Mass Incarceration In The 1970's
The United States prison system enacts a policy that allows them to incarcerate more prisoners than any other country. That policy is called mass-incarceration. The United States prison systems should reallocate their money to focus more on correction than on life-long punishment so that taxpayers save money and potentially transform life time prisoners into productive citizens.
The economics behind prisons have changed over the past four decades. Prisons in the U.S. have cost taxpayers more and more every year going back as far as the 1970’s. As much as $87,000,000,000 has been spent on incarceration every year. With an increase in the prison population, there has been a need to increase the carrying capacity of prisons. That could mean building …show more content…
Anyone who has ever been to prison can testify about the harsh nature of that kind of facility. Rehabilitation has taken a back seat to punishment which has caused a very difficult transition between prison and the outside world. In the 70’s, the popular idea of prisons was to build more prisons, which will get criminals off the streets. In theory that sounds right, but in practice it has shown to be highly ineffective. Etienne Benson, with the American Psychological Association, delivers analysis around the topic by explaining the historical context while also giving reason to distrust the system. “rehabilitation has taken a back seat to a ‘get tough on crime’ approach that sees punishment as prison's main function, says Haney. The approach has created explosive growth in the prison population, while having at most a modest effect on crime rates… many of the mentally ill who had left mental institutions in the previous two decades began entering the criminal justice system.” (Benson) As a country, we can learn from the past six decades in regards to treatment of the incarcerated. We have seen the incarcerated population skyrocket without a significant decrease on crime, yet the United States still insists on employing a strategy that has clearly …show more content…
Opponents are a non-vocal minority in this debate. For arguments such as gun control, there is an even divide between those in favor and those opposed. However, for mass-incarceration, there are few strongly in favor of the policy. One of the most outspoken opponents to the switch was Bill Otis. Bill Otis, the leader of the “tough on crime” motto, is a part of the media at the head of seminars and news stories regarding prisons. In an article written about Otis, Mark Obbie states, “Otis serves as the go-to voice for maintaining tough-on-crime sentencing.” Tough-on-crime sentencing is inherently fundamentally flawed. Tough-on-crime now essentially means more convictions, longer sentences, and eventually more money being poured into prisons. In politics, it is a popular idea to be tough-on-crime which makes it increasingly difficult to get change when the politicians basically use mass-incarceration as a tool to get
The economics behind prisons have changed over the past four decades. Prisons in the U.S. have cost taxpayers more and more every year going back as far as the 1970’s. As much as $87,000,000,000 has been spent on incarceration every year. With an increase in the prison population, there has been a need to increase the carrying capacity of prisons. That could mean building …show more content…
Anyone who has ever been to prison can testify about the harsh nature of that kind of facility. Rehabilitation has taken a back seat to punishment which has caused a very difficult transition between prison and the outside world. In the 70’s, the popular idea of prisons was to build more prisons, which will get criminals off the streets. In theory that sounds right, but in practice it has shown to be highly ineffective. Etienne Benson, with the American Psychological Association, delivers analysis around the topic by explaining the historical context while also giving reason to distrust the system. “rehabilitation has taken a back seat to a ‘get tough on crime’ approach that sees punishment as prison's main function, says Haney. The approach has created explosive growth in the prison population, while having at most a modest effect on crime rates… many of the mentally ill who had left mental institutions in the previous two decades began entering the criminal justice system.” (Benson) As a country, we can learn from the past six decades in regards to treatment of the incarcerated. We have seen the incarcerated population skyrocket without a significant decrease on crime, yet the United States still insists on employing a strategy that has clearly …show more content…
Opponents are a non-vocal minority in this debate. For arguments such as gun control, there is an even divide between those in favor and those opposed. However, for mass-incarceration, there are few strongly in favor of the policy. One of the most outspoken opponents to the switch was Bill Otis. Bill Otis, the leader of the “tough on crime” motto, is a part of the media at the head of seminars and news stories regarding prisons. In an article written about Otis, Mark Obbie states, “Otis serves as the go-to voice for maintaining tough-on-crime sentencing.” Tough-on-crime sentencing is inherently fundamentally flawed. Tough-on-crime now essentially means more convictions, longer sentences, and eventually more money being poured into prisons. In politics, it is a popular idea to be tough-on-crime which makes it increasingly difficult to get change when the politicians basically use mass-incarceration as a tool to get