The American prison system has largely contributed to climbing crime rates nationwide. The sentences that many criminals are receiving are further influencing their future roles as recidivists. In response to the heightened number of recidivists, the U.S. Sentencing Commission should adopt widespread alternative sentencing programs.
Under current federal sentences, many non-violent crimes often result in prison time, which extends the proportionality of the crime’s detriments, thus requiring an inmate to adapt to his or her surroundings. Like a pitbull that is chained for years, inmates forced into such conditions quickly turn predatory.
While many would argue that prison sentences are of a retributive nature, this mindset accomplishes little in terms of societal benefit. Once released from long prison terms, individuals often provide little benefit to society — many are uneducated, cannot apply for jobs and have restricted rights. In many ways, ex-convicts are left to be undrafted free agents.
Similarly, money plays a large role in prison. Aside from extended stays costing millions in legal and labor fees, they also place additional expenditures on an already burdened budget. In New York City, the prison system receives roughly $168,000 per inmate annually. In an already booming prison system, the amount of expenditures is sure to weigh heavily on taxpayers.
Alternative sentencing programs have been shown to manifest into a variety of capacities. Many of the programs are aimed at providing societal benefit, while using punishment as a more punitive, rehabilitative mechanism.
To combat the financial burden incurred by long-term prisoners, programs such as substance awareness would cost substantially less, while allowing the individual to experience life outside of concrete walls and barred doors. In doing this, the individual becomes more aware of his or her problems, thus creating a network for personal reinvention.
Some individuals would appear impervious to the measures of treatment and subsequent reduced sentences. While this is true, it should also be noted that no system is 100 percent successful, and the specific circumstances would call for specific measures. One of the clear beauties of alternative sentences is that individualism drives the entire process. Each case is observed, assessed and implemented based on its individual characteristics.
Alternative programs would emphasize proportionality between crimes and their punishment. A drug user would certainly not receive the same treatment as someone who is trafficking drugs. Each presents its own problems and would designate its individual treatment.
Mandatory minimum sentences would also become unnecessary. Mandatory minimums assume that each crime is the same in nature and should therefore operate on equal sets of sentences. In almost all circumstances the solution is seen to be incarceration, which is neither helpful to the individual nor beneficial to the environment.
At the root of alternative sentencing programs lies educational theory: Through education, we can teach people to be contributing members of society. While this is certainly not true 100 (or even 50) percent of the time, we can use the sentencing system to our best interest.
In many ways the alternative programs may serve as a larger deterrent to receiving three meals and a cot. Drug and alcohol programs, as well as educational programs, are some that have already been implemented, but others should be emerging. Continuing to develop alternative sentences would surely benefit the taxpayers, the criminal and society alike.