Community and Law Enforcement Trends - Coursework Example

Community and Law Enforcement Trends Introduction There are over six million Americans under the “correctional supervision” of the United States. The country systems incarcerate her population at rates, which are entirely above the expected proportion, considering her population to that of the other parts of the world. The present costs of the incarceration rates are past $60 billion in every budget year (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). The mass incarcerations in the country continue to increase at an alarming rate, which is almost 800% of the rate as was in the past 30 years (Strutin, 2012). This rate shows the weight of the factor within the justice system and social settings of the country. The issue further cuts across the various population groups, from the Blacks, to the Latinos and whites among the other ethnic groups in the country (Ball, 2012). The various states initiated various platforms and policy changes to meet the growing demand for handling the issue. Thus, the State of California became among the first to initiate such procedures seeking to curb the issue at hand. The state incorporated the establishment of the penal act reforms in which it established the platform for implementation of several criminal justice changes. The result was the Realignment Policy as discussed and passed by the state with respect to the massive incarceration rates in the state, which are almost double the maximum capacity of her prisons. However, despite this gesture by the state aiming to mitigate the arising issues, the success factor of the realignment legislation remains doubtful. These result from various perspectives, considering the inter-connected nature of the criminal network the state and entire country (Fazzi, 2013). Thus, critiques continue to argue over the effectiveness of the various approaches as proposed by the alignment policy in addressing the subject of mass incarcerations in the state. Therefore, there is a continued search for alternatives and even the implementation of other procedures and strategies in addressing these trends in the operations of the country towards the issue of incarcerations. The thesis for this research is that the California realignment policy is not an effective way to reduce the mass incarcerations experienced in the state legal and law enforcement structures. Literature review The realignment developments describe the process of change within the criminal justice system of California. The policy, commonly called the Realignment AB 109, presents the features of transferring the various responsibilities of supervising certain felony offenders and state parole types from the prisons of the state to the county jails and other probation offices. The realignment policy came about in 2011, after the enactment of the California Assembly Bill 109 (Fazzi, 2013). The enactment of this section of the Bill conjuncture another series of laws encompassed in the legislation, including the sections of the AB 116, AB 117 and AB 118 (Fazzi, 2013). The initiative to initiate the realignment AB 109 came from the backdrop of the severely overcrowded California State prison system. However, the initial claimants over the statute argued that it aimed at combating the factors of recidivism and not overcrowding. However, it remains clear that indeed, it is servicing the factors of overcrowding. The enactment of the realignment was effective from the October 1st 2011; hence, as a result, for those convicted under the felony crimes in California from this period, which constitute the ‘non-serious, non-violent and non-sex oriented’ crimes; the sentence would take the convict to the county jail (Fazzi, 2013). Alternatively, the sentence could send the convict for non-custodial mandatory supervision, which is similar to probation at the federal and other criminal system levels. Additionally, with respect to the California state prison, the presently serving convicts under the sentence of ‘realignment’ when released; it would place them under supervision of the county probation officers in the new scheme; which they called the Post-release community supervision (PRCS) instead of the parole agents of the state. These sections of the realignment policy create a remarkably seemingly successful approach towards the issues of mass incarcerations and overcrowding criminal and justice systems. Further, the advocates of the realignment AB 109 present the belief that the rehabilitation of the low level-offenders can occur best and effectively under the local, community oriented and evidence based practices rather than the state prisons system (Ducart, 2013). However, despite this hailing, not every person is of the perspective that the realignment will reduce crime, which is a leading cause of the mass incarcerations, in the state. The various stakeholders, including law enforcement officials among other criticize the legislation, terming it as ‘a grave threat to the safety of the public.’ Therefore, this factor raises significantly notable reasons to worry over the effectiveness of the policy as enacted with respect to handling crime rates, overcrowding in the correctional systems and the safety of the public. Non-conformity within the society continues to increment the possibilities of the increasing trends within the confines of justice as the social injustices and imbalances drive people towards acting in unconstitutional behavior (Owen & Mobley, 2012). The mass incarceration continues to grow alongside other contributing social injustices that contribute to the factors in hand. From statistics of the federal bureau of justice, the United States holds the leading population of inmates. The state of California correctional facility holds the world’s largest population of inmates within the state facility, affecting the quality of service and rights of the people in the settings of the facility. The facility has over double the capacity of the population of inmates it should be accommodating (Strutin, 2012). This trend in the facility necessitated the incorporation of strategic measures to address the rising issue of concern. The increasing incarceration rates continue to worsen the trends, irrespective of the various procedural and legal structures and programs in pace to address the rising crime incidences in the state of California. To understand the possible and effective features and policies to incorporate in addressing the issues at hand, it is essential to facilitate an overview of the factors and effects of mass incarceration with respect to the state of California (Strutin, 2012). The case represented in the state of California of the recent developments incorporating the realignment policy seem to be responding to challenges greater than the envisioned reduction of workload and transitional processes of combating the issue. The causative agents of crime in California, from the minor ages to those of age incorporate the social and economic settings within the country. The extent of the issue of the massive cases and incarceration rates is the increasing failure of the law enforcing and intelligence agencies in deterring criminal activity (Owen & Mobley, 2012). The law enforcement departments within the state continue to pursue alternatives for deterring the crime activity rather than waiting for its occurrence so that they react by arresting the suspects. Within the confines of the state of California, the community fails in its responsibility of ensuring effective community policing and social upbringing of the populations. A vast number of the incarcerated persons results from the failure of society to facilitate the upbringing of the young people in a manner that will deter them from engaging in crime. Moreover, some people fail to observe social structures and positive behavior, leading to their conviction for various offences as they commit (Owen & Mobley, 2012). Further, the economic crisis in the country constitutes an extremely large percentage of unemployed persons. These people engage petty criminal offences among others who go heavily into deep criminal practices. Thus the judicial system sends them to a correctional facility for rehabilitation; thus, resulting in the vast populations of the incarcerated within the confines of the states correctional facilities (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). The incorporation of the realignment policy by the state aims to structure the handling of these mass populations in the correctional facility to assist in decongesting them as well as reducing the massive incarceration rates. Theoretical analysis With respect to the cases at hand, the analysis of the realignment legislation in addressing the issue of mass incarcerations, in the correctional facility of the California state, several aspects of the debates emerges. Under the penal sentencing code of section 1170(h), there are few options available for the judge to select in issuing a judgment. The judge may sentence the convict to a full term jail sentence (Ducart, 2013). Secondly, the judge has the alternative of sentencing the convict for reduced a portion of the full term of the possible jail sentence. Alternatively, the judge can give partial time sentence in jail and a mandatory supervision on out-of-custody for the remaining portion of jail term. Moreover, the judge has the jurisdiction to render a house arrest judgment under the realignment section AB 109. The out-of-custody terms can constitute, furlough programs, community service, work release, mental health institutionalization and restorative justice programs for rehabilitation purposes (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). These alternatives as facilitated by the realignment aim at reducing the growing rate of increased populations within the confines of the state correctional facilities. From the perspective of the community, they hold two varied perspectives. The first perspective, in which it supports the action of the legislation, is from the economic view of the benefits. A cost analysis of the inaction of the legislation indicates that it will save the state billions of money annually, from the reduced costs of maintaining such vast populations of non-productive people (Ball, 2012). However, from a social perspective, most fear that the rehabilitation and punitive measures as designated by the realignment legislation may prove too lenient for the convicts. This affects the security of the community accordingly as the released convicts may recede into crime. Thus, from these perspectives, the legislation serves are controversial. It is not effectively addressing the factor of mass incarceration from the perspectives presented by the various stakeholders. Suggested public policy changes to increase social justice The suggested public policies include the following. The legislation provides a framework for the counties to act as alternatives for incarceration of the low-level offenders. This will reduce the mass populations at the state level; however, the trend of mass incarcerations may trickle into the county correctional facilities. Thus, the policies to provide further effective prevention tactics for crime are the essential measures to undertake. The legislation incorporates facilitating drug treatment and mental health for the ex-convicts as well as, initiating job placement programs to facilitate employment for the ex-convicts (Ball, 2012). These will help in rehabilitating the convicts and giving them alternatives of running their lives, unlike the usual cases where the ex-convict easily recedes into crime due to aspects of being idle and lacking means of fending for themselves. These strategic approaches involve the cooperation of the community and legal structures of the state of California to address the issues facing the correctional facility and law enforcing teams. Another policy framework that would foster California in addressing the mass incarceration rates is to incorporate the policy that a person in the possession of drug for personal use is a misdemeanor rather than a felony. This factor fosters the law enforcement work in reducing the rate of arrests, thus, managing the trends in the incarceration rates (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). Additionally, the realignment policy of the state of California should further incorporate probation officers to keep those receding into crime in their records (Ducart, 2013). This will help facilitate and reduce the mass populations of the people it sends into prison, assisting in reducing massive incarcerations. The private sector continues to take initiative in various governmental procedures. Similarly, in this case, they ought to exemplify their commitment to corporate responsibility by facilitating the law enforcement offices in maintaining law and order. They can facilitate through funding or actively involve themselves as stakeholders to facilitate deterrence of crime and reduce aspects of mass incarceration (TafollaYoung, 2009). In addition, they can facilitate the job placement programs among other initiatives to help the ex-convicts, preventing them from receding. Conclusion The security of the community of the state of California is the responsibility of all stakeholders, the community, law enforcing departments, legislating assembly, and correctional facilities among others. The realignment legislation is among the initiatives undertaken to address the issue of crime deterrence and mass incarcerations within the state facility. With a critical review of the legislative developments, there are better suggestions for facilitating the procedures of reducing the incarceration rates and deterring crime accordingly. Thus, the legislation does not adequately address the factor of reducing mass incarcerations within the state correctional facility. Annotated bibliography Ball, W. (2012). Tough on Crime (on The State’s Dime): How Violent Crime does not Drive California Counties’ Incarceration Rates—and why it Should. George State University Law Review, 28(4), 987. This article facilitates useful information in reviewing the cases of the overcrowding populations in the prisons in California. It discusses the criminal justice polices in place with reference to the realignment implemented by the state of California. It analyses the various policies relating to incarceration in the state prisons and the alternatives available to the counties in responding to the crime rate. Thus, its presentation on the California state and country relations related to incarceration is contributory to the success of this research paper. Ducart, A. M. (2013). Go Directly to Jail: How Misaligned Subsidies Undermine California’s Prisoner Realignment Goals and what is Possible to Maximize the Law’s Potential. McGeorge Law Review, 44(2), 481-513. The subject terms in this journal include, law, and legislation, counties, criminal law, California, brown v. plata (a Supreme Court case). The article is useful as it offers information on the procedural Realignment Legislation. It addresses the factors of public safety and justice programs by the state of California. It presents issues relating to reduction of prison populations. Further, it explores the various challenges as faced by California’s counties while implementing the realignment and changes to the California penal laws. Thus, it is relevant to the confines of this paper. Fazzi, S. (2013). A Primer on the 2011 Corrections Realignment: Why California Placed Felons Under County Control. McGeorge Law Review, 44(2), 423-479. This article facilitates useful information as regards the effects and adverse consequences of the 2011 corrections realignment. It facilitates information regarding the legislature transfers of correctional responsibilities and impacts resulting from the realignment. It focuses on the appendices, A, B and C relating to the statutory changes of the legislation. I also examine California’s felon incarceration laws and rates before and after the realignment. Owen, B., & Mobley A. (2012). Realignment in California: Policy Research Implications. Western Criminology Review, 13(2), 46. The authors of this article discuss the implications of realignment act and correctional policy as implemented IN California. They evaluate the aspects that prison reform will render the property and low-level offenders into the hands of county programs and facilities. They outline the history of the legislation and its complications covering the issues of recidivism rates and reduction of prison crowding. Thus, it is relevant to the course of this research paper. Strutin, K. (2012). The Realignment of Incarceration Punishment: Sentencing Reform and the Conditions of Confinement. William Mitchel Law Review, 38(2), 1313. This article presents relevant information regarding the detention of convicts in prison and its relations to overcrowding prison populations in California. It analyses the various justification points for the practice of mass release, medical and mental health facilities among other programs in solving the state prison issues. Thus, it is effective for examining solutions to the issues of mass incarceration and management of the problems. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Comparing Ste-Versus Facility-Level Effects on Crowding in U.S. Correctional Facilities. Crime & Delinquncy, 54(2), 259. Doi:10.1177/0011128706296963 This article is useful as it facilitates literature on prison overcrowding underscores and potential importance of the state level facility. The article describes findings from various states on the operation of the prison facilities and the impacts of the case of mass incarceration problem in the states. The article further facilities literature on review of recommendations for addressing the issue as relate to correctional facility incarceration procedures. Therefore, it is a useful material for the development of this research study, facilitating information for comparison and incorporation in the case. TafollaYoung, K. (2009). The Privatization of California Correctional Facilities: a population-based approach. Stanford Law & Policy Review, (2), 438. This article is bases on the geographic location of California, in addressing the various issues relating to population factors in the correctional facilities. It facilitates the establishments that most prisons systems should consider privatization of its operations, and include population-based approaches in addressing the problems they face. Therefore, this article is relevant to the course of the research paper References Ball, W. (2012). Tough on Crime (on The State’s Dime): How Violent Crime does not Drive California Counties’ Incarceration Rates—and why it Should. George State University Law Review, 28(4), 987. Ducart, A. M. (2013). Go Directly to Jail: How Misaligned Subsidies Undermine California’s Prisoner Realignment Goals and what is Possible to Maximize the Law’s Potential. McGeorge Law Review, 44(2), 481-513. Fazzi, S. (2013). A Primer on the 2011 Corrections Realignment: Why California Placed Felons Under County Control. McGeorge Law Review, 44(2), 423-479. Owen, B., & Mobley A. (2012). Realignment in California: Policy Research Implications. Western Criminology Review, 13(2), 46. Strutin, K. (2012). The Realignment of Incarceration Punishment: Sentencing Reform and the Conditions of Confinement. William Mitchel Law Review, 38(2), 1313. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Comparing Ste-Versus Facility-Level Effects on Crowding in U.S. Correctional Facilities. Crime & Delinquncy, 54(2), 259. Doi:10.1177/0011128706296963 TafollaYoung, K. (2009). The Privatization of California Correctional Facilities: a population-based approach. Stanford Law & Policy Review, (2), 438. Read More