An Essay on Overpopulation in the Prisons of America

This essay argues that prison does not deter crime, and that non-violent offenders should receive punishment other than prison sentences.

Introduction

American jails are overcrowded; in fact, America has a disproportionate number of its citizens behind bars. And the prison population keeps growing. Does prison deter crime, or merely teach young people how to be better criminals?

Order custom essay An Essay on Overpopulation in the Prisons of America with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Supporters of harsh jail sentences often cite several arguments as the basis for their belief. These include the idea that jail terms serve as a deterrent to crime; that wrongdoing must be punished, and that a decent society has the right to ensure the safety of its members by incarcerating those who break its laws. This paper supports the following argument: Nonviolent criminals should receive punishments other than jail sentences, and in doing so refutes the beliefs stated above. (The conclusions in the paper are based on life experience and reasoning, not formal references.)

Supporting Points

Considering the condition of American jails and whether they function as they should, the following points come to mind. First, the jails are overcrowded, and that in itself leads to problems for inmates and correction officials. Tempers fray, violence erupts, and there is no way in which lesser offenders can stay away from more hardened types. Second, there is no evidence to show that jail sentence deter crime. Third, I believe the recidivism rate is high. Fourth, I think there is truth to the contention that jails are "schools for crime." Finally, I don't believe there is a "one-size-fits-all" punishment system, and the "get tough on crime" campaigns that have resulted in so-called "three strikes" laws in states around the country have gone too far in the wrong direction.

Further Discussion

Let's examine three of these points: deterrence, the idea of jails being "schools for crime," and the "three strikes" concept. Do jails deter crime? I would argue that they have little effect on the overall crime rate. The crime rate is lower in some places than it is been for years, and officials tend to crow about their success in lowering crime, only to have it skyrocket again. It seems to me that crime is a result of many different factors, and possibly the least important of them is the likelihood of receiving a jail sentence for breaking the law. I suggest that a desperate need for money to buy drugs drives many crimes, including those where property is stolen to be fenced. Likewise the death penalty does little to deter murder, since most killings are committed in the heat of an argument. If jail time truly did deter crime, then we should see a steady and continuous drop in the crime rate, because we have more people behind bars now than ever before. Thus, if there is a direct correlation between the two, more jail time should translate directly to fewer crimes. It does not. I'd suggest that we look at a society which marginalizes so many of its members they feel they have no choice but to turn to crime, if we want to find real answers to the problem.

Secondly, is jail a "crime school?" Yes, I believe it is. In today's society, the idea of jail as rehabilitation seems to have vanished, if it was ever truly there in the first place. Jail today is seen as punishment; a brutal place where society can put the people it dislikes and forget about them. Inside, then, is a population that decides who's "cool" and who's not, depending upon how quickly they catch on to the way things are done; what they'll take, and what they'll fight. Those who want to survive, I think, often hook up with more experienced prisoners, from whom they learn hatred of the system, of society, and more importantly, ways to take revenge in the form of crimes they'll commit upon release. It is particularly unfortunate that young men and women are thrown together with toughened inmates, against whom they have little defense.

Third, does "one size fit all"? Absolutely not. There are already cases where the three-strikes law has resulted in life sentences that are manifestly unfair. A person can go to jail for life after committing three offenses, no matter how trivial. Thus, if an otherwise decent kid shoplifts something on a dare, then steals a loaf of bread, and finally smokes a joint, he can wind up in jail for the rest of his natural life. This is patently absurd and is surely stretching the idea of punishment as deterrence to ludicrous extremes.

I believe the idea of jail for non-violent criminals gains approval in times of fear, social unrest, and economic hardship such as that we're experiencing now. When the pendulum swings to more prosperous times, when jobs are easier to find, and when there is less anxiety about our survival in case of an all-out nuclear war, I would expect to see more reasonable heads prevail in terms of sentencing.

Conclusion

Jail deters nothing. It throws basically good kids who have made one mistake too many; or "white collar" criminals; or people caught with drugs for their own use, in with violent offenders. In the company of such hardened prisoners, otherwise decent people become hardened as well; they must, in order to survive in prison.

The reason behind our jailing a huge percentage of our population is simple: we're scared. We need to look to ourselves as a society to find ways to make life amenable for all our citizens, rather than enriching the wealthy, destroying the middle class and despising the poor. Only when our society begins to take care of all its members will we truly begin solving the problems that lead us to jail so many non-violent offenders.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer