The majority of prisons around the world, including those in the United States, are overcrowded. Compared to the initial number of convicts they were intended to hold, they now hold more. More than 118 nations’ prisons were overcrowded, with 11 national jail systems operating at more than double their maximum capacity. “The current situation with respect to the prison system is unsustainable,” said Julie Samuels, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center and one of the authors of the report (no relation to the prisons director). “I think what we’ve tried to do is lay out the array of options that we have to change that.”
Reducing the prison population is the first step in the approach. The number of prisoners in the federal prison system has increased from 25,000 in 1980 to 219,000 today. The majority are there for drug-related charges. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder declared in a significant speech in August that the Justice Department will work to reduce the number of Americans who spend years in prison for non-violent drug offenses, in part by instructing prosecutors to file fewer drug cases in federal court. The federal government would save $1.29 billion and the prisons would free up 125,000 “bed years” if judges and prosecutors sent 20 percent fewer drug offenders to prison.
Why are there so many individuals in jail for drug offenses? Federal regulations governing mandatory minimum sentences play a significant role in the solution. Offering drug offenders shorter sentences is a second strategy for lowering crime rates in jail. If half of the inmates get their sentences drastically shortened, the prison population will circulate twice as quickly. Depending on the type and quantity of the substance, judges must sentence drug offenders to prison terms ranging from 5 years to 20 years under one statute. According to the study, prior to this rule from 1986, 25% of all federal drug offenders received fines or probationary sentences. 95 percent of people today are incarcerated. This adjustment is anticipated to have “a massive effect,” saving the government $2.49 billion over 10 years while reducing overcrowding to “its lowest level in decades.”
Finally, we could allow judges more leeway than we now do in terms of punishment. Judges are not always required to give defendants the minimum sentences required by the law. Only if the defendant has a very clean criminal history and has been found guilty of a nonviolent narcotics crime can the judge divert from this procedure. This “safety valve” would be widened under the legislation proposed by Durbin, Lee, and Leahy to include drug offenders with marginally longer criminal histories who don’t endanger the public. With this reform, it is anticipated that 53,000 bed years and $544 million might be saved.
There are also additional hypotheses about the causes of prison overcrowding, including one that blames it on criminal justice reform rather than rising crime rates. The proponents of this idea critique jail systems’ capacity to provide for basic requirements including housing, food, and medical treatment. The criminal justice system must therefore be thoroughly updated, with rehabilitation programs’ availability and efficacy improved, and additional recreational and educational opportunities added. Prisoners have the right to exercise their fundamental liberties and maintain their privacy regardless of what causes jail overcrowding. It is obvious that the present prison system is unable to carry out that duty. More investigation and application are required.
Works Cited:
Gaes, Gerald G. “The Effects of Overcrowding in Prison.” Crime and Justice, vol. 6, 1985, pp. 95–146. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147497. Accessed 13 Sep. 2022.
Bleich, Jeff. “The Politics of Prison Crowding.” California Law Review, vol. 77, no. 5, 1989, pp. 1125–80. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3480644. Accessed 13 Sep. 2022.Harris, M. Kay. “Reducing Prison Crowding and Nonprison Penalties.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 478, 1985, pp. 150–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1045956. Accessed 13 Sep. 2022.
Leave a Reply