The reformed Rockefeller Drug Laws worked to eliminate mandatory prison sentencing for first and second drug felony offenders as well as establishing statewide judicial diversion programs for certain felony offenders (Kluger & Rempel, 2013). This reform also gave previously convicted offenders the opportunity to apply for resentencing. This allowed people like Cheri O’Donoghue’s son to question their previous sentences to get a more just retrial and a sentence that was more fitting to his low-level offence. This does not include individuals with Class A felonies, limiting them to alternative sentences and increases prison time (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015). The 2009 reform requires the impact of the changes to be studied …show more content…
Communities of color were targeted for crimes and given larger prison sentences than their white counterparts. In the Rockefeller Drug Reform of 2009, the racial disparities significantly decreased in the early periods following the reform (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015). Black and Hispanic individuals, in 2008 were three-times more likely than whites to receive a prison sentence; by 2010, black and Hispanic individuals were only twice as likely to be charged than whites. Although this is still an issue that needs to be addressed, it is a significant accomplishment compared to previous years. There is still said to be harmful biases in the criminal justice system (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, …show more content…
It is believed that letting a criminal free from incarceration puts society at risk. Before the reform recidivism rates were high, scaring the public with the idea that criminals can reenter society. When comparing individuals who were sentenced to prison to those in diversion programs, those in diversion programs were more likely to stay out of jail while those who went to jail were more likely to have re-arrests. It was reported that 64% of the treatment sample were arrest-free over a two-year follow up period. Those in the diversion program had recidivism rates as low as 36%; this compares to the group who were given jail time with a recidivism rate of 54% (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015). In terms of public safety, only 3% of individuals who were involved in treatment programs committed violent crimes after treatment; this number doubles for those who were sentenced to jail and prisons. New York has made the necessary changes to start viewing The War on Drugs and its influence on Mass Incarceration as not only a criminal justice issue but also now a mental health and public health problem. From the beginning, stakeholders saw the flaws and have spent about 36 years working out the issues. The reform is a good stepping stone toward a more just system, but just as the original Rockefeller drug Laws had their issues, the new reforms will have issues that will be worked out through the years to
Prop 36 has to find a better way to organize programs so that it suits better, to one’s recovery process. Through research on policy reform other (Open Society Foundation, 2013) has other alternatives to the drug policy reforms, which include decriminalization: The removal of criminal sanctions for minor drug offenses. In some cases civil sanctions, such as fines, are imposed instead of jail time. Depenalization: The retention of drug offenses as a crime, but with discretionary enforcement based on practical considerations and community needs.
Due to the unprecedented expansion of the war on drugs by the Reagan administration started a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration. The huge number of offenders incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenders increased from 50,000 to 1980 to over 400,000 by the year 1997. In 1981, Nancy Reagan began a highly publicized antidrug campaign called “Just Say No”, as public concerns arose due to the portrayals by the media about people addicted to a smoke-able form of cocaine dubbed as “crack”. This campaign set the stage for zero tolerance policies implemented in the late 1980’s.
Chapter 2 focused on the how law enforcement agencies used various tactics to arresting individuals during the War on Drugs. Also, the chapter elaborates on the sets of legal rules that permitted prosecutors the discretion whom to charge in order to force guilty pleas, even in cases where the defendant may be innocent. Chapter 3 continues the focus; however, Alexander argues that African Americans are the target for mass incarcerations. She incorporates statistics to prove that people from all races (black, white, Hispanic) use, abuse and sell drugs. African Americans are more likely to be arrested for drug charges due to the racial biases that clouds the minds of officers.
Similarly, other possible drug-related crimes, such as theft, burglary and robbery, are all extremely serious offences which carry severe penalties. However, the imposition of punitive penalties fails to adequately respond to drug-related crime. This is because punitive measures fail to address the complex nature and causes underlying the commission of drug-related offences. It has been found that after release from prison, without accessible, integrated and consistent drug treatment and support such as access to housing and employment, people with substance use issues are at higher risk of re-offending and returning to prison, or dying from a drug overdose.
The state has also cut plans for drug treatment.”. This is corroborated on a federal level by the percentage of federal anti-drug budget for prevention and treatment from 1970 to 2000. This data shows that when Reagan took office in 1981, funding for drug-use prevention and treatment plummeted from 57% to 28%, and stayed there until 1990, where it increased slightly to 32%. This data was initially published by the National Drug Control Strategy, a bipartisan government organization that's purpose is to outline the country’s efforts to reduce illicit drug use and its consequences in the United
Over the past two decades, drug treatment courts have gained traction as popular alternatives to the conventional war on drugs and to its one-dimensional focus on incarceration. Specifically, the courts are meant to divert addicts from jails and prisons and into coerced treatment. Under the typical model, a drug offender enters a guilty plea and is enrolled in a long-term outpatient treatment program that is supervised closely by the drug court. If the offender completes treatment, his plea is withdrawn and the underlying charges are dismissed. But, if he fails, he receives an alternative termination sentence.
1. Title of Research Topic - Juvenile substance abuse: A comparison of effectiveness and recidivism rates among offenders within drug-court programs and those sentenced to traditional sentencing. 2. Introduction of Topic – The late 20th century witnessed an alarming increase in substance abuse in the United States, and today, it still continues to rage on, coupled with a continuously expanding inmate population. Therefore, in order to battle this disastrous obstacle, the first ever drug court was established in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989.
According to Western & Becky Pettit (2010), African Americans have always been incarcerated at a higher rate than whites. Laws were enacted from 1914 (The Harrison Act) that restricted the sale of heroin and cocaine, which were both legal and established the legal framework for intervention on drug policy. However; during the 1980’s and 90’s marked an unprecedented escalation
Similarly, Brown found that in a matched cohort study comparing traditional prison sentencing to drug court programs it was shown that there was significantly less recidivism in the drug court participants than in the offenders that were sentenced to jail or prison time. In this study 137 drug court participants were matched with offenders that had been sentenced traditionally. It was shown that the recidivism rate for drug court participants was only thirty percent, whereas the traditionally sentenced participants had a forty-seven percent recidivism rate. Brown also examined the time between program completion and participants committing a new crime. In the drug court participants, the mean time was 614 days, and in the traditionally sentenced participants the average time was 463 days (Brown,
The racialization of the “War on Drugs” campaign was particularly evident in the sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Crack cocaine—more commonly used by black and brown communities—was punished much more severely than powder cocaine—more commonly used by white populations. This disparity resulted in disproportionate sentencing for black and brown people, contributing to the disproportionate incarceration rates and criminalization of these people According to Danielle Kurtzleben of the U.S. News & World Report’s 2010 analysis on the U.S. Sentencing Commission figures, “79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were Hispanic” (“Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing”). Moreover, according to government data, “Drug use rates are similar among all racial and ethnic groups.
The sentencing disparity for drug use by race is disproportionate for African Americans because of The War on Drugs. Matthew Lassiter (2015) explains, “In 1951, Harry Anslinger, the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, collaborated with senate of criminal investigations to target black ‘dope peddlers’ who were luring pretty white blondes into drug addiction”(2015:128). According to Lassiter (2015), Anslinger believed that peddlers, who destroyed teenagers’ lives, required the most sever punishment (2015:129). Using this rhetoric, presidents like Nixon and Reagan would shape the way drug laws are enforced.
The initial thinking behind the creation of minimum mandatory sentences was created by congress to aim in the capture and imprisonment of high level drug traffickers, and deter others from entering into drug trafficking or using illegal substances, which would create a safer society. However, the nation prison has been expanded with low level street drug dealers, and the accessibility to illegal drugs is more obtainable then before the enactment of the mandatory sentencing act. In fact, the number of drug offenders in federal prisons has increased 21 times since 1980. Contrary to what congress has believed in the past about the dangers of crack cocaine compared to that in powder form has been proven to be untrue, but little has been done to reduce the number of prisons affected by that belief.
In 1972, former President Richard Nixon made his infamous statements regarding crime and drug abuse. In this speech, he declared a war on crime and drugs and intended to decrease the number of people using drugs and the amount of crimes that were committed. Since this declaration, incarceration rates in the U.S. have gone up by 500%, even though the amount of crime happening has gone down. One of the reasons why I feel our rates have risen, is because sometimes, we put people in jail when they don’t need to be there in the first place.
Consider this: what if you were judged for something you were most ashamed of? What if one night, you were at a party with some friends and you woke up the next morning in a hotel room with a stranger lying next to you? However, every time you filled out a job application, you were asked, “Have you ever had sex with a stranger?” without any other follow-up questions to justify your actions. In this circumstance, you could not explain that you were in an instable state of mind because you were drunk or that you never wanted to attend the party in the first place, and it was your friends who hauled you into such predicament.
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).