Three Forms Of Injustice In Criminal Justice

In this paper, I will discuss three forms of injustice or bias in the American corrections system as it applies to differing branches of government and criminal justice. First, intermediate sentencing for non-violent offenders and why it should be expanded. Second, Political bias in the judicial system in regards to light sentences to violent offenders. Lastly, I will discuss the pardon power of the executive branch politicians in our society and how it can be unjust due to bias.
I am in favor of intermediate sentencing in cases of non-violent offenders and incidents where offenders show no pattern of recidivism. State and federal authorities have developed and implemented these new options such as intensive probation supervision, house arrests, electronic monitoring, restitution orders, shock incarcerations or split sentences and residential community corrections, in an attempt to reduce overcrowding in correctional facilities and costs, better manage higher-risk
offenders in the community, reduce crime and achieve greater in criminal sentencing for adults. Many feel that the system has been biased toward particular social groups in regards to intermediate sentencing and there are far fairness and effectiveness too many individuals incarcerated that committed non violent crimes.
Corrections system institutions have not only proven to be costly. In addition, there is little evidence to prove that jails and prisons prevent future criminality as most inmates repeat the same crimes soon after they have been released. “According to the U.S. Bureaus of Justice Statistics Report of 2009, approximately two-thirds of prisoners were re-arrested after release from correctional facilities over a period of three years. Furthermore, the intermediate sanctions reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons by providing alternatives for incarceration for misdemeanors and also cutting the number of pretrial detainees.” Intermediate sanctions are more expensive than traditional probation, however, they are less costly compared to incarceration. If offenders are given alternative sanctions than being incarnated, the saved cost may be significant.
Offenders given intermediate sentences generate income, pay taxes, reimburse victims, perform community services and provide other cost savings that would have been realized if they had been jailed.
Consequently, the sanctions may reduce the need for future jail and prison construction. Intermediate sanctions help meet the need for developing community services that are fair, proportional and equitable. For instance, it is unfair to treat a rapist and a shoplifter with the same type of probationary sentences given the differences in their crimes. Therefore, intermediate sanctions are beneficial because they allow judges to fit the punishment to the crime without resorting to a prison punishment.
The intermediate sanctions have the advantage of being designed to increase control over recidivists who make the probation sentence inappropriate and prison sentences being harsh and counterproductive. For offenders who commit offenses while on probation, intermediate sanctions may help reduce this
behavior.
The goal of jails in today's society is limited by political bias. The political powers that be are constantly swaying from left to right. When the political scene is leaning toward the left, or the liberal democrat side, the jails tend to be more lenient on prisoner rights and treatment. The effect that the system has on inmates depends on who is in control of the CJ system at that particular time. In my opinion, when the jails are being controlled by democrats, prisoners are afforded more rights and privileges, i.e. State funded programs, education (G.E.D.) college credits etc. prisoners are also afforded property of canteen rights in order to obtain goods in jail.
Prison is supposed to be both a punishment and future deterrent by incarceration, taking away your freedom and reducing you to basic provisions for your crimes against society. This is a moot point once you allow any form of luxury. If prisoners were kept on their own, i.e. no TVs or electronic devices and prisoners were allowed only books and writing letters for entertainment, offenders would be less likely to offend due to imprisonment being harder than life outside. If prison was a place people truly disliked and criminals dreaded going there, then criminal fraternity would be much less than it is now. Sadly, you have situations where, during free time, criminals can choose to stay in bed, make a cup of tea, watch TV and have a smoke. Due to the huge numbers in prisons, segregation is not an option. I think that the prison system has gone to pacification as a deterrent to riots and disobedience because of society’s soft stance on punishment. Sadly, the role of prison in today's society is nothing short of a 'time-out' for criminals to learn from their mistakes - learning as in not getting caught next time.
In recent years’ prisoner pardons have been done in a somewhat questionable manner. I believe that the right to pardon an inmate should be reserved for persons who have reasonably demonstrated that they have been rehabilitated. Even then, the power of pardon should not be given to a singular individual. The power of pardon should not include any criminal who has displayed violent behavior or participated in a violent crime. The criminal justice system is a good citizen’s best defense against those who would attempt to disrupt freedom. If a governor or president uses political influence or is persuaded in any other way than the facts of an individual case supporting his/her decision they should be held accountable.
It seems that pardons often happen at the end of a politician’s term, this is almost an admission by said politician that they are committing a questionable act. If an incarcerated person has truly fulfilled their debt to society, or if the persons innocence is undisputed and a pardon would avoid the costliness of a re-trial, then a pardon is appropriate.
In Mississippi in 2012, Governor Barbour attempted to pardon 21 people, 4 of whom were convicted murderers. It is alleged that Barbour considered the pardons because the inmates had served their time. The men, David Gatlin, Joseph Ozment, Charles Hooker and Anthony McCray were convicted in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2001 respectively, hardly making up for their acts. One incident involving Gatlin was particularly brutal; reportedly, Gatlin walked into a trailer and shot his wife in the head. A surviving witness to the event Randy Walker was shocked by the pardon, as was the mother of the victim Betty Ellis, who asked “Is he going to pardon a child that had to grow up without a mother?” then went on to state” he’s in jail for 18 years. She was 20 years old when she died and had her child laying in her arms when he shot her in the head, and he’s pardoned?” Thankfully these pardons were at least temporarily blocked by a judge.
The power of pardon should be granted to only those deserving of its privileges, NOT murderers. The Governor Barbour article is indicative of the misuse of the power. It was found out that the Governor had a relationship with the four men because they had worked at the Governor’s mansion during his tenure. I find it outrageous that one man can make such a decision on his own. Thankfully the judicial system stepped in as the voice of reason.