Sentencing and Corrections - What Is The Solution?

Is prison the answer to crime? Is prison supposed to punish, or is it supposed to rehabilitate? It is certainly the primary method the government uses to show that it takes crime seriously and will not let it go unpunished. It keeps dangerously violent criminals off the street, which has very likely contributed somewhat to the drop in crime during the 1990s.

Prisoners are often considered society's failures, people—mostly men—who have failed in their relationships with their families, schools, and jobs. They suffer disproportionately from physical, drug, and alcohol abuse. They may have low self-esteem and exhibit hostility towards others, especially those in authority. Prisoners bring their own society into prison, which usually revolves around drugs, smuggling, extortion, predatory sexual behavior, and violence.

Many penologists (persons who study prison management and the reformation of criminals) believe that locking up greater numbers of offenders reduces the rate of crime. Mandatory sentencing and habitual-offender laws give longer sentences to those who have broken the law. If criminals are in prison, they are not on the streets committing crimes. Some experts believe longer sentences have acted as a deterrent and played a major role in the recent decline in criminal activity.

TABLE 6.17
Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995, 2000, and 2002

Others disagree. In "Reforming Sentencing and Corrections for Just Punishment and Public Safety," (Sentencing and Corrections, National Institute of Justice,

TABLE 6.18
Characteristics of adults on parole, 1995, 2000, and 2002

No. 4, September 1999), authors Michael E. Smith and Walter J. Dickey reported on hearings by the Wisconsin Governor's Task Force on Sentencing and Corrections conducted in 1996, which focused on a Milwaukee neighborhood where public safety "was in serious disrepair." According to the police testimony at the hearings, at a certain high crime corner some "94 drug arrests were made within a 3-month period.… Despite the two-year prison terms routinely handed down by the sentencing judges (for drug offenses), the drug market continued to thrive at the intersection, posing

TABLE 6.19
Executive clemency applications for federal offenses received, disposed of, and pending in Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney, fiscal years 1953–2002

risks to the safety of all who lived nearby or had to pass through on their way to work or school." According to the testimony, the incarceration of some 100 drug-offense felons "did not increase the public safety at the street corner."

As an alternative to incarceration, programs advocating restorative and community justice are based on principles that address the needs of victims, communities and offenders. As reported by Leena Kurki in "Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American Sentencing and Corrections" (Sentencing and Corrections, National Institute of Justice, No. 3, September 1999), the basic principles of restorative justice are that crime involves disruptions in a three-dimensional relationship of victim, offender, and community; that because crime harms the victim and the community, the primary goals should be to repair that harm by healing the victim and community; that the victim, community, and offender should all participate in determining the response to crime; and that case disposition should be based primarily on the victim's and the community's needs.

TABLE 6.19
Executive clemency applications for federal offenses received, disposed of, and pending in Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney, fiscal years 1953–2002

One example of restorative justice is Victim-Offender Mediation, in which offenders meet with the victim(s) of their crime. These meetings, facilitated by a mediator, focus on the effects of the crime on the life of the victim and on the community at large. A restitution agreement is reached between the offender and the victim. Another example of restorative justice is Family Group Conferencing, which involves the meeting of the victim and the offender plus family, friends, co-workers and teachers of the victim and offender. According to Kurki, family group conferencing originated in New Zealand, where it became part of the juvenile justice system in 1989. As of 1999, about 30 percent of juvenile offenders in New Zealand were sent to family group conferencing instead of to juvenile court.

A Rand Corporation report, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits (1996), found that programs helping children avoid crime were more cost-effective than imprisoning repeat offenders for long periods. The study concluded that a state government could prevent 157 crimes annually by investing $1 million in parent-training programs. They could prevent another 258 crimes by investing $1 million in graduation incentive programs. On the other hand, spending $1 million in constructing and operating new prisons for long-term prisoners would prevent only 60 crimes a year. A cost-benefit comparison seems to favor spending on early crime intervention rather than on construction of prisons.