Essay Sample on Mass Incarceration: A New Cultural Penalty of the Justice System

Introduction

A new cultural penalty of mass incarceration was witnessed in the wake of the early 1980s (Thompson, 2010). This paper identifies mass incarceration as a punitive political discourse that brings more harm to the justice system other than the intended benefits. Mass incarceration under probation laws encourages numerous political discourse. First, the various policy reforms on mass incarceration manifest widening supervision on the grassroots levels. The supervision of criminals at the grassroots levels is a more expensive and bureaucratic affair to be effectively managed.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

With the widening supervision on grassroots levels, the imprisoned individuals are managed at a greater cost of supervision and follow up procedures. The socialization of crime theory views probation and mass incarceration to impact more on the negative impacts of incarceration instead of showing beneficial factors (Michelle, 2013). These views include widening the supervision of criminals, which in return, extends the judicial systems. Moreover, more people are entangled in criminal cases, thereby increasing incarcerated court cases.

Other supporting researches confirm the political discourse of mass incarceration. Guerino, Harrison, and Sabol (2011) describe the findings from New York, New Jersey; these studies present a conclusion; probation policies geared to promote incarceration, in the long run, create an environment where individuals are entangled with related criminal cases. More to add is that massive incarceration results to an increase in the spread of justice delivery to unprofessional members of society. The perspective of a punitive turn on incarceration views mass incarceration on the basis of the paradoxical analysis test. This perspective manifest incarceration to serve the two functions as acting as both an alternative and a major course of net widener towards incarceration rate. Furthermore, punishment is seen as a tool to reduce the political discourse of incarceration at the expense of sociocultural influences such as politics. The political environment influences mass incarceration practices and thereby only seeks to suit the interests of the political class.

The reforms supporting incarceration is ineffective and a costly affair to manage. The various research reviews done between the period of 1980 and 2010 supports this notion; social punishment increases the negative effects of the penal process (Michelle, 2013). Guerino, Harrison, and Sabol (2011) describe that incarceration facilitated the increase in the population of prisoners in the year 2009. The research finding of the study highlighted twenty-five states within the United States, to have portrayed an increased prisoning as a result of greater involvement with the prisoners and prison cases.

Major studies focus on discussion points of the punitive turn of mass incarceration includes Guerino, Harrison, and Clear (2011)," Pew Center on the States." It supports the notion that mass incarceration reduces the rate of social freedom through a study finding from the twenty-five states of America in the year 2009. The result gave conclusive evidence that the prison population was on the rise with the adoption of the probation reforms. Additionally, in New York, New Jersey and Michigan probation reforms led to politicizing the budget issues and thereby increasing the incarceration rate. This study is the fundamental framework upon which the contradictory opinion on the adoption of probation as an aid to mass incarceration is analyzed.

Other studies, like Bushway (2011) and Clear & Austin (2009), amongst others, examines various themes of the probation reform policies. These studies highlight major punitive issues of mass incarceration, such as diverting the imprisonment cases into non-custody cases that are less supervised. The chains of supervision processes also characterize no custody cases. These studies analyze the probation reforms, their implications, and necessary reforms to improve the adverse effects of incarceration. The study of, Phelps, (2013) highlights the negative influences of mass incarceration as malpractices that undermine the critical goal incarceration. Such probation malpractices include the supervision of people within their homes and the community at large. This does not support the court procedural process. A court case is supposed to be held at the courtrooms and not at community homes. This practice undermines the role of incarceration in managing court cases (Phelps, 2013).). Probation reforms result in long imprisonments (Michelle, 2013). Moreover, incarceration is as a result of the various unnecessary reforms on trial processes. Those processes are not effectively managed and are on the verge of constant political influences. In one way or the other, this undermines the intended role of probation on incarceration rate.

Mitchell (2013) focuses on identifying the various ill practices of the social probation laws and giving various solutions or alternatives to the incarceration concept. These new concepts include the Model of social probation-prison slink. It builds more on the widener-net model that focuses on spreading supervision at the expense of many other judicial flaws. It identifies alternatives to the probation reforms. One such reform alternative is the measures used for the effective supervision of individuals at all class social class levels. The model further focuses on looking at the outcomes of sentence policy against probation supervision practices. It is an Incentive-based model for justice that guarantees all the individual participants an equitable return on the judicial processes. It tries to resurrect the various reforms of probation for effective judicial processes. Additionally, the probation-prison link model is an alternative to the net widener model.

Mitchell (2013) acknowledges both contradicting opinions on the cause of incarceration. The socialist view of widening supervision to cause incarceration remains a vital defect of incarceration. However, there is a need to analyze those reforms and their effectiveness if incarceration is to reduce the prison population. Mitchell (2013) focuses on an approach that considers the differences in the governing procedures of one country to the other. He further asserts that reforms should not be implemented universally. The variation in determinants of law and order is critical in judicial processes and have to be assessed for any judicial reform. The problem of supervision in violating an individual's right from constant civil cases has to be reassessed.

Various proposed actions to be taken in solving the punitive incarceration policy laws includes the introduction of new risk assessment tools to guide the whole probation process. The various risk assessment tools in relation to a country's governing procedures have to be put in place (Michelle, 2013). Risk assessment producers need to be adaptive to each situation. For instance, the existing variations in the governing procedures and court systems require a deeper analysis to readjust the assessment processes.

Conclusion

Assessments on political influences on social punishment have to be carried out for effective incarceration reforms. Otherwise, no achievable objective will be ascertained on the verge of political influencers. Fiscal incentives to reform incarceration supervision is vital for effective results. These incentives will promote the public attitude towards carrying out low-level supervision. Furthermore, the government has to offer various change attitude incentives to incarceration processes that will win effective and efficient supervision. Through incentives, expansive supervision is worth being realized. All the various negative elements of incarceration, therefore, portray mass incarceration as a punitive political discourse on the public ranging from creating more supervision of criminals by unprofessional persons at the grassroots levels at greater costs. Mass incarceration also limits the social freedom of a person. Moreover, social punishment policies create a non-custody case with less supervision from the judicial system.

References

Bushway, S. D. (2011). Labor markets and crime. Crime and Public Policy, 183-209.

Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=258085

Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12002

Clear, T. R. (2011). A private-sector, incentives-based model for justice reinvestment. Criminology & Pub. Pol'y, 10, 585.

Clear, T. R., & Austin, J. (2009). Reducing mass incarceration: Implications of the iron law of prison populations. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev., 3, 307.

Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of massincarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12002

Thompson, H. A. (2010). Why mass incarceration matters: Rethinking crisis, decline, and transformation in postwar American history. The Journal of American History, 97(3), 703-734. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/97.3.703