Paper Example on Mass Incarceration and Normative Ethics

Introduction

Mass incarceration entails a government practice of holding detainees and inmates for pre-trial and short-term service in jails. In the U.S., mass incarceration has been historical with the law enforcement under the orders from the government expanding the state custody for the purpose of responding to crime. However, researchers on this subject have been arguing against this practice and referring it as a violation of human rights including other many reasons for its objection. In their argument, authors such as Simon state that mass incarceration has failed to be keen on the purpose of rehabilitation in jails. The focus of the practice is to give punitive segregation of the inmates to achieve deterrence as well as incapacitative effects. The common method of imprisoning criminals in many of the states today has been secularized to a greater extent than before. John Stuart Mill can be said to be one of the philosophers who introduced an ethical theory in normative ethics. One can say that Mill's theory of consequentialism can be used in explaining what researchers are today objecting to the practice of mass incarceration authorized by the U.S. government and other states in the World. Based on this background, the essay will discuss the ethical problems raised by mass incarceration through the Mill's brand of consequentialism. First, it is important to understand the basic tenets of consequentialism as explained by John Stuart Mill.

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

Save 25%

In his theory of consequentialism, Mill stated that the permissibility of an action is possible if and only if the outcomes are good. Mill noted that it is important to examine the outcomes of actions when compared to what could have happened when a different action is performed. Therefore, the assessment of the motives of an action is necessary for obtaining the best outcomes. Further, a morally good person is the one with the best motives when performing an action. In that case, it is possible to undertake an impermissible action when the outcomes and motives are good.

Mass incarceration leads to different consequences as it entails holding detainees for pre-trial and inmates for short-term service in jails. The ethics of mass incarceration can be viewed based on its outcomes as Mill stated that an action is permissible only of the outcome(s) are good. Today, the intention of mass incarceration has shifted its focus on rehabilitating criminals but achieving incapacitative effects as well as deterrence. Secularization of inmates and detainees under mass incarceration has been a major focus for prisons. When referring to history, prisons had high regard to sanitation, medical hygiene, rehabilitation and mental health of people detained there. However, the present regime places security above all these other important considerations. In-mates today have been subjected to 23 hours lockdown insider isolation cells (Simon 28). These are consequences that violate human rights for the inmates.

Mass incarceration has led to overcrowding of prisons even after opening many of these institutions in the U.S. Overcrowding of cells has led to many health problems for the inmates and the government seems to do very little about this outcome of mass incarceration (Simon 29). More and more marginal felons are being sent to state prisons instead of taking them to probation or jail. There is also mandatory sentence for drug offenders and longer prison sentences for criminals today than before. It has led to the state stripping the courts of their mandate to exercise leniency based on their power to prosecute by setting the mandatory minimums. According to Simon penal decisions for prisoners is highly influenced by local officials as well as exposure to the media and public (Simon 32). Mass incarceration has also led to the law biting more punitively to criminals with current and existing records of crime. The political class drives highly on the decisions of tougher crime. Therefore, overcrowding of prisons has been inevitable with populations and imprisonment rates increasing since the 1990's in spite of the U.S. experiencing a decrease in crime when looking at the history (Blumstein, Cassel, Dohrn, Heyrman, Stone, and Zimring 96).

Blumstein et al. and Alexander state that mass incarceration in the U.S. has led to more Blacks and from the male gender getting detained and remaining in prisons for the longest time (Blumstein et al. 97; Alexander 175). Crimes related to drugs, rapes and felony highly contribute to these long-serving incarcerations for Blacks when compared to the White in America. In fact, the rate of imprisoned Blacks in America is more than eight times that of the Whites. In addition, a third of the Black males in America are in the custody of the criminal justice system either in jail, parole, probation or prison (103). It shows that the growing rate of incarceration may be attributed to racial and gender factors. The men in prison today are double when compared to the number of women in prison. The number is also increasing at a fast rate based on race, gender and ethnicity. The effects of discrimination in the criminal justice system through mass incarceration have left more Black families without breadwinners. Black families continue to experience poverty and income challenges. Overt policy choices are the consequence of mass incarceration in the U.S. instead of healing the problems in the society.

Mass Incarceration and Mill's Brand of Consequentialism

Based on mills consequentialism a person will argue that mass incarceration does not result to the best outcome when considering other actions that the state can use in deterring crimes in the U.S. It is unethical to hold people for the longest time in prison and failing to put their health as a priority. These actions violate the rights of the inmates and detainees. Inmates require their human freedom and locking them for 23 hours every day is unethical. Overcrowding of cells leads to the outbreak of avoidable diseases. Prisoners have suffered in cells because of the failure of the law enforcers meeting their human rights to good health. According to Mill, the outcome of an action should promote the happiness of everyone, Therefore, when the government is enacting and enforcing the law relating to mass incarceration, it did not consider the happiness for everyone involved in the impact. As explained earlier, more Black men are incarcerated when compared to White men. It is morally wrong to discriminate the Blacks in America based on race and this influences their happiness negatively. The government has the role to realize the harm it is causing to the high population of Black Americans through mass incarceration based on race and gender. Mill says that the distribution of happiness to the greatest number of people is an important factor to consider when performing an action. The case presented through mass incarceration in America is different whereby more and more families are suffering because of the action of mass incarnation.

There are better methods that the state can use in dealing with violators of the law. For instance, Blumstein et al. (99) argue that the administration of the law for drug users and rapists, the most dominate crimes for holding Black men in custody today should be deterred by way of scaring people away as well as incapacitation respectively. These actions to disciplining the offenders would result to better consequences when compared to mass incarceration. They would lead to greater happiness to the greatest people in the U.S. It is evident that the action of removing the drug users and peddlers in the streets will minimize or prevent completely the problem of drugs in America. This is a better option that does not violate the rights of an individual like mass incarceration. For rapists, the government should opt for incapacitating the violators instead of holding them in prison for the longest time. By incapacitation, it is not possible for that person to commit a raping crime in his life. Further, it is difficult to replace that person on the streets since incapacitation eliminates him from breaking the law through raping. However, the criminal justice system in America has been influenced by private and interpersonal behavior. There is the need for considering the unjust levels of such a consideration to a large group of citizens in the state. It is also necessary to consider the counterproductive consequences of that system to the goal of the criminal justice system.

Even though Mill's consequentialism allows considering alternatives when performing an action to obtain the greatest happiness, it is difficult to ascertain whether these alternative acts are permissible not unless there is a determination of their effects. It shows that there is a high likeliness of the possible choices leading to impressible actions for better outcomes or happiness to the greatest number of people. An ethical dilemma arises on which choice to select when alternative actions are evaluated. Considering incapacitation and removal from the streets, it is possible that these actions will lead to happiness to the greatest number of people. However, there is also a likeliness of the action leading to more drug peddlers and users emerging in the streets and replacing the former ones. Such an action means that the problem of drugs in the society is not yet solved. Therefore, it is not possible to remove drug criminals in the streets. For incapacitation, it is an action that will violate the right of the individual to procreation. Ethically, it is wrong to inflict pain on a person and limit their rights to procreation and this makes the action of incapacitation impermissible. The argument leads to making Mill's consequentialism allowing impermissible actions to be used with the intention to obtain happiness to the greatest number of people. Ethically, impermissible actions are morally wrong which raises the question of whether mass incarceration results in the most ethical action.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the discussion clarifies Mill's consequentialism and its application to mass incarceration. The findings show that mass incarceration is unethical based on Mill's argument of considering the outcome of achieving happiness from an action. However, after assessing the consequences of the alternative actions leading to happiness for the greatest number of people, it allows impermissible actions to be undertaken with the aim to get happiness. Therefore, mass incarceration is a simple approach to dealing with crimes that people admit to being troublesome in the society. It also avoids the repetitive problems that may be caused by incapacitation and locking drug users from the streets. Even though mass incarceration may be unethical based on Mill's consequentialism, it is the most effective method of deterring crime in the American society.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle, "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," (New York: 2010).

Blumstein, Alfred; Cassel, Douglass W.; Dohrn, Bernardine; Heyrman, Mark J.; Stone, Randolph N.; and Zimring, Franklin E., "Mass Incarceration: Perspectives on U.S. Imprisonment," The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, Vol. 7, (2000), Iss. 1 , Article 6.

Simon, Jonathan, "Mass Incarceration: From Social Policy to Social Problem," The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, (Oxford: 2012).