News (Media Awareness Project) - US UT: Editorial: Prisons Get A Wake-Up Call |
Title: | US UT: Editorial: Prisons Get A Wake-Up Call |
Published On: | 2003-04-15 |
Source: | Deseret News (UT) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-20 19:57:36 |
PRISONS GET A WAKE-UP CALL
About as many men and women now reside in American prisons and jails as
there are people in Utah -- a staggering figure when put in context.
For the first time, the U.S. prison population hit 2.1 million last year, a
trend driven by get-tough sentencing policies that mandate long terms for
drug offenders and other criminals.
Most of people sentenced to prison or jail serve time that is commensurate
with the offenses they have committed. Financial constraints have caused
some states to parole prisoners ahead of schedule because the state prison
systems can't afford to house them. But others languish in prison under
federal minimum mandatory sentences that, in some cases, are a disservice
to taxpayers who bankroll these prison stays and the inmates themselves.
We're not advocating some sort of large-scale amnesty program for the men
and women doing time in the federal and state prisons. But policymakers
need to consider the vast financial impacts of a growing prison population
and whether the nation's system of justice is best served by cookie-cutter
minimum-mandatory sentences and "three strikes laws" for repeat offenders.
This is particularly true in the federal system, where drug offenders can
face lengthy, legislatively prescribed prison sentences that sometimes
deprive federal judges of their ability to judge offenders by the evidence
before them and other particular circumstances. Often times, society's
interests and the offenders themselves could be better served in drug
courts and treatment programs.
Unfortunately, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approach appears to
be gaining ground. The Supreme Court this month upheld California's "three
strikes" law even though the defendant's final crime involved the theft of
golf clubs. Attorney General John Ashcroft is pushing for yet tougher
prison sentences.
While minimum-mandatory sentences may enable politicians to sleep better at
night, there is considerable debate whether these sentences fit the crimes
for which they are prescribed.
Taking repeat offenders or certain classes of offenders off the streets for
extended periods of time will most certainly reduce their opportunities for
committing further crimes. But most people eventually get out prison.
During their long prison stays, do they ever overcome or learn to control
the issues that contributed to their criminal behaviors in the first place?
With the prison population now in excess of 2 million people, policymakers
need to examine the reasons for this phenomenon and determine if changes in
public policy are needed to better address people who commit crimes against
society and how society deals with those offenders.
About as many men and women now reside in American prisons and jails as
there are people in Utah -- a staggering figure when put in context.
For the first time, the U.S. prison population hit 2.1 million last year, a
trend driven by get-tough sentencing policies that mandate long terms for
drug offenders and other criminals.
Most of people sentenced to prison or jail serve time that is commensurate
with the offenses they have committed. Financial constraints have caused
some states to parole prisoners ahead of schedule because the state prison
systems can't afford to house them. But others languish in prison under
federal minimum mandatory sentences that, in some cases, are a disservice
to taxpayers who bankroll these prison stays and the inmates themselves.
We're not advocating some sort of large-scale amnesty program for the men
and women doing time in the federal and state prisons. But policymakers
need to consider the vast financial impacts of a growing prison population
and whether the nation's system of justice is best served by cookie-cutter
minimum-mandatory sentences and "three strikes laws" for repeat offenders.
This is particularly true in the federal system, where drug offenders can
face lengthy, legislatively prescribed prison sentences that sometimes
deprive federal judges of their ability to judge offenders by the evidence
before them and other particular circumstances. Often times, society's
interests and the offenders themselves could be better served in drug
courts and treatment programs.
Unfortunately, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approach appears to
be gaining ground. The Supreme Court this month upheld California's "three
strikes" law even though the defendant's final crime involved the theft of
golf clubs. Attorney General John Ashcroft is pushing for yet tougher
prison sentences.
While minimum-mandatory sentences may enable politicians to sleep better at
night, there is considerable debate whether these sentences fit the crimes
for which they are prescribed.
Taking repeat offenders or certain classes of offenders off the streets for
extended periods of time will most certainly reduce their opportunities for
committing further crimes. But most people eventually get out prison.
During their long prison stays, do they ever overcome or learn to control
the issues that contributed to their criminal behaviors in the first place?
With the prison population now in excess of 2 million people, policymakers
need to examine the reasons for this phenomenon and determine if changes in
public policy are needed to better address people who commit crimes against
society and how society deals with those offenders.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...