The Effect of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Policies on Future Recidivism - Research Paper Example

Thesis: The effect of mandatory minimum sentencing policies on future recidivism. It sought to explain the effects that the minimum sentencing policies that are mandatory are likely to have on the future that is their impact on the convicts going back to committing the same crimes that they committed before the punishments are administered. It has been said that mandatory minimum sentencing punishments and policies are as old as civilization itself. The biblical lex talionis – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – was mandatory, leaving little room for clemency or mitigation of punishment through the prescribed policies. Mandatory minimum penalties were also entrenched in the early Anglo-Saxon law, which prescribed and still does set fines for every conceivable form of harm (Wallace, 1993). In the United States, mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) date back to the 1790 and, since the 1950s, have evoked considerable ambivalence resulting into the recently witnessed recidivism (Andenaes, 1968). In the American federal law today, over 60 statutes contain MMS and their related policies, although only four among them covering drug and weapons offences, are often used with precision and relevance (Wallace, 1993). The federal mandatory minimum sentences created by the congress over 25 years ago impose quite violent punishments to less violent criminals. These laws are a great disservice to the citizens accused of crimes as well as to the judges upon whom their cases are reviewed and determined. In addition, such policies and punishments are unjust to the communities upon which they are imposed who are largely the poor and the black community (Andenaes, 1968). It may be thought that they help reduce the rate at which criminals leave crime wile in the real sense they only increase the prisoners sentences since they demand that these convicts be given a significant number of years in prison as opposed to a lesser sentences or punishments (Wood & Grasmick, 1999). Mandatory minimum sentencing policies are policy guidelines which were meant to deter potentially known violent offenders while at the same time incapacitating the convicted criminals by way of long term incarceration (Wright, 1985). These it conducted together with the three widely discussed three strikes laws. The impacts of these sentences in real facts have been discussed and entail the following:- Arrest rates, indictments, plea bargains, and convictions decline after mandatory sentencing laws and policies go into effect, while early dismissals, early diversions, trial rates, and sentencing delays increase immediately such policies are enacted and starts operating. The net probability that offenders will be imprisoned remains unhampered with after taking into consideration all the necessary factors. For those imprisoned the length of sentence increases as time goes hence these policies is more torturous than expected. Studies of sentencing practices in the Federal courts do not find any compelling evidence that judges are unfairly applying mandatory minimum sentences to racial and ethnic minorities. Despite this fact, African Americans receive longer sentences than whites in the Federal courts, according to one study. This is because they are among the population which constitutes the majority of those convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine, a crime which the Congress decided to punish severely and heavily (Zajonc, 1962). Rationale of the mandatory minimum sentencing policies These policies are basically based on two major goals; that is deterrence and incapacitation. Deterrence exists in terms of the specific number of years that offenders are expected to stay in prison and this basically applies to already sanctioned criminals as regards specific deterrence while general deterrence on the other hand aims to deter prospective offenders (Wood & Grasmick, 1999). In the process of applying the policies and the laws they may successfully increase the imprisonment rate, this results into the growth of the incapacitation rate as well since very few offenders will be free to cause mayhem and victimization to the population at large. The three strikes law on the other hand has the impact of incapacitating in the long run for over 25 years or even for life (Blackman, 1995, November). These policies do not posses any specific deterrent effect for the convicts as they may never end up being released while on the other hand it has a small impact when it comes to the deterrent effect which is substantial. By the congress passing the laws and policies, they in other words pass the message that certain crimes are considered more grave than others and hence the people who commit them deserve harsh punishments and may even expect more harsh sanctions. The laws were as a result of the public outcry which came after serious criminal activity was reported. The high long-term costs of mandatory sentencing are deferred because the difficult funding choices implicit in this policy can be delayed or even avoided (Zajonc, 1962). Several arguments have been advanced in favor of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing policies with respect to recidivism. Its proponents believe that these penalties act as a general or specific deterrent to crimes; they dissuade potential offenders from offending or actual offenders from re-offending. The policies also claim that they help prevent crime by incapacitating or eliminating the criminals from the society, the policies may also serve an educational purpose by communicating a the condemnation of the society towards some given acts while at the same time they reduce the sentencing disparity (Zajonc, 1962). The opponents of the policies argue otherwise by saying that the policies have little or no deterrence or denunciatory impact. They furthermore say that they exhibit rigid penalty structure which limits the rule by the courts hence there is not justice in the judgments presented by the rules and policies (Blackman, 1995, November). In some cases grossly disproportionate sentences have resulted due to the rigidity of the Minimum Mandatory sentencing policies and still the policies can make it extremely hard for the conviction of the defendants most so when the punishments are conceived to be extremely harsh (Wright, 1985). Moreover, there is a concern about the financial consequences of these policies, this is because they may increase the burden on prosecutorial resources and produce substantial increases in prison populations given the duration of their penalties. Finally, Minimum Mandatory Sentencing policies may exacerbate racial/ethnic biases in the justice system if they are applied disproportionately to in the direction of the minority groups (Wood & Grasmick, 1999). This paper is aimed at determining the effect of the minimum mandatory sentencing policies on recidivism that is their impacts on how people behave after they have been punished for committing a crime (Blackman, 1995, November). We are determined to find out whether they go back to the same crimes and if that is the case we should determine the elements and the rate at which this takes place. This will go way ahead in determining the crime preventive benefits of such policies of which we have seen such benefits arising through incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, education and denunciation. It is though insufficient to demonstrate that such policies have a deterrent or denunciation effect even after it is quite clear that there are already existing penalties in the areas where such policies are introduced (Zajonc, 1962). These marginal preventive effects, in turn, can exist only if the policies actually increase the certainty and/or severity of punishment accorded by them. In the event that their perceived severity results in fewer guilty pleas and more cases proceeding to trial, the certainty and severity of their imposition may be diminished relative to sentences imposed previously. In addition, MMS rules and policies do not guarantee that sentence severity will increase, as sentences under a previous sentencing regime may have typically exceeded the minimum penalty introduced in the first instance (Zajonc, 1962). These concerns underscore the necessity of examining the implementation of the policies, as marginal benefits cannot exist if MMS rules and policies are circumvented at the prosecutorial stage or fail to result in more certain and severe punishment. Therefore, issues in relation to the implementation of these policies should be given an upper hand. This will among other things ensure that their impacts after punishments on the convicts if directed towards the positive as opposed to their negative aspects like repeating the same criminal offences after punishment (Wright, 1985). Even in cases where we are able to successfully prove how the policies negative effects of recidivism are applicable, there is normally an extended difficulty on the explanation of how these effects take place (Blackman, 1995, November). It is quite difficult to prove the law distinctively of the factors of deterrence, incapacitation, moral condemnation or a combination of all the factors mentioned since their differentiation is quite hard. Offenders or criminals may reoffend after they return to the community from prison. This re-offense behavior is what is called recidivism. The effect of prison or jail sentences with respect of the policies on recidivism is an important issue to those concerned with public safety and the cost-effectiveness of putting convicted offenders in prison (Wright & Decker, 1994). Opinions are divided between those advocating longer sentences in the interest of public safety, and those advocating shorter sentences with the assumption that incarceration, or longer prison terms, will not reduce recidivism rates. This is because if the offenders of such crimes are not made aware of the harm they caused to themselves they may still return to the society and extend such harm to vast society (Wright, 1985). An example of a minimum mandatory sentence policy on offenders is incarceration. The effect of incarceration on the criminal’s recidivism is an important issue for those dealing and is responsible for the public safety and the cost-effectiveness of incarceration. Viewpoints are though divided between those advocating for longer sentences in the interest of public safety, and those advocating the criminals to be accorded shorter sentences with the assumption that longer incarceration will not reduce, but may increase, recidivism rates in the society hence a detriment (Zajonc, 1962). Those advocating longer sentences generally argue that longer periods of such a policy will reduce crime rates due to three reasons as mentioned below:- The offender cannot and is not able to reoffend against the public while incarcerated/incapacitation; Long periods of incarceration discourage released offenders from committing additional crimes (specific deterrence) as they fear the effects of their experiences in jail. The awareness of penalties discourages potential offenders from committing crimes (general deterrence) most so when the crimes experienced in the term of punishments are harsh. (Wright & Decker, 1994) Those advocating shorter sentences on the other hand will argue that: Certainty of punishment is more important than duration of punishment in deterring offenders from reoffending. They argue that no matter how long one stays behind the bars, if they did not feel the severity of the punishment accorded to them they are likely to repeat the same crime given another opportunity (Greider, 1998, April 16); The also argue that many offenders/criminals commit crimes due to physical addictions, or limited life choices, and are therefore only in need of treatment programs, literacy or awareness efforts and job training as opposed to long periods of being held behind the bars; Prison is a school for criminals, and those who are incarcerated become more sophisticated and more entrenched criminals. This is to mean that prison only hardens criminals and the more they stay behind the bars they become more of criminals and hence more dangerous to the society. This is due to the fact that crime in the society is influenced by many factors among which recidivism rate of the convicted offenders is among the factors. Other factors include demographic changes as well as the changes in the law enforcement policies (Wright & Decker, 1994). The supporters of the policies argue that such punishment reduces the risk of recidivism through causation of emotional responses like fear, anxiety or even guilt and this forces the individual to try as much as they can to avoid future punishments hence discouraged re-offense. In addition, longer sentences make the offenders fear of greater and more costly punishments in case of re-offence. The costs are looked at in terms of lost earnings and the advantages associated with being free. Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986) suggest that the accumulation of punishment, such as arrest and imprisonment, slowly wears down the criminal drive because punishment produces four types of reactions in the offenders or criminals: 1) Increased estimate of the probability of punishment for a new crime; 2) Increased difficulty in coping with and accepting imprisonment, especially as offenders become older; 3) Increased awareness of the weight of previous convictions on the severity of subsequent sentences hence fear; and 4) Increased fear of punishment due to the severity. (Wormith, 1984) Impacts of the policies on recidivism In the last decade; the use of prison to help in curbing of crime most so through minimum mandatory sentencing policies have rapidly increased a fact that is attributed to the efficiency and the effectiveness of the court systems (Wright, 1991). The mandatory minimum sentencing policies have gained a widespread popularity in the United States a phenomenon which to a greater extent poses a limitation on the judicial discretion when it comes to issuing sentence. The rationale behind the policies lies behind the theory that in order to minimize the impacts of the future recidivism, the length of time taken in prison matters a lot (Wright & Decker, 1994). This fact is derived from three major schools of thought; one of the thoughts argue that prisons have the tendency of suppressing crime and the behaviour in the individuals who may wish to engage in such activities. The prison life is not an easy or enjoyable kind of life resulting into negative social stigma fro policies such as that of incarceration hence prevents the possibility of the occurrence of crime most so after these punishments under the policies are administered. This is derived from the simple deterrence theory which presents an idea that when an individual experiences a severe sanction in the past they are likely to reduce the prevalence of their criminal activity in the future (Wright, 1985). This school of thought has received a lot of support from the economists frontiers arguing that the theory imposes a great deal of costs which are both direct and indirect to the convicts of crime resulting into loss of income and hence stigmatization (Greider, 1998, April 16). Thus, faced with the possibility of going back to prison after having gone through a prison situation would rather go the safe way of choosing not to be in any criminal activity. Another cost that a previous inmate would not wish to go through is the psychological cost doing time given the dehumanizing, and degrading experience of the prison (Wormith, 1984). The school of crime on the other hand opposes the second school by presenting an argument that prisons are the source of increase of crime and criminal behaviour most so in the recent past. The nature of the prisons that is barren, inhumane and psychologically destructive has the impact of making the offenders commit the same offences in the future even after the punishments are administered (Vito & Allen, 1981). This school of thought is widespread and has received a widespread support of most scholars in the field of academia suggesting that prisons are the breeding grounds for crime. They state that any inmate who has served quite a longer time in prison and hence even becoming more imprisoned in the process is more strengthened towards criminal behaviour and such a person is more likely to recidivate than another inmate who has served a lesser imprisonment term (Greider, 1998, April 16). Many policymakers and academicians widely hold including some politicians and some elements of the public. The culture provides a reinforcement of the fact that prisons are mechanistic and brutal only increasing the intense in which an individual will commit crime (Wright & Decker, 1994). The third theory which is that of the minimalist argues that prisons do not have any affect whatsoever on the offenders’ behaviour in the future and incase there is any impact then it is minimal. This reference is reinforced by quite a variety of frameworks contributing to the general perspective. There is a criterion that must be followed to ensure that punishments are maximally effective among which dictates that punishment stimuli must be immediate, quite intense and predictable (Wright, 1991). The delivery of such punishments must also be in a position to serve as a signal that reinforcement is never available for the already punished response. It is though wise to it is essentially impossible to meet the criteria for this policy in the real world where the criminals live except when they can be applied in virtual environments. The concept terms prison as psychological freezers to mean that the prisoners go to the prisons with preformed antisocial attitudes and acts which are not subject to any changes even if the criminals are subjected to the minimum mandatory sentencing policies (Song & Lieb, 1993). The application of the punishments to the lower risk offenders vastly affect them most so if there is a greater length of incarceration given that the lower risk individuals are exposed to higher risk environs composed to already hardcore peers (Wright, 1985). Depending on the length of time served in prison or whether an offender is subjected to punishment in the jails or punishment at home, increased recidivism is recorded. Studies also showed that theory number three was not quite effective given that the lower risk offenders were not vastly affected by the prison experience (Wormith, 1984). Therefore it is wise to not that prisons are not the best to use when the state expects to reduce criminal behaviour. The state should also note that as opposed to the outcome expected out of the policies they can only be quite costly (Wright, 1991). Hence, in order to determine who is adversely affected by prison, the prison officers will be required to repeatedly perform in a comprehensive manner the judgment of the supposed criminals’ attitudes, values and their behaviour while undergoing the punishments under the policies. The findings of the studies also indicated that as opposed to the exertion of retribution, prisons are only meant to incapacitate the higher risk offenders for a reasonable duration after which they should be released so that they are able to continue with their daily lives as always (Vito & Allen, 1981). Most societies have reverted to the enacting sanctions in their efforts to control criminal behaviour through the use of prison sentences and this practice is rampant in the US through the application of mandatory minimum sentences (Turner & Petersilia, 1992). These forms of sentences or policies are designed policies and prescriptions to help in making punishments fit the crimes committed. The net impact of these policies is that they limit judicial discretion where the weight of the individual circumstances is considered. Three strikes and out as minimum mandatory minimum policies have been applied to a large extent in California where the state provides a minimum of 25 years in prison if found guilty of felony which does not give distinction between any types of felonies (Wormith, 1984). The minimum mandatory sentences can be quite harsh given that they do not take into account of the degree of the crime committed. To illustrate how harsh mandatory sentences can be, consider one Greg Taylor (Bellisle, 1999), whose first two crimes were stealing $10.00 and a bus pass, then robbing a man on the street. Fourteen years later, he was caught attempting to break into a church to steal food (his third strike) (Song & Lieb, 1993). He received a sentence of 25 years to life. Even first strike sentences can be tough as evidenced by the case of a Ms. Renée Bojé who has no criminal record. Currently living in Vancouver, she is facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for watering a marijuana plant on a balcony in California should she return to the U.S. (Anderssen, 1999). The sentences under the minimum mandatory sentence policies have the positive attribute of positively teaching the offenders how punishment can be severe and certain hence the teaching that crime is only a cost that does not pay anything at all. In the other way, the policies under the acts are based on the assumptions that some of the prison terms are effective in deterrence of the offenders (Vito & Allen, 1981). Before we go on with our explanation of what the impact of the policies on recidivism, we have to make a clarification of what is meant by punishment (Wright, 1991). This is necessitated by the confusion arising between the word deterrence and punishment, our preference is to use the behavioral definition of “punishment”: the suppression of behaviour by response-dependent events a definition which is purely functional. This means that it defies the odds of common sense of the definition of the word punishment given that this are based on the gut level and moral philosophical grounds (Turner & Petersilia, 1992). Conclusion Maximum mandatory sentence policies have an impact on recidivism depending on the theory used among the three categories discussed above. This is because these three schools of thought make different predictions about the effect of the policies on recidivism. These include the fact that the policies as punishments reduces recidivism impact that may only be moderated by either individual factors or situational factors where lower risk criminals may be more readily deterred as compared to the highly risky criminals. The second school on the other hand argues that the policies increase recidivism for all the criminals. While minimalists on the other hand present the idea that the effects of the policies or punishments on recidivism are minimal at best (Greider, 1998, April 16). Works Cited Andenaes, J. (1968). Does punishment deter crime? Criminal Law Quarterly Blackman, D. (1995, November). Punishment: An experimental and theoretical analysis. In J. McGuire & B. Rowson (Eds.), Does punishment work? Proceedings of a conference held at Westminster Central Hall, London, UK. Greider, W. (1998), April 16). Mandatory minimums: A national disgrace. Rolling Stone Song, L., & Lieb, R. (1993). Recidivism: The effect of incarceration and length of time served. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 34-61. Vito, G. F., & Allen, H. E. (1981). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 70‑76. Wood, P., & Grasmick, H. (1999). Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Quarterly, 16, 19-50. Wormith, J. S. (1984). Attitude and behavior change of correctional clientele: A three year follow-up. Criminology, 22, 595-618. Wright, K. N. (1985). Developing the prison environment inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 259-278. Wright, K. N. (1991). A study of individual, environmental, and interactive effects in explaining adjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly, 8, 217-241. Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars in the job: Street life and residential break-ins. Boston, MA: University of Chicago Press. Zajonc, R. B. (1962). A note on group judgments and group size. Human Relations, 15, 177-180. Read More