. Offenders are also required to complete community work hours, participate in work programs, and receive rehabilitative services from outside agencies. These intermediate sentences aim to divert individuals from entering prison while still imposing strict supervision and rehabilitation.
By using intermediate sentences, the prison system can effectively save expensive prison cells for violent offenders, ensuring that their punishment matches the seriousness of their crimes. However, this approach also results in a rise in overcrowding in our country’s prisons when nonviolent drug addicts, who are not affected by the violence present in such environments, are imprisoned. It is important to recognize that substance abuse should mainly be seen as a public health issue rather than solely from a criminal justice perspective. Interestingly, data shows that ninety-one percent of federal drug convicts and individuals convicted of violent felonies have been given prison sentences.
According to Weber, the average population of violent and nonviolent prisoners in U.S. Federal Prisons is balanced. If drug offenders were removed, there would be ample space to accommodate dangerous criminals. This would eliminate the need for constructing new prisons, resulting in an annual saving of $5 billion.
By investing in rehabilitation centers and community revitalization programs, it may be feasible to completely eradicate drug dealers by reducing their number of customers. According to a study conducted in 1997 by RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center, treating drug abuse is the most efficient method. The study discovered that treatment leads to a fifteenfold decline in serious crimes, surpassing the effectiveness of imprisonment (Legal Aid).
According to research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug treatment programs have proven effective in reducing rates of drug abuse and criminal activity among participants, while also improving their employability (Legal Aid). Furthermore, education can serve as a viable alternative to incarceration.
During the “Rise of Progressives” in the early 1900s, I strongly support a justice system that prioritizes individual treatment. In present-day America, there is a rising number of low-income families and increasing poverty rates. This often leads individuals to be influenced by their upbringing and environment, making them vulnerable victims. Although some resort to crime for survival, it is crucial to acknowledge that criminal behavior should never be condoned. Instead, nonviolent offenders should understand that punishment aims to facilitate reformation.
Restitution programs serve as an alternative to imprisonment, aiming to prevent offenders from going to prison and providing a means for them to compensate their victims. These programs require offenders’ participation in work programs, with a portion of their earnings given to the victim until full repayment is made. The court determines the amount owed by the offender, which holds them accountable and acts as a deterrent. In contrast to jail or prison, which some offenders view as places for basic necessities and entertainment, restitution directly affects the offender’s finances, imposing financial responsibility that must be repaid through hard work.
I find the idea of a burglar being required to return stolen items and pay for any damage caused to be a suitable form of punishment. Restitution restores personal responsibility and decreases the chances of reoffending. Through demanding monetary repayment, restitution eliminates the financial motivation behind criminal behavior (Carson).
The prevailing belief is that a successful strategy to lower crime rates involves a higher number of arrests and incarcerations in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, if the judiciary can accurately differentiate between violent and nonviolent offenses, then there would be sufficient capacity in prisons to ensure lifelong confinement for individuals similar to Jeffery Dahmer. Introducing alternative measures for nonviolent criminals would ease the financial burden on taxpayers by reducing the necessity for additional funding towards constructing new correctional facilities.
As a College Student, I firmly support the allocation of increased State funding for the education system rather than the current millions of dollars directed towards Pennsylvania’s prison system. Prisons do not effectively serve as spaces for rehabilitating nonviolent offenders and do not contribute to their personal growth and successful reintegration into society. I strongly believe that community control programs, rehabilitation programs, and restitution programs provide superior alternatives for sentencing nonviolent offenders.
