Mass Supervision Is At Least As Important a Penal Phenomenon as Mass Incarceration - Essay Example

Mass Supervision Is At Least As Important a Penal Phenomenon as Mass Incarceration IZEE M JOMA Mass incarceration popular refers to when many people lose their liberty pending trial or serve a sentence. The crimes that may lead one to end up being incarcerated vary considerably from violence to drug trafficking (Marques 2005, p. 36). Although it is the obligation of the government to protect the general public from any form of aggression, alternative methods such as community supervision should be adopted and incarceration resulted only as a last resort (Mascharka 2000, p. 878). Community supervision as Gainey and Payne (2000, p.23) would have it in their paper, is an alternative to imprisonment. Effectively according them community sentencing has been used to deliver punishments to somehow lesser crimes instead of incarceration. Imprisonment has since been used as one of the sanctions that are readily available to courts to punish those who commit criminal offenses. In the modern society, imprisonment or incarceration is viewed as one of the harshest sanctions than community supervision. Introduction Down the memory lane, incarceration has been used by many national states as one of the practical approaches of punishing law offenders as well keeping the society safer. Incarceration has since been regarded as one of the ready and available sanctions for court decision for all kinds of crimes from drug trafficking to murder. In general, it served the purpose of administering justice in the community (Becker 2013, p. 211). In U.S., incarceration method has gained popularity to the extent that it is rated as having the highest number of individuals incarcerated. The highest percentage of the prison population, however, has been noted to be of the black race- the African Americans (Western & Wildeman 2009, p.39). It is that much money is pumped into the justice system in terms of prison expansion as well as maintaining the existing systems of justice and feeding the convicted felons. Despite these efforts, the rate of crimes being committed in the U.S. is not declining any sooner most of which are committed by the ex-convicted individuals. This, therefore, presents a paradox situation that provokes the question as to whether incarceration is indeed useful in the containment of crime and recidivism (Taxman 2002, p. 61). Presently, this paper presents an evaluation of confinement methods as a penal approach while it seeks to consider whether mass supervision can be regarded as an important penal phenomenon. Theoretical and empirical evidence The United Stated is noted to be leading in incarceration globally, with an approximate figure of over 2.4 million people behind bars. That is to say out of its 5 per cent of the world population, 25 per cent of the population are prisoners (Glaze & Parks 2011, p.58). The swelling nature of the U.S. prisons has resulted in overcrowding of the prisons, and the state government is being overwhelmed by the burden of funding the rapidly expanding penal system. Additionally, more than 60 per cent of the prisoners in the American prisoners are black Americans; most of who have been incarcerated for drug-related crimes (Schept 2012, p. 68). Reviewing the current statistics of the number of Blacks in the American prisons nothing much is left to suggest that the constitutional administration is still racial oriented. Khali Muhammad’s’ observation in his paper titled, “Condemnation of Blackness” clearly evokes a general feeling that the modern day justice system in not so different from the ancient racial past of the American population (Becker 2013, p. 213). His observation were in agreement with the statistics presented by Forman (2012, p. 18) that indicated that one in every 106 white male aged 18 and above was incarcerated while one in every 15 Black male of the same age bracket is incarcerated. In other words, Blacks especially the young black males make up a disproportionate share of the U.S. prisons. Pyrooz (2012, p. 79) observed that in 2008, young black males aged between 18 and 34 were at least six times more likely to be confined than young white men. There is somehow irrefutable empirical evidence that the black race constitute the largest disproportionate portion of the U.S. prison population. A study was done by Raynor and Vanstone (2002, p. 89). Indicated that out of the inmates in 2005, 40 percent of them were of the black race, 35 percent were of the white race while 20 percent were of the Hispanic race. Put different, the blacks comprise 12 percent of the U.S. population but two-fifths of the prison population. The majority of those blacks within the prison walls are mainly males in the age bracket between twenties and thirties (Archibold 2010, p.67). Statistics indicated that in 2005 out of those male blacks incarcerated, 8.2 percent of them aged between 25 to 29 as compared to 2.6 percent of the Hispanic males and the 1.1 percent of white males. This indicates that most of the youths comprising the U.S. prisons are black males with a higher percentage of the older population being of the white race (Thompson 2010, p. 39). From the statistics, it is arguable that African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated in the course of their lives than join the military or attend college. This indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that the consequences of this trend extend beyond the prison walls to assert the general assumption by the whites on the black race (Pyrooz 2012, p. 83). Historically, the black Americans have since been associated with crime and so have been regarded with much suspicion and fear (Turner et al., 2002, p. 1515). Though this trend of associating race and crime has subsided over the years, the stereotypical attitude has not changed. The blacks were noted to be more prone to violence than any other American race or ethnic group. In agreement, Taxman (2008, p. 56) observed that the stereotype of the blacks as criminals and aggressors is a deeply rooted phenomenon in the collective consciousness of the white Americans regardless of the perceiver’s level of prejudice or personal beliefs (Schept 2012, p. 74). Having said this, tracing the contemporary racial stereotype and the disproportionate growth of criminal justice system among the young blacks men can be attributed to the misrepresentation of the media coverage. That is to say, the constant exposure to the blacks behind bars only contributes to creating a negative attitude towards the blacks in general (Almquist & Dodd 2009, p. 21). As such the consequences of mass incarceration seemed thus to extend beyond just a single individual people behind bars to the families members and the respective communities from where these individuals belong. Retrospectively, towards the beginning of the 1970s, incarceration seemed, by all accounts to be a practice in a decrease (Taxman 2008, p. 66). Condemned for its abuse and adverse impacts, experts and reformers looked to community-based alternative as a more promising strategy for overseeing criminal wrongdoers. In reference to a report published by the President ‘s Commission of 1967 on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Gainey and Payne (2000, p.43) observed that life in many of those correctional facilities-prison institutions- were at best fruitless and purposeless and at worst unspeakably ruthless and degrading. Simply put the general condition in which the prisoners lived were the poorest conceivable arrangement for their fruitful re-entry into society. Moreover, often merely strengthens in them a pattern of manipulation or destructiveness (Becker 2013, p. 216). In this light, Morgenstern (2009, p. 95) recommended that instead of incarceration, the government should ensure development and establishment of more extensive community programs giving extraordinary, intensive treatment as a different option to institutionalization of both the juvenile and adult wrongdoers. As though echoing this sentiment, Taxman (2008, p. 75) observed that prison, the reformatory and the use of jail have only accomplished a stunning record of failure and disappointment instead. There is overpowering evidence that these institutions have created only crime as opposed to counteract it. Contrary to the forecast of the time, incarceration started an enduring rise, with the jail populace extending sevenfold through the subsequent three decades. Today, the United States gloats the highest rate of incarceration on the planet. Wallace and Fullilove (2014, p. 35) noted that described by the dismal of the ideals of rehabilitation and an accentuation on extreme on crime policies, the act of discipline in the course of recent years has taken a fundamentally distinctive turn from prior periods ever. Mirroring the stark move in orientation, the U.S. Department of Justice discharged a report that there was no preferred approach to lessen wrongdoing than to recognize, target and debilitate those solidified crooks who carry out stunning quantities of rough law violations at wherever point they are in the city (Weissman 2009, p. 68). This was far expelled from the prior invitation for de-incarceration and community supervision, the recent crime policy has underscore containment or complete control and brutal punishment as an essential system for controlling crime in the society. Although the tough war on crime spread nationwide and emphasis of the crime policy have seen many criminals taken out of the street and held behind bars, the nagging question is whether incarceration remains to be an effective approach to deal with law offenders. Scholars and experts have come to question the effectiveness of incarceration as a long term strategy for containing criminal offenders (Pettit & Western, 2004, p.59). That is to say, more than 95 per cent of those incarcerated are eventually released after their terms; most of them end up back in the prison walls after a short period. This provokes the question about the problems of offender management and as to whether prison wall contribute in the reforming an individual to be more suitable for the external society. Forman (2012, p. 68) observed that in US which has the highest percentage of the population locked up in prisons, more than 65 percent of those released get arrested after three years of freedom. This means, therefore, that incarceration as a means of punishing criminal offenders is not actually a long-term solution to the problem of crimes. However, as Yates (2012, p. 436) observed it would be an aimless point to argue that there is no connection between incarceration rates and crime. To this end thus, imprisonment to a great extend suppresses crime prevalence. As such as crime rate rise, incarceration rate should also be expected to raise leading to a reduction in crime rate in the process. In their argument, Clear and Austin (2009, p. 46) asked what would happen if prison release is increased? To them, an increase in prison release would subsequently lead to a drop in prison population on one side. On the other side, there would be an increase in the number of people re-entering society from prison thereby increasing the crime risk factor. Further, the length of stay in the prison walls do not help reduce in anyway the risk of reoffending, neither do shorter period in prison make one to be more likely to commit more crimes upon ones’ release (Griffin & Hepburn 2005, p. 54). Therefore, although it can be observed that most criminals are re-arrested shortly after their release, one’s release is not strongly related to his/her likelihood of staying crime-free. This asserts the conclusion by Clear and Austin (2009, p. 49) that one can serve shorter period of incarceration without necessarily triggering the re-entry into crime that will lead to re-arrest immediately after the initial prison –release. In the agreement, Western and Wildeman (2009, p.89) noted that despite the vast number of convicts being released from prison each year, there is still a little provision that have been made especially regarding their release. Consequently, many of the released inmates do not stay out for long since almost two-thirds of the newly released would be charged with new crimes. This result into a revolving nature of prison doors, where those released into the society are shortly admitted back some with new charges while other with similar crimes. Pager (2007) observed that the revolving nature of prison door is greatly influenced by the social contexts of the crimes committed. That is to say, poverty, limited opportunities, broken families and overburden schools contribute significantly to the onset of criminal activities especially among the youths and so its persistence into early adulthood. Anyhow, even past these contributing components, empirical evidence propose that involvement with the criminal equity framework in itself has unfriendly outcomes for long haul results (Wallace & Fullilove 2014, p. 43). Specifically, incarceration is somehow connected with constrained future opportunities income potentials, which in themselves are among the many strong indicators of desistance from criminal activities. As such as observed by Yates (2012, p. 438) given the huge hindrances for effective reentry, it would be a minimal marvel that such high extent of those who are discharged from jail rapidly advance back through the prisons every rotating entryway. Incarceration as such has far reaching consequences than can be fathomed in a single thought. Even though a lot of both political and financial resources have been mobilized to expand the prisons in light of American dream of keeping the civilians safe, little of no attention have been focused on the potential problems that those prison-released inmates face after their release (McGrath et al., 2007, p. 387). There are poor plans for adequate integration of the ex-offenders back into the society, leading to a high rate of rearrests to about 60 percent as early observed by. The ex-offenders also face the rough edge of unemployment especially in U.S where among the prerequisite of employment is criminal records (Weissman 2009, p. 68). This evokes pertinent questions of how well equipped in the society to adequately integrate ex-convicts? Are the employment issues of ex-convicts brought about by their wrongdoer status, if so what role then is incarceration play in their status improvement? Alternatively, does this populace just embody a group of individuals who were never exceptionally fruitful at standard contribution in this case? The proper redress of these questions will help substantiate incarceration over community supervision or weakens it in favour of the latter. To the extent that, the problems faced by ex-convicted fellow especially in regards to their re-entry into society reflects crippling status of the community to integrate them adequately, then the war against crime policies will need adjustment and re-adjustment (Lowenkamp et al., 2010, p. 366). In this case, therefore, establishing the nature of the relationship that exists between incarceration and the subsequent outcomes is very critical especially in designing the appropriate punishment approach for offenders. Viewed beyond the racial differences, incarceration, is somehow a painful, debilitating and sometimes even a counterproductive measure of punishing offenders. Inmates within the prison walls are susceptible and more vulnerable to institutionalization that involves adoption to some extent of the general custom and culture of the penitentiary (Almquist & Dodd 2009, p. 61). An individual’s adoption of institutional life includes a total reliance on the institutional structures, hypervigilance, psychological distance, exploitative attitude, a significantly diminished sense of self-worth and post-traumatic stress (Forman 2012, p. 78)). This aspect will affect ones way of life and so the slow or relaxed tendency to adjust suitable to the outside world where there is not adequate post-conviction strategies to aid in the adjustment. Incarceration also separates an individual from family members, friends, and the outside world only to be exposed to a world full of criminals (Yates 2012, p. 439). This makes one to be more vulnerable to internalization of pro-criminal motives, values which somehow would make them have difficulty separating from when granted freedom from the prison walls (Raynor and Vanstone 2002, p. 93). It is important to note that incarceration brings an almost equal measure of problems to the community as much as it brings to an individual. Although removal of offenders and criminals from the street is geared towards the well-being of the community, mass removal however may result in disrepair damages of the community (Bonta et al., 2008, p. 87). In a study by Morgenstern, (2009, p. 86) indicated that the high reliance on incarceration as a way of punishing offenders resulted in more counterproductive consequences for the particular communities. In their observation, the authors observed that incarceration causes stigmatization that in a way undermines both human and social capital owing to the negative reputation that families have to bear upon the return of their ex-convict member. In cases where the incarcerated was the breadwinner, the family will definitely struggle financially in his/her absence. Further, to those community residents living in high incarceration areas, they often struggle to live through the reality of residing in disreputable regions (Lynch & Sabol 2004, p.271). To a great this can cause a disrupted sense of identity owing to the diminished self –esteem and self-worth. From these bases, it is evident that prisoners often confronts uphill tasks in adjusting to the outside ‘free’ world and so is achieving the basic viability in the community again. These inabilities to adequately adjust to the outside life and achieve a sense of self-viable or self-worth again are based on their having been prisoners (Taxman 2008, p. 82). This validates our argument in regards to whether incarceration is an effective method to deal with law offenders? Does this line of weaknesses in incarceration substantiating the moral and social worth of community supervision? Analysis: Mass incarceration or mass supervision? In the recent years, there has been a dramatic historic reverse where the penal approaches are no longer viewed as incarceration only but the judiciary system is open to other alternative approaches. This has seen a steady but uneven decline in the number of individuals incarcerated in U.S. This as Marques (2005, p. 82) observed may have been driven by the state budget crises and a shift in the politics of punishment as well as the reform effort that have seen the adoption of alternative programs such as improved community supervision. In their study, Bonta et al., (2008) noted that community supervision provided a safe and inexpensive approach of punishing offenders of the law. The authors argued that parole, for instance, which is not a verdict from the court is administered and is supervised by tribunal paroling authority. This parole supervision can be viewed as a productive method of ensuring adequate integration of an individual into his/her respective community. Through such integrating approaches, the offender recidivism is reduced to the minimum since one is not separated from the immediate community but is integrated with it. Similarly, in a study to compare recidivism rate among parolees and inmates released from prison without supervision, indicated that parolees have lower recidivism than their counterparts (Thompson 2010, p. 79). The study also indicated that ex-convicted fellows have a lower adjustment rate back into their respective communities after release as compared to parolees who are actually integrated in their process of rehabilitation (McNeil & Beyens 2013, p. 123) In a way, community or mass supervision plays a central role in ensuring that offenders are not having difficulty in adjusting and adopting community acceptable character. Although, there is counter argument as to whether supervisory methods of rehabilitation can actually and adequately reduce incarceration rate by reducing recidivism. More persuasively, both empirical and theoretical studies have indicated that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism greatly, especially given its ability to help those lawbreakers become restore back into their communities as pro-social citizens. Implementation of such a program will definitely see to it that recidivism is reduced by a great fraction since it would have relatively modest effects in terms of integrations and community acceptance (Lowenkamp & Latessa 2002, p. 56). However, it would be a misplaced point of argument or misconception if one view these alternatives as replacements to incarceration, neither can these measures diminish incarceration rate. As Lowenkamp (2006, p. 580) observed, to be politically practical, most of these alternative strategies must guarantee to be more intense and uncompromising. This will result in what McNeil and Beyens (2013, p. 47.) referred to as technical failures especially when the participants fail to live up to the demands of the program that is geared to be effectively implemented in place of incarceration. It is also noteworthy that these alternative rehabilitation strategies must also not subject the general public to any danger. Having said these, it is empirically evident that the alternative programs of rehabilitation do not in any way reduce incarceration. However, they contribute greatly to the individual’s integration and re-entry into the community. Moreover, community supervision is dependent on the presence of incarceration approach to rehabilitation. That is to say as Marques (2005, p. 88) observed whenever a person who is subjected to community supervision fails to meet satisfactorily the requirements set by the parole, the privileges of the community can easily be revoked and one sent to prison even without criminal charges. As such parole or other alternative programs are used strictly as the name suggest,” alternative methods” of rehabilitation but not independent on their own (Thompson 2010, p. 112). To some cases, parole or probation methods have been successful especially in instilling discipline to minor violators who otherwise would be cycling these criminal activities through prison doors. Undoubtedly, cycling minor violation through the means of incarceration might be expensive and somehow counterproductive in the long run. As such strategies such as what Lowenkamp et al., (2010, p. 369) refer to as “graduated problem-solving responses” which emphasize in dealing with an individual misconducts through engaging the individual in various in community control in lieu of sending the person to prison. To this end, Harris et al., (2004, p. 237) admits that when technical revocations are wholesomely eliminated and graduated responses used in their place, the rate of parolees going through the prison doors again would be substantially reduced. From the above, it is observable that there is always an allurement to look towards the punitive framework for strategies that would adequately response to the cycle of crime in the society. These strategies include better restoration programs, high-quality re-entry programs, ad solid and somehow appealing alternative options to incarceration. However, it must not be forgotten that regardless of their attraction of these alternative methods, they cannot cure completely the ailments “that undergird mass incarceration” (Lowenkamp & Latessa 2002, p. 77). Conclusion It falls within the jurisdiction of the government to ensure that the community safety is guaranteed by bringing law offenders to justice. Justice, in this case, involves fair treatment of every individual before the laws of the land equally regardless of their origin, race, background or even religious affiliation. It is noted that tough-on-crime laws may push for adoption of mass incarceration owing to the belief that the absence of the offenders from the streets would likely reduce the rate of crime. Inasmuch this argument considerably hold some water, it should never blind the policymakers to overlook at the consequences that mass incarceration have both on the individual basis as well as on the community as a whole. As such any support for mass incarceration demands a moral standing and appeal for those who are its direct targets. Among the various effects of mass, incarceration is the aspect of re-entry into the community after the release from prison. Various scholars have observed that although much attention have been drawn towards the increment of prisons, little have been done to address the issue of reentry of ex-convicts in the community adequately. Arguably, ex –convicts often have difficulty in getting integrated back into their communities after their release. This presents the use of alternative programs of rehabilitation to a limelight. The adoptions of these programs that practically involve rehabilitating individuals in their very communal setting help one to be fully integrated with to the community. Community or mass supervision, in this regard, can be productive as it takes into account of the impact that separation from ones family members and community have on the individual’s well-being. Albeit, mass supervision can never replace incarceration, it, however, contributes significantly to reducing the rate of recidivism, a phenomenon that is noted to be common among released ex- convicts. In a review of the shortcoming that result owing to incarceration it arguable that mass supervision can be considered as an important penal phenomenon just like mass incarceration. List of References Almquist, L & Dodd, E 2009, Mental health courts, (1st Ed), Council of State Governments, Justice Center, New York, N.Y. Archibold, R 2010, Arizona Enacts A Stringent Law on Immigration. 23, New York Times. Becker, B 2013, Blackmon, Douglas A. Slavery by another Name. The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. Wacquant, Lo\" \ic. Punishing the Poor. The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Muhammad, Khalil Gibran. The Condemnation of Blackness. Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America. Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow. Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Kritikon Litterarum, 40(3-4). Bonta, J, Rugge, T, Scott, T, Bourgon, G & Yessine, A 2008, Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), Pp.248--270. Clear, T & Austin, J 2009, Reducing mass incarceration: Implications of the iron law of prison populations. Harv. L.& Poly Rev., 3, p.307. Forman Jr, J 2012, Racial critiques of mass incarceration: Beyond the new Jim Crow, Rev., 87, NYUL. Gainey, R & Payne, B 2000, Understanding the experience of house arrest with electronic monitoring: An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Glaze, L & Parks, E 2011, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2011.Population. Griffin, M &Hepburn, J 2005, Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice. Harris, P, Gingerich, R & Whittaker, T 2004, The “effectiveness” of differential supervision. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2). Lowenkamp, C & Latessa, E 2002, Evaluation of Ohios community-based correctional facilities and halfway house programs. 1st ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: the University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Centre for Criminal Justice Research. Lowenkamp, C, Flores, A, Holsinger, Makarios, M & Latessa, E 2010, Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective Intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4). Lowenkamp, C, Latessa, E & Smith, P 2006, Does Correctional Program Quality Really Matter? The Impact of Adhering to the Principles of Effective Intervention*.Criminology\& Public Policy, 5(3). Lynch, J & Sabol, W 2004, Assessing The Effects Of Mass Incarceration On Informal Social Control In Communities. Criminology & Public Policy. Marques, J, Wiederanders, M, Day, D, Nelson, C & Van Ommeren, A 2005, Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Mascharka, C 2000, Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Exemplifying the Law of Unintended Consequences. Fla. St. UL Rev. McGrath, R, Cumming, G, Hoke, S & Bonn-Miller, M 2007, Outcomes in a community sex offender treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non- polygraphed offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. McNeil, F. & Beyens, K 2013, Offender Supervision in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan Morgenstern, C 2009, European initiatives for harmonization and minimum standards in the field of community sanctions and measures. European Journal of Probation. Pager, D 2007, Marked. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pettit, B & Western, B 2004, Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration. American Sociological Review. Pyrooz, D 2012, Absconding Among Juvenile Parolees in Arizona Constructing and Validating a Gender-Responsive Risk Instrument. Criminal Justice and Behaviour. Raynor, P & Vanstone, M 2002, Understanding community penalties. 1st ed. Open University, Buckingham. Schept, J 2012, Contesting the “Justice Campus”: Abolitionist Resistance to Liberal Carceral Expansion. Radical Criminology. Taxman, F 2002, Supervision-Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness. Fed. Probation. Taxman, F 2008, No illusions: offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts*.Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2). Thompson, H 2010, Why mass incarceration matters: Rethinking crisis, decline, and transformation in post-war American history. The Journal of American History, 97(3). Turner, S, Longshore, D, Wenzel, S, Deschenes, E, Greenwood, P, Fain, T, Harrell, A, Morral, A, Taxman, F, Iguchi, M. & others 2002, A decade of drug treatment court research. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(12-13). Wallace, R & Fullilove, R 2014, State Policy and the Political Economy of Criminal Enterprise Mass Incarceration and Persistent Organized Hyper-Violence in the USA. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. Weissman, M 2009, Aspiring to the Impracticable: Alternatives to Incarceration in the Era of Mass Incarceration. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change, 33, p.235. Western, B & Wildeman, C 2009, The black family and mass incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1). Yates, J 2012, What prospects youth justice? Children in Trouble in the Age of Austerity. Social Policy & Administration, 46(4). Read More