Incarceration Versus Treatment - Research Paper Example

Incarceration Versus Treatment Abstract Incarceration on on-violent drug offenders has continued to raise debate from politicians and public remains. The judicial system is overcrowded in county jails and federal prisons and has disparities in those convicted. While there are those who continue to push for incarceration and expansion on new prisons, but studies done in recent years has shown that incarceration has no benefit on the drug way. This is because majority of those incarcerated are just minor dealers in the drug trade. There is therefore need for judicial systems to look for alternative ways of sentencing offenders. The current policy system has no long-term benefits on the offender’s life and the affect the prison system financially. Alternative programs have shown to reduce recidivism rates and reduce cases of substance abuse. Most of those incarcerated would benefit from these programs as they are substance abusers and the only place there have had long-term un-exposure to drugs is prison. Once the offenders are out of prison there are likely to repeat the offence if treatment has not been given. Introduction In order to reduce sell of drugs, nationwide use of illicit drugs most government have adopted policies that involve prison. The United States is leading in the number of people incarcerated for drug related crimes. The high level of people sentenced for drug related offences make up majority of those in person. Countries have adopted minimal sentences for people convicted on drug related changes (Pandhi & Brown, 2005). The adopting of minimal sentences is based on the idea that people will be deterred from continued drug use and selling. However, there is need to reverse mandatory sentencing policy since for a person to be deterred from drugs there have to have knowledge of penalties. The mandatory sentencing policy also entails to the offenders a life without parole that is a costly (Hall, 2013). Half of those incarcerated are minor people in the drug cycles (i.e. they drugs users) have no desire to manufacture or distribute the drugs. The disproportion of prison sentences has also cast shadows on the mandatory minimal policy in the U.S.A. Statistics show that majority of those sentenced are from the African American and Hispanic descendent (Pandhi & Brown, 2005), this disparity is due to the sentence accorded to crack and powered cocaine. Under the policy, a minimum sentence of 5 years is given to one found in procession of 5 grams of Crack while for cocaine the minimum sentenced is for 500 grams. Minority groups mainly use crack while non-minority use cocaine hence the disparity in those sentenced. The prison system is filled with low-level sellers who would benefit from alternative programs and substance abuse treatment but who receive severe sanctions like high-level offenders. To determine if an offender does not necessary have to be incarcerated, a judge should look at three factors: dangerousness that is violent involvement/firearms involvement. The second factor to consider is culpability; this refers to the role of the offender in the crime. The final factor to consider is harm, which is tied to the type and quantity of drugs. If the quantity is high then it is most likely that the offender has as major part in the crime. If these factors are taken into consideration before incarceration then alternative program can be given to low end non-violent drug offenders. Costs of Incarceration Prison plays just a small role in reducing substance abuse, therefore there is need to look for alternative ways for non-violent offenders, this include: Doing away with some mandatory minimums(reforming policy) and championing drug treatment programs. The treatment programs is the most effective method than prison since eventually the offenders will be release back into society and if prison has not addressed the root cause of their incacelaration then the offenders are more times likely than not to repeat the offence(Bewley-Taylor, Trace & Stevens,2009). Providing treatment is cost-effective than prison (King & Mauer, 2002). With increasing number of incarceration, rising number of inmates that lead to prison overcrowding( Bewley-Taylor, Trace & Stevens,2009).. The rising number of inmates has also increased the inmate to staff ratio hence the staff cannot effectively manage the prisoners. Overcrowding has psychological effects on the prisoners causing prison to have rising cases of unrest, the high number of people in prison bring contempt among prisoners. Imprisonment of non-violent offenders is not cost effective, annual spending on prisoners and maintenance of prisons has risen in recent years, in the U.S.A alone the cost is more than $10 billion. High level of spending on incarceration means that the other areas like health care and education are given less spending in order to support rising cost of incarceration. The cost of imprisonment is not only felt by the government but also by the convict. As a rule, a convict is not allowed to take part in any economic activity, which impact on his economic development (Dolan, Brentari & Stevens, 2007). Diversion of funds meant for education to state prisons may create social conditions like unemployment, which may lead some people into illicit drug use (Bewley-Taylor, Trace & Stevens, 2009).Moreover; this will only affect those who are already at a disadvantage economically. US drug policy makes the subject of mass incarceration a race issue in terms of minority groups. The high incarceration rate among the minority group has negative effects on race relations in the US (Currie, 1994). Incarceration disrupts families leaving one parent or no parent. This may contribute to criminality and problematic drug use among children (Travis & Waul, 2003). Incarceration is also an added cost on the government as the state is forced to pay added costs for foster care of children whose parents are incarcerated. Incarceration also leads to loss of earning from tax. The mandatory minimum enforced by the US justice system brings the system into sharp focus and labels it unfair because a person found with possession (non-violent) of certain amount of drugs faces more year’s imprisonment than one convicted of kidnaping or bank robbery. Imprisonment does not only affect the economic situation of a convict but also the social life of a convict such as loss housing. Post prison some of the social effects an ex-convict faces is unstable families, unsupportive communities and difficulty in gaining employment. With no source of livelihood due to the federal Act, that imposes a lifetime ban on cash benefits and food stamps to anyone convicted of selling or possessing drugs. Consequently, they adopt a coping mechanism that involves alienating themselves from society and poverty and since they live at the margin of society, they end up committing the same offence. (Justice Policy Institute, 2009). The availability of drug treatment programs in prison is wanting and most prisons do not have such facilities. Statistics carried by the bureau of Justice Statistics resulted in the following findings: 17% of those incarcerated said that the crime was committed to get money to buy drugs, out of every three people convicted of a violent crime, one person reported drug use at the time and half of those convicted on drug charges are substance abusers. (Justice Policy Institute, 2009). This is a worrying trend since many of those incarcerated will return to the communities where it all started without having received treatment. If untreated, the person will most likely commit crime to feed their addition. Successful integration into society will be compromised, as many will turn back to substance abuse. Reducing the demand for substances by treating substance abuse and addiction reduces the number of offenses involving drugs. Alternatives to incarceration Community-based alternatives to incarceration are a cost- effective means of redirecting people away from prison, protecting public safety and maintaining accountability (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). They improve public safety by ensuring that people remain in the community with their families and support systems and become productive members. Those within this alternative also maintain their employment. The alternatives include electronic monitoring, day reporting centres, probation, and halfway houses. Other alternatives include drug courts, decriminalization of marijuana, correctional options programs and policy reforms. Community based alternatives save on prison space for violent offenders and are cost effective (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). These programs are designed to address substance abuse without isolation of the offender from the community. Probation keeps the offender in the community but limits his freedom, an offender is required to make regular reports to his probation officer, and failure to do so can result in immediate incarceration. Probation requires the non-violent offender to go for community-based treatment. Halfway houses consists of offenders residing in a common residence though mainly used to help a person transit from prison to the community there can be used if the sentence is short. Home incarceration/electronic monitoring require an offender to stay at home except in certain pre-approved areas like work. Electronic monitoring works in three ways: Reintegration into the community, treatment and finally punishment and deterrence due to increased monitoring (Brown, 2004). Some states in the US have implemented mandatory probation for first time offenders with simple drug possession for example Kansas. Community supervision reduces crime and recidivism rates by as much as 30%. A drug is a branch of the courts that handles drug related cases. However, not all drug charges are taken to the court certain requirements must be met: candidates must have no history of violent and no prior convictions. The courts offer supervised drug treatment and community supervision, the treatment includes drug testing and counselling. The courts work in two ways: A judge can refer a candidate to the drug courts before he/she is prosecuted. The offenders are given the opportunity to dismiss all charges brought against them provided they participate in drug treatment programs and community service (King & Pasquarella, 2009). The second approach the courts use is after the defendants plead guilty the judge recommends the defendant to the drug court. Once a candidate completes the drug court program they are rewarded by avoiding the defendants serve their jail time and in other cases, if the defendant is a minor their offenses are expunged from their record. If a candidate does not successfully complete the program, they are sentenced in the criminal system. The drug courts have influenced positively on offenders with fewer participants of the drug court being arrested for new crimes within a 12-month period after completion of their programs than those who went through the criminal system. The courts help offenders break the substance abuse cycle and prison time (King & Pasquarella, 2009). The daily cost of running a drug treatment court for an individual is a third of the cost incurred by an inmate in jail (King & Pasquarella,2009). This is a huge saving in the correction system; the saving is passed on to tax payers whose tax dollars can be used for other development activities like building of schools. Marijuana is the most common drug available in the market and a majority of drug possession charges filled are due to marijuana possession. To prevent people from entering the criminal justice system marijuana has been decriminalized, that is small amounts of possession are punishable by civil fines. In addition, decriminalization impacts incarceration stemming from probation and parole violations. Parolees are returned to prisons once they violate the parole condition of desisting from drug use and possession. Reforms in the justice include revising the mandatory minority legislation; this will reduce the sentence lengths given to possession charges. Other reforms applied include eliminating sentence enhancements for repeat offenders. Minor crimes such as drug possession are classified, as civil offenses hence do not warrant incarceration. Other reforms that states have adopted include allowing judges to set the minimum and maximum terms for drug offences(Brown, 2004). In addition, offenders are eligible for parole after serving a minimum sentence given by a judge. In order to reduce the cost of running prisons and enhance public safety, states need to adopt correctional options programs and breaking the cycle programs (McVay, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2004). The programs divert non-violent drug offenders from prisons by ensuring that offenders are accountable for their actions while providing substance abuse, educational and employment services.in the long-run these programs strengthen participants daily lives and social skills. Breaking the cycle programs is a form of intensive probation that involves drug testing and sanctions (McVay, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2004). These sanctions are designed to help participants successfully complete a rehabilitation program. The national Council on crime and delinquency has reported that participants in corrections options programs are 22% less likely to return to prison after their release. Saving from these programs comes from reduced operations cost and the added cost of constructing new prisons. Community justice is a form of restoration justice that refers to localities employed by the local justice system in the community. It involves such practices such as preventive measures and restoration(focusing on specific incident). The offender is given a sentence that involves community service, he /she is made accountable for their actions and their victims or community members. Approaches to community justice includes family group conferencing, victim offender mediation-dialog and community participation (cleaning activities). Studies shows those in community restoration is effective in deviating people from drug offences than other programs like probation. Benefits of Alternative Programs The main benefit to alternative programs is the financial benefit .the cost of residential treatment and follow up services is more than half if the participant serves an average term. A dollar spent on a participant in an alternative program is likely to yield higher society returns than incarceration. The cost of alternative treatment program services is inclusive of residential detoxification, short-term rehabilitation, and court session and outpatient treatment. Court sessions make up 10% of total costs and case management incurs 8%, the greatest program cost is incurred by treatment agencies responsible for drug and alcohol treatment services and drug testing, and case management. The cost of participants in treatment is about $3,000 while for one who is incarcerated is approximately $13,000. (Waller,Carey, Farley & Rempel,2013) Successful treatment programs also reduce the risk of transmission of diseases common to drug users, which is an added health, care saving. This is because the participants do not have to forfeit their jobs. Work release programs that enable an inmate to work in the community during the day allow the inmate to save while still in prison hence there transition back into the community is smooth. Participants given alternatives to incarceration showed reduced alcohol and drug use in everyday activities (Patchin & Keveles, 2004). Those who completed treatment successful were less likely to abuse drugs in the future provided there had a network of support. Offenders in alternative programs have a lower rate of recidivism. The alternative programs also help people with severe challenges to become productive members in their community(Patchin & Keveles, 2004 ). Successful candidates in these programs were in most cases likely to find employment and higher wages than before participation in the programs. The job security has a positive impact in terms of economic development and the desire to avoid substance abuse. Alternative to sentencing also provide societal benefits, those in alternative programs get to keep and see their families on a daily basis and still provide their needs. The incarceration of a large number of fathers and mothers involved in non-violent drug activities not only disrupts the drug cycle but also social ties established in the community. The remaining members of the community are treated as social outcast. The alternatives programs enable the ties to be re-established and show that the offender is willing to make a positive impact on his life(King & Mauer,2002). State prisons, county jails and defense attorneys have experienced by these agencies once non-violent offenders are diverted to other alternative treatment. Prison showed the greatest saving with a net saving of $8,000 per participant hence reducing the overall cost of maintaining prisoners. The state also saved about $5,000 in attorney’s fees. The way on drugs is a carried out by law enforcement, this group also had net saving. Resources allocated in fighting the drug war were diverted to other sectors (Waller, Carey, Farley & Rempel, 2013). Taxpayers resources saved per year was over $18 million. However, the benefits are largely dependent on cases diverted from the criminal system. The more cases that are diverted to drug courts will increase the net-benefits. Using the case example of an average reduction of 20% case diverted to drug courts then the yearly benefit would just be a $3.8 million, which is a small benefit in comparison with $10.4 million that would be achieved if 20% of the cases were diverted to drug courts. The benefit in judicial reforms that is the introduction of drug courts reduces the back log of non-violent cases and allocating resources to high priority cases (Waller, Carey, Farley & Rempel, 2013). Conclusion In conclusion, the way on drug has been costly with little benefits seen as more non-violent offenders being prosecuted. More than half of the drug offenders leaving prison will face an arrest charge on a drug related offence within three years. Imprisonment does not address the main issue and offenders will continue to cycle in and out of prison. The solution is not to build more state prisons, but to treat the underlying problem. Treatment involves community support, job skill development and prevention programs. The challenge is to get the support of policy makers to change their opinion on minimum mandatory sentence for non-violent offence and adopt alternative policies. This will get offenders onto the right path to recovery and reduce drug use and related crimes. References Bewley-Taylor. D, Trace. M & Stevens. A(2009). Incarceration of drug offenders: costs and impacts. London. Kings College London. Brown. S.(2004).” Legislative Reference Bureau”. Alternatives to Prison for Nonviolent Drug Offenders. Legislative Reference Bureau Currie, E., (1994) Reckoning: Drugs, The Cities and the American Future. New York, Hill and Wang. Dolan, K., Merghati Khoei, E., Brentari, C., & Stevens, A., (2007) Prisons and Drugs: A global review of incarceration, drug use and drug services, Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, Report twelve. James.N.(2013). The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, issues, and Options.U.S.A Congressional Research Service. Justice Policy Institute (2009). Pruning Prisons: How Cutting Corrections Can Save Money and Protect Public Safety .Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy . Hall.C.L.(2013)” New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy”.Good Intentions: A National Survey of Life Sentences for Nonviolent Offences . Vol.16 PP. 1101-1221. King.R & Mauer.M.(2002). Distorted Priorities:Drug Offenders in State Prisons. Washington D.C The Sentencing Project. King.R & Pasquarella.J(2009) Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence, THE SENTENCING PROJECT McVay. D, Schiraldi. V & Ziedenberg. J(2004).Treatment or Incarceration. Justice Policy Institute Connecticut Avenue. Pandhi.N & Brown. R.(0ct 2005)”Population Health Institute” Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing: Is it an effective Drug Use Control Strategy? Vol.6 No.6 Population Health Institute. Patchin. J & Keveles. G(2004) Alternative to Incarceration:An Evidence--Based Research Review. Sevigny.E & Caulkins .J( 2004) Kingpins or Mules: An Analysis of Drug Offenders Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons Vol.3 No. 3 pp 101-135. U.S.A Travis.J & Waul .M(2003) Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities . Washinton, DC .The Urban Institute Press Waller.M, Carey.S, Farley.E & Rempel.M . (2013). Testing the Cost Savings of Judicial Diversion: Final Report. NPC Research Read More