Mass incarceration leads greatly to America’s rate of poverty. Conservatives, liberals, and law enforcement influential now agree that the county’s jail population must be reduced and that this can be done without jeopardizing public safety. It’s tempting to believe that progress en route for federal change is unattainable in a divisive political environment. However, even today, the necessitate to confront troubles in the way we arrest, put on trial, and imprison remains a rare area of bipartisan agreement. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that without cause lengthy federal prison terms obstruct rehabilitation, fueling recidivism and economic inequity. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, the pace of mass incarnation is increasing. In 2006, an estimated at over 9 million people were imprisoned globally at any one moment. Out of which half were held in only three countries: the United States, China, and the Russian Federation. Worldwide, 0.15 percent of the population is imprisoned, or one in every 670 people (Alexander Solzhenitsyn).
To assist in bridging that gap, this article proposes solutions to maintain low crime rates and demonstrate support for law mechanisms while also reducing mass incarceration. The most robust of these programs need government and legislative action. Others may be implemented with the assistance of a kind administration. When combined, these ideas form the backbone of a national plan for federal leaders to make the country safer and more equitable. Additionally, they serve as examples for state and municipal government activity.
The government may repeal the Federal Subsidy for Mass Incarceration by legislation: Federal funding assists states and local governments in developing criminal justice policies. To restore liability to the flow, Congress may enact a Reverse Mass Incarceration Act that would dedicate a certain number of residents to states with a low crime rate and a low incarceration rate. This would stimulate state and local government action across the nation.
Legislation may also be used to abolish Federal Incarceration for Low-Level Crimes: The criminal justice system is heavily reliant on the jail, with imprisonment serving as the default punishment for most offenses. On the other hand, redundant incarceration is expensive and ineffective in preventing recidivism as well as promoting rehabilitation. Timely estimates indicate that around 49% of the federal prison populace is likely to have been imprisoned without a compelling public safety justification (Lynch 695). Congress may enact legislation to eliminate compulsory minimum sentences for low-level offenses and reduce mandatory minimum sentences for other crimes. This way, it can safely and significantly reduce the prison population.
Additionally, the government may establish a program to bring up to date the law enforcement by establishing a police corps: The country is amidst a national police crisis. According to some, overzealous enforcement has reached a tipping point. Some say that police are underfunded and undersupported. We can all agree on the fact that something has to change. To build a twenty-first-cenury law enforcement force, Congress may provide sufficient monies over six years to hire new officers and educate them in contemporary policing strategies centered on crime hindrance, as well as techniques to minimize unnecessary arrests, force, and incarceration.
Most importantly, the government can redirect Federal grants away from mass Incarceration: Because many of the injurious incentives embedded in federal criminal justice grants are enshrined in law, truly bringing to an end the federal subsidization of mass incarceration will require congressional act as outlined above. However, the Justice Department may take the very first step by modifying performance metrics for grants to recognize states that employ federal monies to decrease crime and imprisonment.
Furthermore, Case Law Changes Regarding the Eighth Amendment: Federal case law is the second critical legal development that must be addressed in explanations of American mass imprisonment. Again, a growing amount of empirical literature, mainly in the law and society tradition, demonstrates how federal courts’ supervision of prisons has contributed in unforeseen ways to mass imprisonment (Lynch 678). The lesson from this work is similar to that from the study of “tough-on-crime” sentencing initiatives. It hows that state politicians in some jurisdictions publicly eschewed practical solutions to demanding and severe criminal justice troubles and cast off criminal law expertise when responding to court orders.
This essay makes a case for ending mass incarceration and reforming the criminal justice system. Federal government funding has the potential to influence state policies and contribute to the present dilemma of mass incarceration. And the federal government puts the national tone, which is critical for mounting public support for and drive for change on a national scale. This may be accomplished by discontinuing Federal Subsidies for Mass Incarceration, discontinuing Federal Incarceration for Low-Level Crimes, establishing a Police Program to bring up to date the Law Enforcement, and redirecting Federal grants away from mass Incarceration. Without a well-built national movement, the necessary radical changes at the state and municipal levels will not occur.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1962 “Data source provided”
Lynch, Mona. “Mass Incarceration, Legal Change, and Locale.” Criminology & Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 3, 19 July 2011, pp. 673–698, 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00733.x. Accessed 10 May 2019.
Prison Policy Initiative. “World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were a Country.” Prisonpolicy.org, 2021, www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/2021.html. Accessed 23 Mar. 2022.