Collins 1

Jessica Collins

Professor Thomas Black

English 102

October 30, 2021

The Road Back from America's Incarceration Epidemic

Since the 1970s, America's incarcerations have risen at astronomical rates. Incarceration

rates have sharply increased since the 1970s due to quite a few reasons. The rapid rise in

incarceration rates since the 1970s has been linked to policy changes, drug epidemic, lack of

educational opportunity, the role of racism and systemic racism, and probation and parole

violations. Even though the United States leads all developed nations in incarceration rates,

crime rates do not statistically benefit. From the report published by the National Research

Council in 2014, "Yet over the four decades when incarceration rates steadily rose, U.S. crime

rates showed no clear trend: the rate of violent crime rose, then fell, rose again, then declined

sharply" (National Research Council 2014). The consequences to the American economy and

people are economic as well as emotional. The Hamilton Project states, "in 2010, the United

States spent more than $80 billion on corrections expenditures at the federal, state, and local

level” (Kyckelhahn). This money does not include social services families may require when one

of their providers is incarcerated. It does not account for money spent on mental health services

trying to reintegrate inmates back into society. Nor can it account for the toll emotionally for

communities, families, and companies that are particularly affected by these high incarceration

rates.
 Collins 2

For Americans to get back to using incarcerations as a form of appropriate penalties that

match the severity of the crimes instead of excessively punitive lengths of incarceration, the goal

should be to reduce the number of people sentenced to prison and the length of the stay in

accordance with public safety. Reducing incarceration rates will come from a multiple sourced

approach that will help to lower and maintain appropriate rates while continuing to focus on

public safety when used together. For America to successfully lower incarceration rates, policy

changes are needed to reduce prison time for parole and probation violations, use alternatives to

prison sentences, for example, mental health facilities and drug rehabilitations, remove minimum

sentencing for certain offenses, to decriminalize certain activities that would not jeopardize

public safety, and finally to make these changes retroactive.

The first policy change would be to reduce prison time for parole and probation

violations. Per the NCSL, "Thirty-five percent of all state prison admissions in 2006 were

offenders returned to incarceration as a result of violating conditions of parole, not for new

convictions, according to a Department of Justice report"(Lawerence). Over a third of all people

entering state prisons in 2006 were not new convictions but reincarceration on previously

adjudicated cases. Per Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Hawaii has dramatically reduced

probation revocations "with a program that punishes infractions more quickly and with more

certainty, but with much shorter periods of incarceration" (Mitchell). Also, "New Jersey, New

York, and California have adopted comprehensive reforms that helped drive down prison

populations in each of those states by roughly 25 percent, even as crime rates continued to fall"

(Mitchell).

Policy changes to probation and parole can free up much-needed space in prison and

reduce wasted time and money spent on a failing system. Proponents of the status quo may
 Collins 3

question if changing the policy on probation and parole may incentivize crime or negatively

affect crime rates, but per The Sentencing Projects report, "In all three states, violent crime rates

decreased more than they did nationwide. Property crime rates decreased in New York and New

Jersey more than they did nationwide, while California's property crime reduction was slightly

lower than the national average"(Mauer and Ghandnoosh). With proven policy changes in other

states already tested and verified, this change is vital to decreased incarceration rates.

The following policy change would be to offer alternatives for mental health concerns or

substance abuse issues. “In 2001, 47% of Americans felt it was a good thing states were moving

away from mandatory sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders. By 2014, that level of support

increased to 63%” (Giordano). Public support continues to increase for treatment versus

incarceration. Policymakers need to listen to the governed, the professionals, and the data. It is

all saying that treatment is more effective than incarceration. It is working to meet the need that

preceded the crime. Treatment is not a new idea, with some states having already started to

change policies. Per the Vera Institute of Justice, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have

succeeded in these programs. Each program is set up differently, but the main idea is the first

step is treatment inside of prison, the second step is treatment in a halfway house, and then less

intensive treatment outside of daily supervision. "Other treatment models integrate an array of

components such as counseling, drug education, psychotherapy, relapse prevention, and

educational and vocational services. These programs, in both residential and outpatient settings,

can last from three months to two years” (Wilson). For concerns based on what this may cost the

taxpayers since this program has been enacted in New York, the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services estimates, "A cost-effectiveness assessment of jail-diversion programs in New

York City showed an average of $7,038 lower jail costs per person" (Cowell). That is a
 Collins 4

substantial saving for the taxpayers. In Connecticut, there was a study, "A study of 25,133 people

in Connecticut found that the state spent nearly double the amount to both incarcerate and treat a

person with serious mental illnesses, compared with the cost of treatment alone" (Cloud, Davis).

Americans are already being required to finance the treatment of these prisoners, but with new

policy changes, Americans could be paying significantly less and seeing far better returns.

Next is to remove minimum sentencing for certain offenses. Minimum sentencing

requirements were enacted to eliminate sentencing disparities, but per the Heritage report,

"Mandatory minimum sentences have not eliminated sentencing disparities because they have

not eliminated sentencing discretion; they have merely shifted that discretion from judges to

prosecutors" (Larkin). So, it suggested that minimum sentencing is not even fulfilling its design.

Also, as University of Minnesota Law Professor Michael Tonry has concluded, "the weight of

the evidence clearly shows that enactment of mandatory penalties has either no demonstrable

marginal deterrent effects or short-term effects that rapidly waste away" (Larkin). Nor is it clear

that mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime through incapacitation. In many drug

operations, if a low-level offender is incapacitated, another may quickly take his place through

what is known as the "replacement effect" (Blumstein and Beck). As Cohen and her colleagues

recently noted, "Observers of the criminal justice system who in general agree on little else have

joined in arguing that increased penalties for drug use and distribution at best have had a modest

impact on the operation of illicit drug markets, on the price and availability of illicit drugs, and

the consumption of illicit drugs" (Spohn and Holleran). So mandatory sentencing laws have

made no to very little impact on crime rates, substantially increased prison rates, and cost

taxpayers significant amounts of money. Policy changes for the removal of compulsory penalties

are the right step to moving forward.

 Collins 5

Also, decriminalize certain drug-related crimes, such as possession, that would not

jeopardize public safety. "In 2018, there were 1,654,282 drug arrests in the U.S., the vast

majority of which (86%) were for drug possession or use rather than for sale or manufacturing"

(Wagner). 86% of those arrests were not drug dealers, drug manufacturers, or drug wholesalers.

They were simple possession charges. Per the Drug Alliance policy, "Countries that have

adopted less punitive policies toward drug possession have not experienced any significant

increases in drug use, drug-related harm or crime relative to more punitive countries" (Drug

Policy). Also, the National Research Council stated in 2015 that there is "little apparent

relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of

use" (National Research Council). Right now, America cannot afford to continue with

incarceration rates the way they are. The cost is too high monetarily and to people's lives. Many

other countries and already some states have removed the punitive repercussions and have

focused on the treatment. These countries do not see a rise in crime and spend significantly less

money treating patients than housing prisoners.

Finally, to make these changes retroactive. Mr. Cullen expresses this when he says, "if

the reform is the right policy, then we should live by it. Current inmates should be able to

petition judges for retroactive application of the two reforms above, on a case-by-case basis"

(Cullen). There is more than enough anecdotal evidence to support these policy changes.

Evidence going back decades shows that America's incarceration rates had little effect on current

crime rates, costing taxpayers significant dollars and causing undue harm to communities and

families. These reasons alone justify going back and offering current inmates the same

opportunity. Also, when each inmate costs so many unneeded tax dollars, it is time to rectify the

problem.
 Collins 6

America sits on a precipice when it comes to debt and finances. Americans spend more

and more each year past the budget. Bringing the country further into debt, but all the while

paying less on education, social services, and government programs that would stimulate the

economy and bring life back into communities. So, for one service to cost taxpayers 80 billion

dollars, the results would be expected to be astounding, but mass incarceration figures cannot

justify the expenditures (Kyckelhahn). There is so no significant reduction in crime, recidivism,

or public safety. Mass incarceration was at one point a well-intentioned idea that has gone

wrong. It is simply not bearing the results that policymakers had hoped to receive. It is

imperative to stop this trend before the cost to our money, people, and freedoms becomes more

than we can continue to pay.

 Collins 7

Works Cited

Alfred Blumstein & Allen J. Beck, Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980—1996, 26 Crime &

Just. 17, 57 (1999) Larkin, supra note 14, at 247–48 & n.35.

"Approaches to Decriminalizing Drug Use and Possession." Drug Policy Alliance [New York,

New York], Feb. 2016, drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA%20Fact

%20Sheet_Approaches%20to%20Decriminalization_%28Feb.%202016%29_0.pdf.

Cloud, David, and Chelsea Davis. "Treatment Alternatives to Incarceration for People with

Mental Health Needs in the Criminal Justice System: The Cost-Savings Implications."

Http://Www.Pacenterofexcellence.Pitt.Edu, Vera Institute of Justice, Feb. 2013,

www.pacenterofexcellence.pitt.edu/documents/treatment-alternatives-to-

incarceration.pdf.

Cowell, AJ and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Administration. Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of New York's Jail Diversion

Program. Research Triangle Park, NC, RTI International, 2002.

Cullen, James. "Four Things We Can Do to End Mass Incarceration." Brennan Center for

Justice, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, 19 Dec. 2016,

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/four-things-we-can-do-end-mass-

incarceration.

Giordano, Vincent A. "TREATMENT OR JAIL: PUBLIC SUPPORT OF DRUG TREATMENT

OPTIONS."  Corrections Today, vol. 78, no. 6, 2016, pp. 26-30. ProQuest,

http://ezproxy.mcckc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/treatment-

jail-public-support-drug-options/docview/1836949577/se-2?accountid=2182.
 Collins 8

Kyckelhahn, Tracey, and Tara Martin. “Justice Expenditures and Employment Extracts, 2010—

Preliminary. Table 1.” Www.bjs.gov, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2013, www.bjs.gov/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2021.

Larkin, Paul J., Jr. "Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Arguments for and

Against Potential Reforms." The Heritage Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, 10 Feb.

2014, www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/reconsidering-mandatory-minimum-

sentences-the-arguments-and-against.

Lawerence, Alison. “Probation and Parole Violations State Responses.” NCSL’s Publication

Department, Nov. 2008, https:// www.ncsl.org/Portals/1

/documents/cj/violationsreport.pdf.

Mauer, Marc, and Nazgol Ghandnoosh. POLICY BRIEF: FEWER PRISONERS, LESS CRIME

Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States. Sentencing Project, 2015

Mitchell, Michael. "4 Ways States Can Reduce Incarceration Rates." Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 31 Oct. 2014,

www.cbpp.org/blog/4-ways-states-can-reduce-incarceration-rates#:%7E:text=

%204%20Ways%20States%20Can%20Reduce%20Incarceration%20Rates,terms%20and

%20parole%2Fprobation%20periods.%20Policymakers%20should...%20More%20.

National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes

and Consequences (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2014), 154.

Wagner, W. S. "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020." Prison Policy Initiative, Retrieved

September 27, 2021, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html.

Wilson, James, et al. "THE CHALLENGES OF REPLACING PRISON WITH DRUG

TREATMENT. Vera Institute of Justice, Sept. 2003,

 Collins 9

www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/the-challenges-of-replacing-prison-with-drug-

treatment-implementation-of-new-york-states-extended-willard-

program/legacy_downloads/Extended_Willard.pdf.

Spohn, Cassia, and David Holleran. "The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates of Felony

Offenders: A Focus on Drug Offenders." Criminology, vol. 40, no. 2, 2002, pp. 329-357.

ProQuest, http://ezproxy.mcckc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/effect-imprisonment-on-recidivism-rates-felony/docview/220693627/se-2?

accountid=2182, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00959.x.