Truth-in-Sentencing Laws in the US - Term Paper Example

? Truth-in-sentencing Laws Truth-in-sentencing laws Introduction Wright s that over the past several years, and federal incarceration rates have tremendously increased. Moreover, several reports indicate that the U.S. leads the whole world in terms of incarceration rates. This is attributed to the hasher sentencing and punitive laws that have seen more than 2.3 million people incarcerated in the country’s jails and prisons. The incarceration and sentencing system traditionally has several missions such as punishment, incapacitation, rehabilitation and deterrence. The U.S. in the recent decades has enacted a number of sentencing regulations with the aim of enhancing deterrence effects of the criminal justice system. Wright (2000) argues that under the banner of “getting tough on crime, the U.S. has enacted policies such as truth in sentencing, mandatory minimums, and the “three strikes and you’re out.” These policies have been designed to deter crime with the threat of imposing substantial terms of incarceration for felony convictions. The objective of this paper is to explore the arguments of truth in sentencing in light of crime deterrence. Why truth in Sentencing Deters Crime Truth in sentencing laws were enacted in the U.S. to reduce the chances of early release from incarceration. Schmallenger (2011) points out that the law requires criminals to serve a substantial portion of the prison sentence imposed by the court before they can be allowed to leave the prison peripheries. The question that many ask relate to whether this kind of law is capable of deterring crime or not? Proponents of the law argue that truth in sentencing can help deter crime in a big way. Firstly, it is argued that locking offenders in prisons for a substantial period of time enhances public safety by deterring crime (Owens, 2010). This is because it prevents the offenders from engaging in criminal acts through incapacitation as they are locked. The locking incapacitates them as they are denied the freedom to move out and engage in criminal activities. This helps in deterring crime a great deal. Incarceration of offenders also prevents inmates from coordinating criminal activities with others who have not put in prison. Research show that one means that criminals use to organize their criminal activities is through communication. This implies that denying a criminal the freedom to communicate and organize criminal acts is one way of addressing the issue of crime. This elements has been made possible since the enactment of the truth in sentencing by ensuring that criminals are kept in prison for quite some time until they reform, thereby deterring crime. Truth in sentencing is not only meant to keep inmates in prison but also acts as a rehabilitation measure where inmates are being educated and counseled so as to become good people once they complete their sentences. This helps a great deal in deterring crime. Similarly, truth in sentencing deters would-be-offenders from engaging in criminal activities. This is because, they are aware that engaging in criminal activities may land them in jail where they would spend substantial portion of their lives in prison, which no one would want. This helps in deterring crime (Owens, 2010). Truth in sentencing also deters crime due to the fact that in creates certainty of the punishment that one receives as a result of being incarcerated. Since life in prison is not enjoyable and involves a lot of denial of certain rights such as right to movement beyond prisons freely, many people would tend to avoid falling under such situations thereby deterring crime a great deal as noted by Sabol et al. (2002). Despite some criminologist supporting the truth in sentencing law as a way of deterring crime, it is important that parole be maintained. This is because parole ensures that a prisoner is subjected to continue monitoring, as well as satisfying some compliance with certain terms and condition thereby ensuring that the prisoner remains law abiding citizen. This implies that truth in sentencing alone is not enough without a parole. It is for this reason that they argue that parole should not be eliminated as elimination will make it hard to know whether the released criminal has fully reformed or not (Owens, 2010) Why truth in sentencing does not deter crime Opponents of the truth in sentencing see the enactment of the law as a drop in the ocean, noting that it can not in any way deter offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Curtiss (1999) for instance noted that some prison wardens realized some negative effects on prisoner’s behaviors due to truth in sentencing which does not help in crime deterrence. In this case, the prison wardens reports that before the enactment of truth in sentencing laws in the US, prisoners would try at all means to reduce their sentences by behaving well as well as engaging in counseling or education. This encouraged prison management to use resources towards educating as well as counseling inmates which would in tern help deters crime once they left prison. However, after the law eliminated the incentive, there has been tremendous increase in inmates due to stiffer incarceration sentencing, thereby forcing prison management to shift funds from counseling and education to just providing inmates with meals and beds. This shift of focus from rehabilitation to punishment only increases recidivism but does not deter crime in any way. This argument was supported by a research on prisoners which found out that when prisoners serve longer sentences as a result of following the principle of truth in sentencing, they become more institutionalized and lose contact with the society thereby becoming eliminated from legitimate opportunities which only promotes recidivism. Research conducted by the bureau of Justice Statistics on prisoners assessing the impact of time they spent in prison on recidivism indicated that recidivism rates did not substantially change irrespective of whether inmates were released within duration of six moths to five fears. The research reveals that, despite recidivism being generally high, they fluctuated within the range of 62-68 percent. This rate did not decline significantly for inmates who spent long time in prison (Wright, 2010). Other criminologists argue that merely imposing severe punishment and imprisonments does not deter those who are not imprisoned from committing crime. They argue that despite the US having enacted the law which is operational in different states, this has not prevented people from committing crime. They note that things like drug trafficking has continued to cross the border into the country despite the convicted offenders having been subjected to long imprisonment sentences (Owens, 2010). Nagin, a criminologist is in support of this argument, noting that despite majority of studies indicating that punishment is related to reduction of crime rates, increasing the likelihood of incarceration for both minor and serious crimes is more likely to cause sanctions, particularly imprisonment, to be perceived as less stigmatizing. The sanctions, Nagin argues has the potential eroding the deterrent effects of truth in sentencing stating that for an event to be stigmatizing, it has to be relatively uncommon as noted by Wright (2010). References Curtiss, J. (1999). Truth in sentencing laws. http://www.ehow.com/about_5449420_truth-sentencing-laws.html (Accessed 20th August, 2012). Owens, E.G. (2010). Truthiness in punishment: The far reach of truth in sentencing laws in state courts. Cornell University. 8: 1-30. Sabol, W.J., Rosich, K., Kane, K.M., Kirk, D., & Dubin, G. (2002). Influences of truth in sentencing reforms on changes in states’ sentencing practices and prison populations, executive summary. No. 195163: 1-17. Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson/Prentice Hall. Wright, V. (2010). Deterrence in criminal justice. Evaluating certainty vs. severity of punishment: The sentencing project research and advocacy for reform. Washington, DC. Read More