Imagine how much money would be saved if the death penalty was abolished. Would it not be much cheaper to give out life without parole and incorporate some type of factory work that would make the prisoners support their prison and all cost associated with housing them? More often than not, studies show that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime, although many feel it to be an effective measure. Since the death penalty takes so long because it is rarely enforced and it tends to take years to carry out an execution, it is hard to draw conclusive evidence. There doesn’t seem to be any conclusive evidence showing that it is an effective deterrent of crime at least no more so than facing life in prison without the possibly of
Once a criminal has been convicted and has been sentenced to do their time, this is where they are able to show society and the criminal justice system that they have learned their lesson from their mistake. Knowing at sentencing that they will be able to get out a little bit earlier if they behave while incarcerated gives the criminal incentive to focus on negative behaviors and change their way of thinking. On the other hand, after sentencing, criminals are also aware that if they cannot behave while incarcerated they will be serving 100% of their sentence. This idea gives the criminal the option and information to avoid stronger consequences therefore deterrence. Parole is granted to convicts who are able to prove they can behave while incarcerated and they deserve another chance to prove that they can be a productive part of society, and hopefully live productive lives
Tonight he would overcome his fear of talking to the public about something he really cares deeply about. This topic was surprisingly unselfish in the reasons he was bringing it up as an issue. Dan has a problem with the ‘Three Strike’ law in California, stating that if you have obtained three felony accounts, violent or nonviolent, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment. The three strikes law in California, instituted in 1993, had the original purpose of taking career criminals off the streets, making out communities and our and streets more safe. However the real impact of the law was filling prisons with non-violent offenders for decades at a time.
As a result of incarcerating criminals for lesser or minor crimes, inmate population numbers have risen sharply and thus have impacted current facility operations funding via taxpayer dollars. Another impact to funding is that if the bill passes it will add to the already rising population and cost levels to support and maintain future and current facilities. Although the bill is popular throughout the communities, it can be used as a political tool to gain voter support during election years. And finally it may bring forth new trials for those already incarcerated for similar
Incarceration further reassures society and the victims that a criminal will receive a fair punishment. Moreover, incapacitation or incarceration protects society from career criminals, and criminals who pose a serious threat to members of the community, but the fact of the matter is by doubling the prison term for armed robbery is not going to correct or solve the underlying issues that force one to commit the act of robbery and in return, the prison systems will continue to
For a defendant faces several years in jail and possibly multiple charges they can look forward to a few of their sentences being dropped and a reduction in their sentencing. A plea bargain can also result in a defendant not having to go to jail which can in the long run decrease the inmate population in jails and prisons. The prosecution benefits the most from plea bargaining. By offering a plea to a criminal for admitting their guilt the prosecution can alter the sentencing of the defendant. If a defendant agrees to wave their rights to trial the courts are saved time and a critical amount of money which benefits the entire criminal justice system as a whole.
So, while politicians talk about the “desperate prison crisis”, we should think about where the actual desperation really lies. The problem is that we need to stop incarcerating vast amounts of non-violent offenders for 25 years to life. Non-violent criminals with minor offenses should not be dictated under the three-strike law. Even with this simple change in the three-strike law, our society would save more money funding other alternatives such as prime prevention strategies. These strategies include programs designed to reduce repeat victimization in domestic burglary, theft, and any other violence.
Prison overcrowding is costing the taxpayers over $65 billion dollars a year for prisoners. Is it worth it? How can we fix this great problem? Cutting out low risk offenders from prisons will increase space. To give prisoners tools to succeed out of confinements.
If they are negative for drugs then they should still receive welfare, while still being watched and on probation for another year. On the other hand, if they are tested positive for drugs in the following year I believe they should be arrested. It’s already against the law to do drugs so it is not like we are treating them differently than any other American. Those going to jail actually may be a better lifestyle for some of them. Jail can be looked at either a punishment or a chance to change their life for the
The annual direct costs of operation per prisoner, excluding such indirect costs as administration, medical, and court costs, start at $20,000. That would put the direct operating costs at nearly $90 million per year for Ballot Measure 11 prisoners. Prisons cost so much, in part, because they require permanent walls and twenty-four-hour guards (Whitelaw). We see that this affects us all not just by having to split the bill, yet we are not at all trying to reform