The Effectiveness of Get Tough on Crime Policies
Tougher Solutions Create Tougher Problems
Ever since the 1990's, citizens have feared crime more than almost anything else. As such, politicians such as sherriffs, governors, and district attorneys have run on the "get tough" attitude towards crime. This idea includes mandatory sentencing, harsher penalties for drug crimes, and "3 Strikes" laws, where more than one conviction after a first can lead to a life sentence. But amid all of this fear and speech making, all this talk about reining in crime, it appears that no one asked the chief question. How will this stop crime?
"Get Tough" Policies
The theory behind "get tough" policies is a simple one. If penalties are harsher, they're more likely to deter criminals. If what was a sentence of a single year in jail now carries a penalty of 5 years in prison for example, the criminal may not commit the act. While this seems logical, there are several flaws in this reasoning. One is that most criminals are never caught on their first offense. Another is that most people, but especially criminals, have the mentality of "I won't get caught". Since being arrested for a crime isn't certain, there's a chance that the criminal can avoid punishment, no matter how harsh that punishment may be. As such, "get tough" policies haven't reduced crime, only lengthened the sentences for those offenders who are caught.
Problems With "Get Tough" Solutions
But why is that a problem? More criminals are being caught, so the streets will be safer. Only in theory. With more than a million people being held in the American criminal justice system, space for new offenders is quickly running out. Since mandatory sentences, which state that an offender must serve a certain amount of minimum time instead of the former range such as 1-5 years that a judge could choose from, have been adopted, prisons and jails are filling up at a record rate across the country. Many are filled to beyond capacity.
Solutions to Prison Overcrowding
Melanie Golumbeck, chief officer with Hammond, Indiana's probation department and an instructor at Indiana University Northwest teaches a class on Penology where she shares her experiences with her students. According to Golumbeck, since prison populations are so much larger, solutions have to be found. These solutions include building more prisons, contracting prisoners to private prisons, and an increased use of probation and parole.
However, none of these solutions seem to be able to fix the problem. Given the current economy, new prisons are too expensive to build and staff, even creative prisons like the infamous "Tent City" located in the Arizona desert. Prisons run by outside contractors, despite their supposed economy, often end up costing the government more money in the end due to drops in services, comparative lack of training, and lawsuits. Probation and parole departments, already under heavy case loads, can hardly take on record numbers of early releases, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes such as assault and murder. As such, probationers and parolees can easily slip through the cracks, and no one has the time or budget to check up on them.
What is the solution then? One answer lies in what the purpose of a sentence is. Locking a person away for years in a prison environment, and then releasing them back into the real world is not a good formula for a reformed, adjusted, law abiding citizen. Increasing the penalties for crimes only creates more people who have been institutionalized, but in the end, does very little to stop crime from happening... or in the end, from happening again.
What do you think about this article?
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles