The Pros And Cons Of Prison Overpopulation

According to Schmalleger and Smykla, “Over the past 25 years, [the] prison population has increased sixfold – from 240,000 to almost 1.6 million” (pp. 415, 2015). As a result, the continued growth of the prison population is unsustainable based on the current model of corrections. Several actions are necessary to counteract the expanding rate of incarcerated individuals. Ideally, through perfect planning, a decrease in prison population is realized, however, realistically, an individual is and must be held responsible for their own actions. Thus, from a correctional perspective, the only control in influencing prison population comes from ensuring access to effective rehabilitation methods and hoping offenders gain the ability to control their

The goal of tougher drug laws was to arrest and convict drug dealers, thereby reducing drug use and the drug-related crime rate” (Schmalleger & Smykla, pp. 416, 2015). Therefore, by adjusting common practices from prison sentences to alternative methods of sentencing and monitoring, a large number of potential inmates are diverted from the prison system. For example, “There are 219,000 inmates in the federal prisons system… About half are there for drug offenses. If prosecutors and judges send 20 percent fewer drug offenders to prison, the federal government would save $1.29 billion and… 125,000 ‘bed years’” (Knafo, 2013). Alternatively, minor, nonviolent, user-level offenders are better suited and could benefit more from drug courts than from

After all, some repeat offenders will continually resist rehabilitation from a criminalistic-lifestyle, leaving society no recourse but separation through incarceration to incapacitate them from affecting the lives of law-abiding free citizens. Regretfully, the adage “a few bad apples spoils the bunch” does prove true regarding criminal behavior and separation from society is the only remedy. However, through privatized corrections, society benefits from creating numerous jobs that also serve a vital function for their communities. Granted that, opponents of private or corporate run prisons argue that they are for profit resulting in two distinct objections. First, a corporation has no authority to administer and oversee sentences imposed by the government. However, through the initial concept in the US involving John Augustus to modern agencies, probation is a highly privatized sector that enforces judicial sentences (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Second, rivals to the privatization of prisons argue that for a corporation, recidivism equates to profits, so private prisons have no motivation to promote rehabilitation. The response is simple, mandate oversight that dictates minimum requirements for institutional rehabilitation programs offered to offenders. The additional capacity provided by a private commercialized prison sector, aides in