Utility and Consequences of Mass Incarceration - Essay Example

?The Utility and Consequences of Mass Incarceration The Utility and Consequences of Mass Incarceration Some verdicts in many cases in American courts indicate that the pledge to ensure liberty and justice for all can never be a reality in American society (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Over the last three decades, the cases of imprisonment in American prisons have increased more than five times. Many people have been incarcerated with no convincing reasons. Currently, 2.3 million people in United States are in prisons (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Another 5 million people face drastic limitations on their liberty through probation and parole. In total, 7.4 million Americans are under supervision of the American criminal justice system. This makes 2% of the American population which is the highest rate of incarceration in the world (Lynch and Sabol 2000). This high incarceration level has raised questions among all the members of the American society. Some people have complained about the racial disparity observed in imprisonments while others have questioned its effectiveness in combating crime (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Even with these questions, the state of imprisonment in America has not changed and consequently many scholars have been attracted to find out its implications. Many have had interests with the theories that have been put in place about the ability of the incarceration to reduce crime rates in America. There are numerous theories that have emerged in the field of criminology. Labeling theory is one of the theories in this respect. The theory focuses on the role of social processes and government agencies in deviance and crime creation. Labeling theories are referred to as social reaction theories due to their focus on the reaction to crime (Lynch and Sabol 2000). It is part of the criminological theory of sanctions that examines the emotional response to label. The theory considers three major actors which are informal social others, institutions and those who want amendments of law to outlaw some behaviors (Lynch and Sabol 2000). The informal others are people close to the offenders such as partners, parents, friends and people who sympathize with the offenders. The institutions involved are the criminal justice systems that ensure that crimes are prevented and justice served. All these actors have reactions which attach a signature or a name to someone or their behavior. The two hypotheses involved in the theory are the status characteristics hypothesis and secondary deviance hypothesis (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Status characteristic hypothesis states that labels are imposed in part due to the status of those labeled and those doing the labeling. The deviance hypothesis on the other hand, argues that deviant labels cause problems that require the person being labeled to adapt to and may lead to greater deviance and involvement in crime (Lynch and Sabol 2000). The terms used to classify and describe people influence their behavior and self identity. The majority in the society may label minorities and this may make them behave in the ways acceptable by standard cultural norms. This theory involves examination of exact causes of crimes and deviance by examining possibilities of biological, psychological and sociological factors. The reaction to crimes is the center of the theory but not the causes of crimes as many could expect. The theory categorically states that there is no particular behavior which has anything deviant about it but the external forces make people acquire deviant traits. Labels imposed to people make them to develop a mechanism to cope with the labels (Steiker 2011). The mechanisms which are mostly developed are towards more involvement in crime and deviant acts. The sanctions designed against the actions of the offender rather than the offender himself/herself help to bring the offender back to the society and are likely to reduce crime. On the other hand, those sanctions which stigmatize the offenders make them feel rejected in the society and consequently get involved in crimes as a self fulfilling prophesies (Lynch and Sabol 2000). This theory shows that as long as the people who commit crimes are labeled, they will continue to be deviant and be involved in crime. This is because they will always fill rejected by the members of the society and therefore they will not try to make peace with them. The theory suggests that the only way to reduce crime rates and deviants in the society is by making them to feel accepted. This provides a room for law breakers to reform as they realize that not them as persons are bad but their actions. The society as per this theory can minimize the possibility of someone indulging in crime through limiting shaming reaction and adopting tolerance by the rest of the society. The theory also proposes rehabilitation of the offenders through changing their labels. Instead of imprisonment, this theory proposes creation of offender’s empowerment schemes, restitution, mediation and conciliation, reparation and victim-offender forgiveness forums (Lynch and Sabol 2000). This theory has been accused by many for failing to define most serious offences in the society in addition to promoting impractical policies. This theory explains the increased crime rates in America and consequential increase in incarceration rates. This is because the labels people have placed in the criminals in the society makes them feel detested by all other members of the society (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster 2004). This makes them to feel unsettled and hence unlikely to make peace with the society they belong. Lack of peace between offenders and the society makes them feel more comfortable in jail than when free. This makes them unafraid to be jailed. They perceive crime as what makes them whom they are and consequently choose crime as their way of life (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Researchers have argued that the offenders perceive labels as prophesies upon their lives and therefore choose crime to fulfill them. Applicability of this theory is seen in the cases where the people not accepted back in the society after a spell in prison are more likely to commit other crimes than those welcomed back into the society. The social bonds theory is based on the bond that people form to pro-social people, pro-social values and pro-social institutions that people make (Lynch and Sabol 2000). These bonds help in controlling people’s behavior whenever they are tempted to engage in deviant criminal acts. There are four interrelated forms in which these bonds occur. The first form in which bonds occur is attachment. This is the psychological affection people have to pro-social others and institutions. Youth for instance, have psychological bonds with their parents as well as schools they attend. These bonds serve as behavior regulators among the youth (Lynch and Sabol 2000). This is because people will not let the people they are attached to be disappointed by knowing about their wrongful acts. The other form is commitment. People in relationships do not wish to risk losing this social bond by involving themselves in deviant or criminal acts (Lynch and Sabol 2000). This makes them less likely to commit crimes because they know that they have something to lose as a result. For juveniles, this is much applicable as they don’t want to look bad in the face of their parents, teachers and friends as they fear shame. Adults refrain from crimes in fear of losing their jobs or marriage partners. In these way these bonds serves as agents of social control. The third form of bond is involvement. This is associated by the how people spent their lives. People, who spend their time constructively, are less likely to indulge in destructive activities such as crime (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster 2004). This suggests that the people who are most likely to commit crimes and get involved in the deviant activities. The fourth form in which the social bonds occur is belief. Belief oscillates around person’s adherence to values that influence behaviors conforming to the law (Lynch and Sabol 2000). The importance of these values to people determines their ease of being involved in crimes and deviant activities. As per this theory, the social bonds that exist among people prevent them from committing crimes which they would otherwise commit without these bonds. The social bonds are so strong that they still continue to curtail people from committing crimes even when they are no longer present. The social bonds that act upon people’s lives have the same effects as that of formal rules governing people’s lives. The juveniles and adults who commit crimes lack such bonds to a conventional community (Lynch and Sabol 2000). Following the current situation in America, it is very easy to apply this theory. Over the last twenty years, the law systems have undergone through numerous changes that have led to abolishment of various forms of punishments including capital punishment. This has seen security systems rely much on incarceration as the most reliable form of punishment (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster 2004). The crime rates have increased within this period even with increment of the number of incarceration. The increased imprisonment has broken down many social bonds in the society especially those which were not very strong. The youths have been taken from their parents and grownups have been separated from their spouses (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster 2004). When this happens, the spouses are likely to be left by their partners even after getting out of the prison. The youths become confused with life as they lose most of their close friends and therefore they feel that they have lost the trust their parents had in them. These scenarios have much negative effects to the offenders. The trust between partners plays a very important role in regulating their behaviors. The trust the parents have to their children serves the same purpose as well. This trust creates social bond which prevents many from being involved criminal and deviant acts. Incarceration breaks these bonds and therefore causes the offenders to continue with their bad acts (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster 2004). This explains why there has been an increment in the number of criminal cases with increase with incarceration. The broken families and good relations between young people and their parents have increased. This makes people lack the control as they have nothing to lose after committing crimes. Offenders who establish a family of close relationships with family members or friends are less likely to get back to crime than those who fail to do so. Another theory in criminology is deterrent theory. It is based on the assumption that a person weighs between the benefits of committing a crime and the consequences of the crime (Fagan and Meares 2008). If punishment outweighs the benefits of committing the crime, the person is deterred from committing a crime. All people know the difference between the wrong and right as well as the consequences associated with crime. This shows that whenever people decide to commit crimes, they do so as a free choice. People are hedonistic in that they refrain from crime and deviant acts due to the fear of punishment (Fagan and Meares 2008). This should be used by the law enforcers to make sure that the punishment designed for any given crime is not overweighed by the benefit of the crime to criminals. The theory argues that people will always fear punishment and hence designing harsh punishment for crimes is the most effective deterrent measure (Fagan and Meares 2008). Most of the laws in the modern society are deterrent with rehabilitation as a subordinate. The deterrent idea has two components. It ensures that the wrong doer do not repeat the same criminal act again as well as scaring potential criminals (Fagan and Meares 2008). The deterrent theory is based on these believes. This is because the human nature works against doing anything that is likely to bring more pain than reward. In the ancient society, the deterrent laws were much severe and this made many comply with the law. This is where the deterrent theory bases its origin. The deterrent measures evolved with people’s evolution. Due to rampant dethroning of kings, those in powers came with stern deterrent laws to help them retain their position, power and property. Severe laws were designed to prevent people from committing crimes against their fellow men and against the state. The deterrent measures in place those times included public flogging, beheading and hanging. These are however not present in the modern society as they have been replaced by incarceration, probation, community service and house arrest. The applicability of this theory in American crime situation is under questions. This is because the assumption that people are rational being who examine the severity of the consequences of their actions before acting is disputed (Fagan and Meares 2008). This is because many criminals are on the influence of drugs at the time they commit crimes. Also, the assumption that the people are deterred from committing crimes depending on the harshness of the punishment is also disputed as most of the people are very ignorant. This makes most of them unaware of the possible punishment. Through this, people may be led to a conclusion that the increased drug abuse has made people cease to be rational in most of time and therefore they commit crime. This theory may not apply to people with mental problems as they are not able to think rationally. The people supporting this theory argue that the increment in crime in the American society may be due to the removal of harsh punishments such as corporal and capital punishments (Fagan and Meares 2008). Statistics show that capital punishment deterred many crimes of high order. Isaac Ehrlich through his research concluded that capital punishment prevented seven or eight homicides after analyzing homicide cased between 1930 and 1970 (Fagan and Meares 2008). Others argued that the effectiveness of the punishment was affected by possibilities of appeals. This created a notion that capital punishment could be perfect in deterring crimes if there were nothing that lessened the sound of its consequences. Researches on crimes have suggested reinstatement of the capital punishment for deterrent of crimes but the human rights activists have objected this plea. Incarceration is not severe enough to deter criminals and potential criminals from committing crimes (Fagan and Meares 2008). Other criminals have confidence that they will not be caught and brought to book. This notion is cultivated by the many crimes in the American society that go unreported. This confidence makes more and more criminals to continue with their criminal and deviant acts as they do not expect any consequential punishment. These factors have led to the increase in the rate of crimes in the American society and rates of incarceration. References Fagan, J and Meares J. L., (2008) Punishment, Deterrence and Social Control: The Paradox of Punishment in Minority Communities, 6:173-229. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_1/Fagan-Meares-PDF.pdf Lynch, J. P and Sabol, W. J (2000) Prison Use and Social Control: policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system, 3:7-44. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_3/03b.pdf Steiker, C. S (2011) Mass Incarceration: Causes, Consequences, and Exit Strategies. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9:1-6. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2012/05/Steiker.pdf Wright, R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E. and Paternoster, R. (2004) Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Vol. 41 No. 2,180-213. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://brewright.com/articles/Does%20the%20Perceived%20Risk%20of%20Punishment%20Deter%20Criminally%20Prone%20Individuals.pdf Read More