The system is meant to give children of a young age a second chance at life after their sentence is completed. A child’s life should not end at the age of 16 because they have committed a crime in their adolescent years. They should have the chance to change their ways and find a solution to re-enter society. Couch now has a second chance because of the system. He can use this second chance to help in the fight against drunk driving since he has a unique point of view on the topic.
In 2014 there were 215,000 people incarcerated in federal prisons, almost half were there for drug-related offenses with the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses in the 1980s, increasing the population by more than 800 percent (Malcolm, 2014.) “Moreover, drug offenders make up the single largest category of incarcerated offenders in Tennessee, serving an average sentence of 9.7 years” (Malcolm, 2014, paragraph 21.) By limit sentencing, we can address the issues of high cost, by using probation and parole for more misdemeanor
In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or over 5.9 percent of all global deaths were attributed to alcohol consumption. And as we see, since 2012, these numbers still continue to increase. According to these percentages, alcoholism has become a very major problem in our generation. Yet despite the warnings, people still continue to drink and slowly harm themselves. In our day to day lives, we see people drink on social media very often.
People get incarcerated due to many reasons and sometimes they get harsh sentencing due to their crime. The crimes may either be intentional or accidental, but that is no excuse for the bureau of prisons. The prison sentences are sometimes doubled and tripled. These sentences are so harsh sometimes that the prisoners don’t get to see their family members anymore. Sentencing reform should be able to be in prisons not only statewide but globally because it will give prisoners a chance to fix their mistakes.
Overview: The purpose of the Executive Summary, The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Executive Summary (Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, Lindquist, 2011), was to show how Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center (UI-JCP), RTI International (RTI) and Center for Court Innovation (CCI) conducted research on how drug courts impact the overall crimes related to drugs. The main issue being explored is how well the drug courts are doing to help lower crime revolving around the drug epidemic. This issue is significant to criminal justice because it shows that the United States has a serious drug dilemma that started in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that has to be combated by government and law enforcement agencies. This includes the issue you of whether or not drug courts are actually helping reduce crime.
The idea behind these program was to help treat the offenders for their substance abuse disorders while still holding them accountable for the crime that they had committed (Lutze & Wormer, 2013). Many studies have been conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of drug court programs across the country. In a qualitative study done by Gallagher 100 participants of the drug court program were examined. This study found that of the drug court participants, seventy-nine percent were not rearrested in the follow-up period. Twenty-one percent of those participants were rearrested (Gallagher, 2014).
With the economy in the turmoil that it is in America cannot continue to support these sentencing guidelines. The Mandatory Article Sentencing declares that the laws are becoming a huge drain on the Justice Bureau’s budget, and in 2012 the United States had far beyond more people incarcerated than any other country. Most of these prisoners are low-level drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines with a cost draining on American taxpayers $6.8 billion a year, as of 2012. These costs do not seem to have a ceiling and continue eating up about twenty-five percent of the federal justice system’s yearly budget.
I enjoy reading your post. I agree that intermediate sanctions, including supervision with requirements for residential substance abuse treatment and probation restitution centers are less costly than prison since your offender is a low risk he should be able to get the help he needs at a re-entry center that can help him to succeed with his treatment . I further believe that offenders who successfully complete these type of alternative sanctions are less likely to recidivist.
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).
Mandatory minimums are court decisions whereas judicial discretion, or the judge’s ability to lower or increase the sentence, is limited by law. With the aim to lower crime rates, certain crimes, especially nonviolent drug crimes, are punished with a minimum number of years in prison. But, in many cases, specifically nonviolent drug offenses, this sort of punishment never reflects the crime. Because the context of the crime must always be considered when sentencing someone, and mandatory minimums throw context right out the window . . . Not only do mandatory minimums undermine justice by preventing judges the power to lower a sentence based on the context of the crime, but they also contribute to America’s rising prison population.
A typical person that is accused of drunk driving is convicted of a very small punishment a fine, short period time in jail or restriction use is the typical punishment. Which sends the message law officials have let drunk drivers get away with their crimes by the time of arrest they have already drove well over 80 while drunk
(Wormer, Persson, 2010). This program would save the communities a lot of money and help out the families of the person who is in trouble. Not all people who commit drug related crimes would qualify but people who would be facing long prison time. This would be for first time offenders who have not committed violent crimes. They would get treatments such as cognitive behavior therapy, drug treatments and be under the very intense supervision of the drug court.
The issue of prison overcrowding has been an increasing in America. There are about 2.2 million Americans in jail or prison. The number of people in prison have gotten so large that about one in every 100 adults are behind bars. The increase in inmate population in the United States is a concern to me because some of these people have committed non-violent crimes or have drug related crimes. These people should be placed in rehabilitation centers or be counseled about drug distributing.
Drunk driving is a serious problem that continues to take thousands of deaths each year. Too many innocent lives been lost to drunk driving. A death from drunk driving does not only affect the victim but it affects everyone around them such as family and friends. One night, one drink, one mistake is all it takes for drunk driving to take its toll. There are many solutions to prevent drunk driving, but they will only work if we put them into play.
If we want zero tolerance, all offenders must serve their time. Non-violent offenders should serve time, and even serve community services. Drug offenders must be held accountable for the offense. Secondly, it also sets a negative example for kids when a drug offender get off easy and not punished.
