First, it would lower the percentage of drug users in prison from 51.4% to around 17% (Berman). This would vastly lower the economic costs of maintaining the prisons. Moreover, it would only cost 1.2 billion dollars to create drug courts throughout the nation (Gorsman). The proposed 1.2 billion dollars is a fraction of 135.8 billion dollars the nation already pays for the creation of rehabilitative programs (Lyons). The rehabilitative programs are already built and running. These drug courts would enforce mandatory attendance to the program. In fact, it would save about 1.4 million dollars per 200 people per year. (Lyons). The estimated savings would easily cover the costs of creating the drug courts after a few…
There is also a need in the manner in which law enforcement manages drugs and drug enforcement. This can be handled by making drugs a public health problem instead of a criminal one (Lozoff, n.d.). This can shift a majority of the drug problem onto other services and by decriminalizing drug use and possession individuals can get treatment instead of being locked up for a mental health and addiction problem. This would alleviate overbooked court rooms and prisons allowing for the truly violent and dangerous criminals to be placed in space that is taken up by less violent offenders (Lozoff, n.d.). In changing the way the system manages drugs and drug addicts the crimes associated with drug use can also be decreased or eliminated (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow,…
There are several reasons why I feel like this. First, one reason the person is most likely having a drug problem is due to their mental illness not being treated properly. Second, if they are suffering from a mental illness they may not be able to benefit from substance abuse treatment until they are lucid and more functional. Finally, if you don’t first treat the mental illness and just try to treat the drug use aren’t you just creating a never ending cycle of abuse and hospitalization?…
If mandatory drug testing were implemented, fewer checks would be used to purchase illegal drugs, and be used for necessary items instead. When a person is addicted to drugs, it consumes the individual’s life. The person becomes obsessed with the drug they are addicted to; it becomes more important to them, than, food, family and even their own well-being. This behavior puts them and everyone under their care at risk. If a welfare recipient has children and they use the money meant to feed their children for drugs; not only has our government paid for someone’s high, but the child will now go without food. On the flipside, if mandatory random drug testing was part of the process, we would be able to identify abusers and have their children placed where they can be cared for more effectively. This may help the next generation not to follow in their parent’s footsteps. In identifying this type of behavior, we may be able to save not only the children, but the abusers as well.…
I do think that the mandatory sentencing is one approach to solving the drug problem, but I do not think that it is the only one. It is clear that the sentencing works to a certain extent, but is not the right choice for every situation. Personally, I feel like this is a gray area due to the fact that mandatory sentencing gives definitive discipline to someone who broke the law. Where in specific cases that approach is too strict. Although I do not have a direct answer to solve this problem, I think that different variables should play into the sentencing.…
When drug abusers go to prison they are trapped in there with other users and/or people far worse than them. They are in there with serial killers, rapists, and other inmates far worse than them; yet they have an addiction problem which is something that could be overcame with the help of rehab. Someone who is only addicted to a drug shouldn’t be locked away for it; they should be given proper therapy. Sitting in a prison cell isn’t going to help them. because they don’t have the drug with them, it could genuinely make it worse. Withdrawals are very painful and uncomfortable.Of course, nobody could possibly deserve to suffer through that type of pain. During and sometimes after withdrawals all the addicts can think about is getting high again.…
Even with this cut it would only drop the prison rate by 14 percent and would still leave the United States leading with the number of Incarcerations. Another vital argument is that when drug abusers are required to have prison time that it gives the court an opportunity to give fair prison time such as the harsher the crime the longer the sentence and it also guarantees that the prisoner can do no more harm to others in society. This is a very important factor of the opposing argument because many people fear for their safety and the safety of others, and if they can guarantee that safety they will. Opposers would also state that punishment is clear to criminals that what they have done was wrong, but rehabilitation shows mercy and some criminals might not learn from their actions. Also you can never really tell when rehab has worked with an abuser, so some might believe they were okay and then end up relapsing, and some might had never been okay and relapse. These are the important opposing arguments, but these arguments are not taking a stand to solve theses issues that America is facing daily, monthly,…
A plan that would help in the over population of the prisons is to have the non-violent drug offenders sent to treatment instead of prison, to have them spend time in halfway homes, and be monitored by probation officers. A plan called Proposition 36. This plan was passed by 61% of California voters in November 2000. This initiative allows people convicted of 1st and 2nd time nonviolent, simple drug possession to receive drug treatment instead of incarceration. (California Campaign for New Drug Policies) This way, prisons are not becoming over populated and the addiction is being treated. Costs of keeping offenders in prison are higher then what are the costs for an offender to receive treatment. Many addicts are serving time and not having there addiction treated. There are about 1.2 million individuals in state prisons; approximately 125,000 prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. (Center for Policy Alternatives) Why are there so many non-violent drug offenders in prison? It is due primarily to mandatory sentences for drug offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders range from five years for simple possession of…
348). Not arresting (and charging) individuals, and instead having them attend rehab facilities will help increase the chance that these men and women will help prevent drug abuse. When someone is arrested, and sent to jail for the possession of drugs, most individuals will continue their lives just as they were before. Programs and policies specifically designed for the rehabilitation of those individuals who are caught with the possession of drugs need to be implemented in law enforcement agencies. On the condition that drug use and possession is not criminalized, I do not believe there is any violation in the moral rights of individuals, if drug production and sale is illegal. As de Marneffe states, there will still be ways for people to obtain drugs.…
By placing drug offenders in a treatment program, prisons would see some relief from overcrowding. As a result of the war on drugs, arrests for drug-related offenses account for the single largest category of police…
We call America the land of the free truth is no one is free. The United States has had the highest incarceration rates compared to other countries all around the world. Many illegal activities and narcotics play a huge role to becoming incarcerated. We’re born into a violent society and have no other choice but to live with it. Crime, violence, drugs and poverty are around us on a daily basis and young children see these things and think it’s normal. By certain individuals acting in ways they shouldn’t in front of young children will cause problems for us in the future. This essay will include articles giving us facts and answers on our incarceration practices and what we do to our inmates on the inside. The “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the law online” gives us insight on out mentally ill inmates and attempts to give us solutions when it comes to people who are mentally ill and aren’t completely there. Also an article written by Chettiar Inimai and their colleagues go in-depth on how New York City reduced mass incarceration hence the title of the article.…
Solitary confinement is a punishment all over the World and basically use for rehabilitation but it has its effects on human bodies under this punishment and if anything has its negative impact how it would be good? This causes many psychological effects to a convict person. Therefore some treaties and domestic laws opposed it as torture and violation of human rights like Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 5 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 7 is against any kind of torture as well as Islam also against any form of torture, so it must be reform and must be something alternative to such rigorous Punishment.…
With recidivism rates soaring, the establishment of prison GED programs should be a standard way to rehabilitate prisoners who’d otherwise have no future outside of bars. An example of a character from the book who would benefit from the GED program would be Crazy Eyes, a hard timer from the FCI, who’d graduated up the hill. Outside of Danbury, Crazy Eyes was a high profile drug dealer and a career criminal experienced with the nuances of prison. If she had the access and willingness to complete the GED program, Crazy Eyes could use the qualification as a step toward reintegrating properly with the outside world. Therefore, by offering GED programs in prison, inmates like Crazy Eyes can be slowly rehabilitated toward permanent freedom while…
Statistics have proven that incarceration alone is a monetary pitfall and does not deter the cluster of non-violent drug related crimes in this country. We need to create an alternative habilitation pattern for these offenders including an assessment of their mental health, specialized life skills training, and occupational employment assistance: in some cases, in lieu of incarceration and in others, in conjunction with incarceration. Ask yourself these questions: What affect would this type of intense program have on the recidivism rate? Would we be saving tax-payer dollars by producing graduates from drug rehabilitation programs instead of housing repeat criminals? To eliminate overcrowding in our prisons, reduce the soaring incarceration costs, and provide parolees the tools necessary to re-enter society in a productive manner, we must develop a rehabilitation system for the non-violent drug offenders.…
This is concern is thoroughly outlined within a recent study performed by Rachael Young with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Young states that “when offenders ‘pay their debt to society’ by going to prison, society pays, too. North Carolina spends as much as $200,000 more on each criminal incarcerated as a habitual felon than if he or she had been sentenced according to the single offense. The average cost per inmate per day is about $65, or about $23,830 per inmate each year. North Carolina spent almost $789 million on its prison population, much more than the state's entire community college budget.” The reason for such extensive costs is due to the fact that, as previously stated, the nation is imprisoning low-level drug addicts instead of providing them with the rehabilitation required for curing addiction. This is proven by the fact that “a 1997 study found that treating heavy drug users was eight to nine time more cost-effective than long (six- to seven-year) mandatory sentences in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crimes, and estimated that treatment reduced drug-related crime as much as 15 times more than mandatory sentences,” (Young). Considering the fact that prison upkeep is payed for by innocent, everyday citizens- one might demand that the government opts for lower-cost plans for keeping drugs off American streets. In order to do so, the government should eradicate mandatory minimums and invest in cheaper, more effective preventative programs (such as rehabilitation) instead of spending more money on prison sentencing (which could otherwise be allocated to new community colleges, healthcare programs, essential highway infrastructure, and…