Pros And Cons Of Mass Incarceration

Mass incarceration reveals the essence of the problems in America’s criminal justice system. It shines light on the presence of inequality as well as the flaws in the policies. Mass incarceration became a huge problem in the US with the onset of the War on Drugs. Since then, the number of prisoners has increased significantly and a great proportion of the prisoners include drug offenders. Beckett and Sasson argue that the inequality here lies in the fact that members in the minority populations are sought after because unlike many private transactions that happens amongst upper class individuals, those that take place between members of the lower class tend to be more visible. Additionally, people of color and of lower class typically lack
political power and therefore, are ‘easier’ targets for the police. Furthermore, mass incarceration involves punitive sentencing such as mandatory minimums and the 3 Strikes Law, which put people of lower class at a more disadvantage.
For example, as discussed by Alexander and Gyamerah, the mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine is much more severe than that for powder cocaine. This poses a greater threat to Blacks than to Whites. Likewise, the 3 Strikes Law, which significantly increases the severity of the punishment at the 3rd offense, is more threatening to people of lower class because such individuals are more likely to be caught for their actions due to higher police surveillance. One of main challenges that parolees face in their attempts to stay out of prison is recidivism – getting arrested again and sent back to prison. This challenge arises from a number of other challenges including the difficulty of finding housing, findings jobs and the strict conditions of parole. Additionally, there is very little support for the parolees. In terms of political support, criminal disenfranchisement, as discussed by Uggen et al., further marginalizes people who are already marginalized and keeps them from being able to make their voices heard. Thus, they are unable to integrate into the
community. As Westervelt and Cook argue, coping with release after being convicted is not a simple task. Often times, the exonerees have difficulty planning for their future and connecting with other people on a more emotional and personal level. Additionally, many live with a sense of guilt for being set free while others are still behind bars. As discussed in the reading, many of the social activities of exonerees are affected by the fear of being accused and sent back to prison. The stigma that surrounds the exonerees poses an additional challenge they must overcome. For example, regardless of being set free, community members often still see the exonerees as being guilty. As suggested by Cole, in order to ease the transition for those released and to avoid recidivism, there is a need to adopt programs and policies that will help the offenders to integrate back into their communities. Such polices can include helping exonerees to find housing, to find jobs, and to be treated for any trauma or stress they received from being wrongly convicted. In a more general sense, in order to prevent wrongful convictions altogether, there is a need to implement polices that will increase the use of scientific evidence such as DNA, if such is available.