NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... are experimenting with "re-entry courts" that oversee the process of reintegration. In these courts, conditions of supervision are openly agreed to and openly enforced. If a new crime is committed, all bets are off and the parolee is prosecuted for the new crime. But violations of the conditions of parole - the technical violations that now fill up the state's prisons - are handled more along the lines of drug courts, with appropriate support services, close judicial monitoring, graduated sanctions for failure to meet conditions, and local detention where needed to enforce the orders of the court.
Why California incarceration is so high? The answer may be provided just be showing statistic for drug abuse arrests. During the past two decades California experienced a 25 -fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to state prison. As a result of this increase California led the nation in drug offender incarceration with a rate of 115 per 100, 000 of the population - 2. 5 times the national average (45 per 100, 000 populations) This unprecedented imprisonment increase is partly attributable to escalating drug arrests.
These escalating drug arrests result from harsher sentencing statutes that have expanded the pool of prison-eligible offenders and promoted incarceration as a primary response to illicit drug use. California's uniquely harsher approach to drug crime is founded on deterrence and incapacitation theory. Deterrence and incapacitation theory promotes increased arrests, prosecutions, and prison sentences as the primary means to dissuade drug use and reduce street crime by removing the drug-involved offender from the community. The theory also holds that stricter sanctions targeting low level and first time drug offenders further reduces drug-related crime by increasing the personal costs of drug use among incipient users. The theory subscribes to the belief that failure to strictly enforce drug laws promotes other forms of crime as undeterred drug users seek money to supply their drug needs.
Supporters of deterrence and incapacitation theory associate the recent declines in California crime rates as a testament to these policies. Opponents argue that this theory is misguided and ineffective because simple punishment does not address the underlying causes of drug use and addiction (Sentencing Project). In addition, national statistics show that crime rates are declining across the nation regardless of individual state law enforcement policies. As the nation's leader in drug law enforcement, California presents an unusual opportunity to examine the impact of arrest and incarceration drug control policies. As California drug arrests doubled from 131, 000 in 1980 to 265, 000 in 1998, major variations developed.
In the 1980 s, two-thirds of the state's drug arrest increases were high level felonies such as illegal drug manufacture, sale, or possession in large quantity. However, in the 1990 s, nearly all drug arrest increases were for low level possession offenses. This dramatic rise in drug offender imprisonment throughout California is not uniform, as jurisdictions show wide variations in policy and practice. While many counties adopted strict doctrinaire enforcement policies that targeted serious and low level offenders, others opted to target more serious and chronic offenders. To determine the impact of differential enforcement policies, this study examines the state's 12 largest counties, which account for three-fourths of the state's population (25 million) and four-fifths of the state's drug arrests. This research analyzes the impact of strict drug law enforcement on violent crime, property crime, and drug abuse rates according to deterrence and incapacitation theory, the counties that adopted strict enforcement approaches should show the greatest declines in drug-related crime and drug abuse (see figure).
California should be leading the country into the 21 st century. We have the fifth largest economy in the world. Nearly one in every eight Americans lives in California. We have the most diverse population of any state in the union. California already spends far too much on incarceration.
California spends more on prisons than any other state. Among the ten most populous states, only Michigan and Illinois spend more per capita on corrections. But in higher education, California only ranks 41 st in per capita spending. California's spending priorities are grossly misguided. But Davis wanted to spend even more on prisons. Given the facts, one of two things must be true.
Either increased prison spending is the only way to ensure public safety, or Davis was in the pocket of the prison guards union. And its not the former. Across the country, states are slowly coming to the realization that harsh incarceration policies waste precious state dollars. Kentucky is granting early release to hundreds of nonviolent offenders. This is in response to a $ 500 million budget deficit less than 2 % of California's shortfall. The Kansas Sentencing Commission is recommending that Kansas place people arrested for drug possession, with no prior arrests for violent crimes or drug trafficking, in treatment programs instead of prison cells.
Michigan has voted to repeal its mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug crimes because of a budget deficit and prison overcrowding. But these kinds of reductions in prison spending must surely lead to an increase in crime, right? WRONG! There are alternatives to incarceration that are both cheaper and more effective at reducing crime than prisons. Hopefully this latest budget crisis will wake lawmakers up to what community advocates have been saying for years. Alternatives are cheaper and safer for everybody: the state, the community and the offender.
Alternatives to incarceration are successful because they try to solve problems instead of simply warehousing humans. Some programs like drug treatment programs, mental health and social service programs, and dispute resolution programs solve problems that have already come to a head. Others like job placement programs and education and training programs prevent such problems from developing by investing in communities. These kinds of alternatives to incarceration have proven time and again that problem-solving approaches to community safety are for more effective than punitive ones. But state money is not available for these alternatives, or for anything else, because Governor Davis is pouring everything he can into the Department of Corrections.
Spending more on a budget-buster like prisons while gashing education, health care and economic development will not solve California's massive fiscal problems or make communities any safer. There is a solution to the mind-boggling $ 34. 6 billion budget shortfall that we have reached under Davis. But we will not get there if we leave it to a governor in the pocket of the prison guards union. Governor Davis shortsighted pandering to the prison guards union threatens every single Californian.
Republicans, Democrats and independents. Workers and businesses. Black, brown, red, yellow and white. Men and women.
All of us are in jeopardy. This budget will not stand. Is there any solution? The benefits that the Prison Industry Programs claims to offer the state and its taxpayers are impressive. Inmates who work at these factories are not only kept busy and out of trouble but learn valuable work skills that will help reduce recidivism when they return to society, the PIA say. Meanwhile, state departments will be able to purchase (hopefully at below market costs) needed goods produced by inmate labor, and the revenues from these sales will in turn be used to sustain the PIA, thereby creating an inmate work program that costs taxpayers no money.
In fact, the PIA's operations actually save taxpayers money, authority officials say, because the California Department of Corrections does not have to fund other programs to keep inmates busy, and PIA participants get one day off their sentence for each day they work, reducing the cost of housing them. If these claims seem too good to be true, the California Bureau of State Audits (BSA), the Legislative Analysts' Office, numerous sources, and a four-month investigation by Third Force have determined that they are. According to an April 1996 BSA report, the Prison Industry Authority is not financially self-sufficient, but rather has lost more than $ 33 million over its 1 3 -year history; overcharged its state customers about $ 12 million during the 1994 - 95 fiscal year for products of questionable quality that were usually delivered late; cannot show that it develops inmate work skills or reduces recidivism; fails to keep accurate accounting records; and overall is in serious need of reform. In short, the PIA has failed to achieve any of its programmatic goals. To add insult to injury, students at CSU schools who have seen their budgets cut and their fees raised repeatedly over the past decade subsidize the PIA and by extension the prison system simply by paying their tuition. However, the PIA plays a critical role in the political battle over criminal justice in California, and its importance in that arena might outweigh its shoddy programmatic performance in the eyes of many state politicians.
Under pressure to justify vast prison and law-enforcement expenditures, which are projected to reach $ 5 billion a year, or 18 percent of the state budget, by the year 2000, Gov. Pete Wilson pointed to the PIA as the mechanism by which he is going to make the prisons pay for themselves. If there is one thing conservative politicians hate more than liberal attitudes toward crime, it's the notion that criminals have it easy in prison: watching TV and eating three hot meals a day on taxpayers' money. For this reason, the California legislature, like other state legislatures around the country, passed laws in 1985 and 1992 that required all able-bodied prisoners to work, necessitating the expansion of the prison industries program to provide the necessary jobs. Organized labor, which views prison industry in general as unfair competition for jobs, thinks the PIA should get out of manufacturing completely and concentrate on "remanufacturing" enterprises like recycling and sorting trash. Organizations such as the Prison Industries Reform Alliance (PIRA), a labor-supported national group of business, industry and labor representatives who believe prison industry programs should not displace regular workers, point to programs where inmates dismantle machines such as refrigerators and washers and dryers to either sell the parts or recycle them.
This is how the large number of arrested people can help California to stand up. Bibliography: 1) Abell, Richard B. (1999). "Beyond Willie Horton: The Battle of the Prison Bulge" Policy Review 1999 pp. 32 - 39 2) Vincent Schiraldi. 2004. Imprisoning Drug Offenders in California. The Justice Institute. 3) Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.
D To Faithfully Execute the Law: California's Executive Branch Agencies 1989 - 2004 4) Andreano, R. and Siegfried, J. (eds. ) (2000). The Economics Of Crime. New York: John Wiley and Sons 5) Baird, Christopher (2003). "The 'Prison's Pay's tudy: Research or Ideology" NCCD Focus: Washington D. C 6) "Jail Operating Costs in California: A Summary of the Issues. " Vol. III pp. 11 - 33.
California Board of Corrections, Sacramento, CA. 7) Austin, James and Krisberg, Barry (1995). "Incarceration in the California: The Extent and Future of the Problem. " 8) Diiulio, John J. Jr. (2000) "Crime and Punishment in Wisconsin: A Survey of Prisoners, " 9) Diiulio, John J. Jr. and Anne Morrison Piece (2001), "Does Prison Pay?" The Brookings Review Fall 2001 10) Zim ring, F. E. , and Hawkins, G. (1999). Scale of Imprisonment in CA Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press 11) Nesbary, D. (2004).
Recent Trends in State Corrections Spending. National Conference of State in CA.
Free research essays on topics related to: drug abuse, prison guards, budget deficit, law enforcement, drug offenders
Research essay sample on Prison Guards Drug Offenders
