UNIT 3 ASSIGNMENT
.docx
School
Waldorf College**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
CRJ 2200
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 19, 2024
Pages
8
Uploaded by UltraCrown14065
1UNIT 3 ASSIGNMENT Waldorf UniversityCRJ 2200 - Theories and Practices of CorrectionsProfessor Kristie MilbyDecember 13 , 2024
2PART 1Over the last fifty years, several notable sentencing trends have emerged. In 1973, “New York’s Rockefeller drug laws come into effect, establishing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018). These laws resulted in a significant increase in incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenders, despite the fact that drug-related crime rates did not decline. Approximately 150,000 individuals in New York were imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses as a result of these laws. By 2002, out of the state's 70,000 inmates, 19,164 were serving time for drug offenses, which nearly doubled the prison population since 1973. The laws became even more severe in the 1980s with the emergence of crack cocaine, contributing to a tripling of the state's prison population.In 1984, “Washington state enacts the first truth-in-sentencing law that requires violent offenders to serve most of their sentences in prison” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018). This legislation mandated that individuals must serve a minimum of 85% of their sentences before they could be considered for parole. The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) was developed following extensive deliberation by a committee that engaged with advocates and examined the practices of other states. The SRA implemented a determinate sentencing framework, enhancing accountability by improving access to information regarding the system and establishing performance measurement standards. In the following 15 years, 27 additional states enacted similar laws. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 established a grant program aimed at motivating states to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws, leading to participation from all 50 states in the initiative. The legislation was included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which also set up a federal sentencing commission and abolished parole within the federal prisonsystem. Additionally, the act introduced the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-
3Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant program, offering financial assistance to states that enacted comparable laws. Over the next 15 years, 27 other states implemented similar legislation, and ultimately, all 50 states engaged in the VOI/TIS program.In 1994, “California passes a three strikes law enhancing mandatory penalties for third-time felony convictions” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018). This legislation effectively imposes a life sentence on repeat offenders with serious or violent felony convictions, commonly known as "Three Strikes and You're Out." The objective was to discourage repeat offenses by enforcing severe penalties on individuals with multiple serious or violent felony convictions. The consequence for the third strike was a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. The law has sparked controversy due to its disproportionate effects on certain demographic groups and the risk of imposing lengthy sentences for non-violent crimes.By 1999, a total of “twenty-four states now have the three strikes laws and 29 states now have truth-in-sentencing laws” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018). From 1993 to 1995, 24 states introduced three-strikes laws designed to impose harsher prison sentences on repeat offenders. These regulations mandated that repeat felons, particularly those guilty of violent crimes, face significantly longer sentences. As of 1999, 29 states had transitioned from "indeterminate sentencing" frameworks to truth-in-sentencing laws. This initiative sought to minimize the disparity between the sentences handed down by judges and the actual time served by offenders in prison.In December 2002, the state of “Michigan eliminates mandatory sentences for most drug offenses” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018). The measure was signed into law by Republican Governor John Engler later that year, with the reform officially taking effect on March 1, 2003.
4In 2012, “at least 17 states and the federal government have partially repealed or lessenedthe severity of mandatory sentences” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018) with a particular emphasis on reforms concerning drug-related offenses and enhancing judicial discretion in sentencing. Numerous states have amended their mandatory sentencing regulations, especially for nonviolentdrug offenses, by broadening judicial discretion through "safety valve" provisions or by restricting automatic sentence enhancements. The federal government has also made significant changes, most notably through the Fair Sentencing Act, which has considerably narrowed the gap between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine. This shift towards reducing mandatory sentences is viewed as a potential strategy to combat the challenges of mass incarceration.Sentencing trends have notably transformed the landscape of corrections and sentencing in the United States, resulting in a substantial rise in the prison population. This increase can be attributed to stricter sentencing laws, especially "three strikes" laws and mandatory minimum sentences, which have led to extended prison terms for various offenses and have played a role inmass incarceration. In contrast, recent reform initiatives are aimed at decreasing the number of individuals in prison by implementing measures such as "second look" sentencing reviews, abolishing life sentences without parole for juveniles, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration, including community-based programs. A significant development is the substantialincrease in the U.S. prison population over recent decades, primarily driven by stricter sentencing laws and policies that have resulted in longer sentences for a variety of offenses. This period marked a transition to more severe penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences fordrug-related crimes, which have had a disproportionate effect on minority communities. Studies indicate that extended sentences do not effectively deter criminal behavior and can lead to
5adverse societal consequences, prompting demands for reform. Current movements advocate for decarceration strategies, such as reducing the reliance on lengthy sentences, broadening parole eligibility, and introducing "second look" sentencing reviews for those serving extended terms. In addition to decreasing prison populations, there is an increasing emphasis on rehabilitative programs within correctional facilities to better equip individuals for reintegration into society. Numerous jurisdictions are working to mitigate the effects of mandatory minimum sentences, granting judges greater discretion in their sentencing decisions. Initiatives aim to restrict life without parole sentences for juveniles and emphasize diversion programs to prevent youth from entering the criminal justice system. There is a push to expand early release options through good behavior credits and compassionate release for specific groups.PART 2“Community supervision in the United States goes by a variety of different names” (Shuman, 2024) but I will be discussing the supervision known as probation. Community supervision is a court-mandated sentence that allows a convicted individual to remain in the community while being monitored by a probation officer. This arrangement typically includes specific conditions such as regular check-ins, curfews, and community service, enabling the offender to serve their sentence outside of incarceration. The most prevalent form of community supervision is probation, which involves oversight in the community rather than imprisonment, and may require participation in community service as part of the court's stipulations. The main categories are probation, which applies to offenders sentenced directly by the court, and parole, which pertains to individuals released from prison early under certain conditions. Those under community supervision are subject to monitoring by probation officers who ensure adherence to
6the established requirements. These conditions may encompass maintaining employment, attending counseling, undergoing drug testing, adhering to curfews, and fulfilling community service obligations. The primary objective of community supervision is to facilitate the reintegration of offenders into society while providing necessary support and accountability, thereby aiming to lower the likelihood of reoffending. Community service is a type of community supervision that involves a court-ordered programwhere an offender performs work for the community as a form of punishment. “Community service in essence is unpaid work done in an effort to help society” (Supernor, 2017).It can be used as an alternative to incarceration, to help offenders make amends, and to benefit the community. Community service can involve a variety of tasks, such as cleaning parks, helping at community events, or working with a non-profit organization. Probation officers monitor theoffender's progress and ensure they complete the required number of hours within the specifiedtime frame. Community service can help offenders gain job experience, develop positive attitudes, and maintain family and community ties. It can also help the community by providing services to public agencies and reducing jail costs. Community supervision can also take the form of pretrial supervision or probation. Pretrial supervision is for people who have been charged with a crime but are awaiting trial. Probation is a court-imposed sanction for a crime. I hold the view that probation serves as an important instrument within the criminal justice system, providing offenders, particularly those involved in less severe offenses, with an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This approach maintains accountability through established conditions and supervision, which may lead to lower recidivism rates in comparison to incarceration. Nonetheless, there are valid concerns regarding
7the possibility of overly stringent restrictions and the necessity for robust monitoring and supportsystems to facilitate successful program completion. Probation allows individuals to tackle the root causes of their criminal behavior through access to counseling, job training, and various support programs while remaining integrated within their communities. It is typically less expensive than incarceration, enabling the reallocation of resources to other critical areas. Offenders can sustain their employment, maintain family connections, and actively participate in society while under supervision. Probation offers offenders a chance to compensate victims through financial means or community service, fostering accountability. Stringent reporting requirements or movement limitations may impede an individual's ability to secure and maintain employment and overall stability. Insufficient monitoring or lack of support from probation officers can result in noncompliance and an increased risk of reoffending. There are concerns regarding potential biases in the granting of probation and the conditions that are applied.I consider community service to be a vital aspect of responsible citizenship. It provides a deep sense of fulfillment by enabling individuals to engage actively with their community, positively influence the lives of others, and experience personal growth through challenges that push them beyond their comfort zones. Engaging in such activities not only allows one to contribute meaningfully but also strengthens the bonds with those in the surrounding community.
8REFERENCESAlarid, L. F., & Reichel, P. L. (2017). Corrections (Justice Series) (3rd ed.). Pearson Education(US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9780134549057Schuman, J. (2024). Revocation at the Founding. Michigan Law Review, 122(7), 1381–1441.https://doi-org.libraryresources.waldorf.edu/10.36644/mlr.122.7.revocationSupernor, H. (2017). Community service and white-collar offenders. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(1), 148-156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2016-0023