The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Societal Well-Being Growing up in the United States, they often think about their family. Good memories, as well as some difficult ones, may come to mind. The reality of childhood can include darker topics, ideas that seem too adult for a child, but are nonetheless part of growing up. Some childhoods, however, are darker than others. “It’s a children’s prison,” Anthony said of the group home he stayed in briefly after his mother’s arrest. He was ten years old at the time of his interview for Bernstein's All Alone in the World. “A prison for children. In fact, it's not a punishment. But in fact, they punished me... They keep you in cells, small rooms where you sleep, and you have nothing except a bed, blankets and sheets. We couldn't even go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. They wouldn’t let you out” (7-8). Anthony's only crime was being his mother's son. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In 2010, one in twenty-eight children in the United States had an incarcerated parent (Pew Charitable Trusts). Today, at least as many children have lost at least one parent to the criminal justice system. The loss of financial and emotional support, as well as practical care from parents in so many households, is significant in that it affects community harmony and family stability. Mass incarceration also contributes to patterns of crime, both among individuals and the communities they leave behind. Additionally, incarceration costs taxpayers three times as much as it did thirty-five years ago (Kearney et al.) and is significantly more expensive than probation and rehabilitation (McVay et al.). If citizens of the United States want to see truly meaningful changes in crime rates and public safety, it is important to consider that family well-being, including child welfare, is at the heart of every society truly stable. Keeping more criminals out of jails and prisons preserves opportunities for their children and ultimately benefits everyone. Has it always been like this? To understand why so many children grow up in such stigmatizing and uncertain circumstances, it is important to know the history of mass incarceration in the United States. The current rate of parental incarceration has not always been a reality. Before the 1970s, human imprisonment for long periods was seen more as a rehabilitative measure than a punitive measure. “Life sentences” were not what they are today. Generally, sentences were worded along the lines of "twenty to life," meaning that in twenty years the prisoner's case would be reviewed. For example, if after twenty years the prisoner has not committed any acts of violence in prison and has been cooperative with the rules and guards, his case could be re-examined in the context of that person's crime and his criminal record. prior. If the convict in question was considered rehabilitated, he was released and did not need to serve the possible life sentence (Bernstein 32). The 1960s were a decade marked by a radical outcry for civil rights and a generation of young people in revolt. The Nixon administrationviewed this revolutionary spirit as a threat to order and patriotism, attributing the unrest to a drug-fueled counterculture. In 1971, Nixon publicly declared a "war on drugs." For the first time, drugs like psychedelics and marijuana were placed in the Schedule I category, meaning they were considered very dangerous and prone to abuse. Because of the changes, selling these drugs could land someone in jail, not just an overnight jail sentence. The Reagan administration intensified the war on drugs in the 1980s, adopting policies in response to public fear of "crack" and widespread opinion among parents that youth culture had become too permissive and prone to experimentation. The "zero tolerance" policies adopted during this era led to a record rate of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes and reinforced a cultural attitude favoring deterrence strategies over effective education and reduction of crimes. risks (Drug Policy Alliance). The final nail in the coffin was hammered in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration passed the “Three Strikes, You're Out” and “Truth in Sentencing” laws. The first was intended to provide prosecutors with a way to place habitually violent offenders in prison for life without the possibility of parole. If a defendant was convicted of a third crime after committing two violent crimes, or a drug crime and a violent crime, a judge was required to apply the three strikes law. The second policy was adopted due to public concern that criminals were not serving their sentences sufficiently and that releasing convicts due to their good behavior in prison was a dangerous practice (Chen). These measures have led to an incarcerated population that has remained almost constant at over 1.5 million inmates for over a decade (West and Sabol), making it the largest nation in the world. Today, the population of federal and state prisons, combined with that of territory and county prisons, is estimated at just over 2.3 million, an increase of 800 percent since the 1980s (Wagner and Rabuy ). Criminologist Stephen Richards pointed out: “An effective correctional system is not growing. If they corrected someone, they would shrink” (Bernstein 4). While the correctional system may not be growing as exponentially as it once was, not enough has been done to reduce the population and reverse the arcane policies that have deprived so many parents of their freedom and freedom. children of their parents. Family Bonds and Stability Parents' ability to effectively raise their children is significantly reduced when their relationship is hindered or disrupted for an extended period of time. Arditti writes in Parental Incarceration and the Family that the process of adapting to the culture of prison society generally involves a loss of agency that has profound implications for parenting (Irwin, 2005)...Incarcerated parents may experience adapting to the unique characteristics of the prison environment in parenting becomes largely an internal and symbolic process that may be characterized by considerable distress (Arditti et al., 2005; Arditti and Few, 2008). (16) In itself, this perspective on the child-parent relationship is incomplete, because like most examinations of parental incarceration, it focuses solely on the perspective of the parent, not the child. However, Arditti's discussion of institutionalization begins to paint a picture of the problemsfamilies face both during a prisoner's incarceration and upon their return to society. Convicts learn how to be good prisoners, but nothing about how to become better parents. Upon release, they may feel overwhelmed by parental responsibility, especially if contact with their child has been particularly limited or non-existent. This can cause additional distress to children, who typically report the disappearance of their parents and the desire to have a relationship with them (Travis and Waul 271). According to Travis and Waul, people who care for prisoners' children are often reluctant to seek financial assistance from the state. This, they claim, is due to fear of government scrutiny, which could result in the child being moved. Asking for child support is generally considered ridiculous since inmates' main income comes from family contributions. Instead, prisoners' families "engage in a process of role change and adaptability called simply participation and assistance" (276). Of course, this burden placed on family members due to prisoners' apparent or perceived bad actions often foments resentment and animosity. At least 95 percent of prisoners will be released after serving their sentences (Hughes and Wilson), dependent on vital support from the community while their lives are insecure. Instead of receiving this support, they face resentment from family members and stigma from their community. The effects of this resentment are reinforced by strict child protection standards that most prisoners are unable to meet. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 was passed with the goal of providing more stable living conditions for children. However, this law has created more uncertainty for the children of prisoners, whose living conditions often do not meet requirements. Specifically, the law requires that the process of terminating parental rights be initiated if a child has remained in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months. This was more than five years less than the average prison sentence length at the time the law was passed (Travis and Waul 268). ASFA implies that children are more likely to thrive under state supervision than under the supervision of their previously convicted parents. However, temporary foster families are generally unable to provide children with the loving attachment that a long-term relationship with their biological parents might engender. declined steadily over the past thirteen years. Property crimes decreased by 2.6% between 2014 and 2015 (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Proponents of increased law and order measures would argue that dangerous criminals are kept away from the public, often including their children, for good reasons. It is important to note, however, that crime patterns are often intergenerational and it is impossible to know how the mass incarceration that peaked a decade ago (West and Sabol) will affect children and grandchildren of convicts as they age. The ASFA assumes that children will be better off in the absence of their parents' criminal influence, but since the law was passed the government has not commissioned anyone to examine the effect of policy on child welfare and development (Harris et al. 49). ). Politicians should not make such crucial decisions without the help of experts in child development, sociologyand social services. Evidence actually suggests that parental incarceration can have negative effects on children's social skill development and that children of incarcerated parents are much less likely to follow the law. Researchers conclude that children of prisoners are up to six times more likely to commit crimes than their peers (Travis and Waul, 270). Harris et al. describe the “norms and collective efficacy model” which asserts that “some communities are unable to self-regulate effectively” due to environmental problems such as concentrated poverty and weakening family and community ties. This leads to disorganization and a breakdown of social controls (108). Some examples might be a lack of adequate adult supervision, a distrust of police assistance, or a general lack of concern for laws and normative behaviors. Without the intervention of programs like the Boys and Girls Club or opportunities within the school system, children often grow up feeling like no one is watching and no one cares. Unless the government is prepared to devote an infinite amount of resources to expanding overgrown and overcrowded prisons and jails, it would behoove it to consider the possible effectiveness of criminal rehabilitation programs while allowing them to stay in their communities, with their children. Additionally, it is wrong to overlook the negative mental and emotional effects that parental incarceration has on children. Families report feeling significant stigma (Travis and Waul 271), and even if children do not understand stigma, they can certainly feel it. Children of convicts often suffer from emotional and mental disorders that did not exist before learning of their parents' arrest. The most commonly reported changes are abandonment, shame and resentment; eating and sleeping disorders; falling grades; and increasingly disruptive behavior. They may feel like their teachers and classmates view them differently because of their parents' beliefs (Harris 49). It makes sense that these children would feel this way when you consider that in 1996, 66 percent of state prisoners were released to "central counties," typically poor urban neighborhoods. This is an increase of 16 percent since 1984 (Patillo, et al., 252). Of course, these children feel stigmatized. They see their communities deprived of their mothers and fathers due to criminal behavior, while learning that most children grow up without this heartbreak. The Cost of Mass Incarceration If lawmakers and voters remain insensitive to the plight of children and poor communities, they could address the staggering cost of mass incarceration. According to a study by the Vera Institute of Justice, in the United States, more than 1 in 100 adults are incarcerated. According to the Institute, Medicaid is the only budget item in the country that is growing faster than corrections spending (Henrichson and Delaney). As with many aspects of the criminal justice system, it is difficult to accurately determine the exact amount spent each year due to the fragmentation of how data is collected. Often only prisons are considered, but not prisons or other detention centers. Sometimes only men's facilities are considered, but not the rapidly growing women's prison population. Often, only certain aspects of expenses are considered, such as expensesimprovement, but not the cost of arresting, convicting and housing prisoners. For the public to begin a discussion about incarceration-related expenses, the criminal justice system must work to create and maintain a more accurate and complete breakdown of expenses. By not making it a priority, the government is suggesting that it is not important to inform the public about how their tax dollars are spent. Even in their incomplete form, the numbers related to incarceration are staggering. The Vera Justice Institute found that spending at 40 state prisons, representing 1.2 million of the state's 1.4 million inmates nationwide, was $38,903,304 in 2010. The average annual cost per inmate was $31,286. Some states spent twice as much per inmate, while others spent less than half the aforementioned figure. The Institute wisely warns readers: "The temptation to compare states' per-inmate spending should... be avoided, because low per-inmate costs can lead to poorer safety and recidivism outcomes." » This disparity, however, demonstrates the lack of uniformity in how prisons report their spending and raises concerns about the quality of life in facilities that spend less than $20,000 per year per inmate (Henrichson and Delaney). It is important to keep in mind the increasing medical and mental health costs that many inmates face, diverting funds that could provide a better quality of life for the entire population. One has to wonder if an institution spending so little can support a basic standard of living, let alone substantial course offerings, vocational programs, or rehabilitation programs. The opportunities for prisoners to improve their lives and social functioning in such facilities appear unlikely. This lack of opportunity will ultimately impact not only the inmate, but also their child and caregiver. Getting out of prison is usually just the first step toward reunification with the children. Successful return to a law-abiding society, including obtaining gainful employment, are generally the most difficult steps (Harris et al. 218). Yet national policy tends to favor punishment and imprisonment over rehabilitation, a strategy that requires somewhat more leniency to be effective. The current cultural zeitgeist fears that criminals are left to roam the streets, but does not focus on what happens when institutionalized and poorly rehabilitated criminals return to society. Long prison sentences without effective rehabilitation do not seem to help reduce recidivism. In a 2008 study, two-thirds of the former inmates studied were arrested and more than half returned to prison within three years of their release. A third of prisoner admissions that year were due to parole violations (Arditti, 90). Such a punitive system is less effective and much more expensive than a rehabilitation system. The Vera Institute of Justice notes in its report that many states have adopted sentencing reforms that reduce prison populations and costs. This includes allowing community supervision for most first and second drug offenders and overturning state truth in sentencing programs, which made it difficult, if not impossible, for the prisoners to earn a “good time”. (Henrichson and Delaney) Additionally, many states have begun to recognize that the.

Essay / The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Societal Well-Being Growing up in the United States, they often think about their family. Good memories, as well as some difficult ones, may come to mind. The reality of childhood can include darker topics, ideas that seem too adult for a child, but are nonetheless part of growing up. Some childhoods, however, are darker than others. “It’s a children’s prison,” Anthony said of the group home he stayed in briefly after his mother’s arrest. He was ten years old at the time of his interview for Bernstein's All Alone in the World. “A prison for children. In fact, it's not a punishment. But in fact, they punished me... They keep you in cells, small rooms where you sleep, and you have nothing except a bed, blankets and sheets. We couldn't even go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. They wouldn’t let you out” (7-8). Anthony's only crime was being his mother's son. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In 2010, one in twenty-eight children in the United States had an incarcerated parent (Pew Charitable Trusts). Today, at least as many children have lost at least one parent to the criminal justice system. The loss of financial and emotional support, as well as practical care from parents in so many households, is significant in that it affects community harmony and family stability. Mass incarceration also contributes to patterns of crime, both among individuals and the communities they leave behind. Additionally, incarceration costs taxpayers three times as much as it did thirty-five years ago (Kearney et al.) and is significantly more expensive than probation and rehabilitation (McVay et al.). If citizens of the United States want to see truly meaningful changes in crime rates and public safety, it is important to consider that family well-being, including child welfare, is at the heart of every society truly stable. Keeping more criminals out of jails and prisons preserves opportunities for their children and ultimately benefits everyone. Has it always been like this? To understand why so many children grow up in such stigmatizing and uncertain circumstances, it is important to know the history of mass incarceration in the United States. The current rate of parental incarceration has not always been a reality. Before the 1970s, human imprisonment for long periods was seen more as a rehabilitative measure than a punitive measure. “Life sentences” were not what they are today. Generally, sentences were worded along the lines of "twenty to life," meaning that in twenty years the prisoner's case would be reviewed. For example, if after twenty years the prisoner has not committed any acts of violence in prison and has been cooperative with the rules and guards, his case could be re-examined in the context of that person's crime and his criminal record. prior. If the convict in question was considered rehabilitated, he was released and did not need to serve the possible life sentence (Bernstein 32). The 1960s were a decade marked by a radical outcry for civil rights and a generation of young people in revolt. The Nixon administrationviewed this revolutionary spirit as a threat to order and patriotism, attributing the unrest to a drug-fueled counterculture. In 1971, Nixon publicly declared a "war on drugs." For the first time, drugs like psychedelics and marijuana were placed in the Schedule I category, meaning they were considered very dangerous and prone to abuse. Because of the changes, selling these drugs could land someone in jail, not just an overnight jail sentence. The Reagan administration intensified the war on drugs in the 1980s, adopting policies in response to public fear of "crack" and widespread opinion among parents that youth culture had become too permissive and prone to experimentation. The "zero tolerance" policies adopted during this era led to a record rate of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes and reinforced a cultural attitude favoring deterrence strategies over effective education and reduction of crimes. risks (Drug Policy Alliance). The final nail in the coffin was hammered in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration passed the “Three Strikes, You're Out” and “Truth in Sentencing” laws. The first was intended to provide prosecutors with a way to place habitually violent offenders in prison for life without the possibility of parole. If a defendant was convicted of a third crime after committing two violent crimes, or a drug crime and a violent crime, a judge was required to apply the three strikes law. The second policy was adopted due to public concern that criminals were not serving their sentences sufficiently and that releasing convicts due to their good behavior in prison was a dangerous practice (Chen). These measures have led to an incarcerated population that has remained almost constant at over 1.5 million inmates for over a decade (West and Sabol), making it the largest nation in the world. Today, the population of federal and state prisons, combined with that of territory and county prisons, is estimated at just over 2.3 million, an increase of 800 percent since the 1980s (Wagner and Rabuy ). Criminologist Stephen Richards pointed out: “An effective correctional system is not growing. If they corrected someone, they would shrink” (Bernstein 4). While the correctional system may not be growing as exponentially as it once was, not enough has been done to reduce the population and reverse the arcane policies that have deprived so many parents of their freedom and freedom. children of their parents. Family Bonds and Stability Parents' ability to effectively raise their children is significantly reduced when their relationship is hindered or disrupted for an extended period of time. Arditti writes in Parental Incarceration and the Family that the process of adapting to the culture of prison society generally involves a loss of agency that has profound implications for parenting (Irwin, 2005)...Incarcerated parents may experience adapting to the unique characteristics of the prison environment in parenting becomes largely an internal and symbolic process that may be characterized by considerable distress (Arditti et al., 2005; Arditti and Few, 2008). (16) In itself, this perspective on the child-parent relationship is incomplete, because like most examinations of parental incarceration, it focuses solely on the perspective of the parent, not the child. However, Arditti's discussion of institutionalization begins to paint a picture of the problemsfamilies face both during a prisoner's incarceration and upon their return to society. Convicts learn how to be good prisoners, but nothing about how to become better parents. Upon release, they may feel overwhelmed by parental responsibility, especially if contact with their child has been particularly limited or non-existent. This can cause additional distress to children, who typically report the disappearance of their parents and the desire to have a relationship with them (Travis and Waul 271). According to Travis and Waul, people who care for prisoners' children are often reluctant to seek financial assistance from the state. This, they claim, is due to fear of government scrutiny, which could result in the child being moved. Asking for child support is generally considered ridiculous since inmates' main income comes from family contributions. Instead, prisoners' families "engage in a process of role change and adaptability called simply participation and assistance" (276). Of course, this burden placed on family members due to prisoners' apparent or perceived bad actions often foments resentment and animosity. At least 95 percent of prisoners will be released after serving their sentences (Hughes and Wilson), dependent on vital support from the community while their lives are insecure. Instead of receiving this support, they face resentment from family members and stigma from their community. The effects of this resentment are reinforced by strict child protection standards that most prisoners are unable to meet. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 was passed with the goal of providing more stable living conditions for children. However, this law has created more uncertainty for the children of prisoners, whose living conditions often do not meet requirements. Specifically, the law requires that the process of terminating parental rights be initiated if a child has remained in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months. This was more than five years less than the average prison sentence length at the time the law was passed (Travis and Waul 268). ASFA implies that children are more likely to thrive under state supervision than under the supervision of their previously convicted parents. However, temporary foster families are generally unable to provide children with the loving attachment that a long-term relationship with their biological parents might engender. declined steadily over the past thirteen years. Property crimes decreased by 2.6% between 2014 and 2015 (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Proponents of increased law and order measures would argue that dangerous criminals are kept away from the public, often including their children, for good reasons. It is important to note, however, that crime patterns are often intergenerational and it is impossible to know how the mass incarceration that peaked a decade ago (West and Sabol) will affect children and grandchildren of convicts as they age. The ASFA assumes that children will be better off in the absence of their parents' criminal influence, but since the law was passed the government has not commissioned anyone to examine the effect of policy on child welfare and development (Harris et al. 49). ). Politicians should not make such crucial decisions without the help of experts in child development, sociologyand social services. Evidence actually suggests that parental incarceration can have negative effects on children's social skill development and that children of incarcerated parents are much less likely to follow the law. Researchers conclude that children of prisoners are up to six times more likely to commit crimes than their peers (Travis and Waul, 270). Harris et al. describe the “norms and collective efficacy model” which asserts that “some communities are unable to self-regulate effectively” due to environmental problems such as concentrated poverty and weakening family and community ties. This leads to disorganization and a breakdown of social controls (108). Some examples might be a lack of adequate adult supervision, a distrust of police assistance, or a general lack of concern for laws and normative behaviors. Without the intervention of programs like the Boys and Girls Club or opportunities within the school system, children often grow up feeling like no one is watching and no one cares. Unless the government is prepared to devote an infinite amount of resources to expanding overgrown and overcrowded prisons and jails, it would behoove it to consider the possible effectiveness of criminal rehabilitation programs while allowing them to stay in their communities, with their children. Additionally, it is wrong to overlook the negative mental and emotional effects that parental incarceration has on children. Families report feeling significant stigma (Travis and Waul 271), and even if children do not understand stigma, they can certainly feel it. Children of convicts often suffer from emotional and mental disorders that did not exist before learning of their parents' arrest. The most commonly reported changes are abandonment, shame and resentment; eating and sleeping disorders; falling grades; and increasingly disruptive behavior. They may feel like their teachers and classmates view them differently because of their parents' beliefs (Harris 49). It makes sense that these children would feel this way when you consider that in 1996, 66 percent of state prisoners were released to "central counties," typically poor urban neighborhoods. This is an increase of 16 percent since 1984 (Patillo, et al., 252). Of course, these children feel stigmatized. They see their communities deprived of their mothers and fathers due to criminal behavior, while learning that most children grow up without this heartbreak. The Cost of Mass Incarceration If lawmakers and voters remain insensitive to the plight of children and poor communities, they could address the staggering cost of mass incarceration. According to a study by the Vera Institute of Justice, in the United States, more than 1 in 100 adults are incarcerated. According to the Institute, Medicaid is the only budget item in the country that is growing faster than corrections spending (Henrichson and Delaney). As with many aspects of the criminal justice system, it is difficult to accurately determine the exact amount spent each year due to the fragmentation of how data is collected. Often only prisons are considered, but not prisons or other detention centers. Sometimes only men's facilities are considered, but not the rapidly growing women's prison population. Often, only certain aspects of expenses are considered, such as expensesimprovement, but not the cost of arresting, convicting and housing prisoners. For the public to begin a discussion about incarceration-related expenses, the criminal justice system must work to create and maintain a more accurate and complete breakdown of expenses. By not making it a priority, the government is suggesting that it is not important to inform the public about how their tax dollars are spent. Even in their incomplete form, the numbers related to incarceration are staggering. The Vera Justice Institute found that spending at 40 state prisons, representing 1.2 million of the state's 1.4 million inmates nationwide, was $38,903,304 in 2010. The average annual cost per inmate was $31,286. Some states spent twice as much per inmate, while others spent less than half the aforementioned figure. The Institute wisely warns readers: "The temptation to compare states' per-inmate spending should... be avoided, because low per-inmate costs can lead to poorer safety and recidivism outcomes." » This disparity, however, demonstrates the lack of uniformity in how prisons report their spending and raises concerns about the quality of life in facilities that spend less than $20,000 per year per inmate (Henrichson and Delaney). It is important to keep in mind the increasing medical and mental health costs that many inmates face, diverting funds that could provide a better quality of life for the entire population. One has to wonder if an institution spending so little can support a basic standard of living, let alone substantial course offerings, vocational programs, or rehabilitation programs. The opportunities for prisoners to improve their lives and social functioning in such facilities appear unlikely. This lack of opportunity will ultimately impact not only the inmate, but also their child and caregiver. Getting out of prison is usually just the first step toward reunification with the children. Successful return to a law-abiding society, including obtaining gainful employment, are generally the most difficult steps (Harris et al. 218). Yet national policy tends to favor punishment and imprisonment over rehabilitation, a strategy that requires somewhat more leniency to be effective. The current cultural zeitgeist fears that criminals are left to roam the streets, but does not focus on what happens when institutionalized and poorly rehabilitated criminals return to society. Long prison sentences without effective rehabilitation do not seem to help reduce recidivism. In a 2008 study, two-thirds of the former inmates studied were arrested and more than half returned to prison within three years of their release. A third of prisoner admissions that year were due to parole violations (Arditti, 90). Such a punitive system is less effective and much more expensive than a rehabilitation system. The Vera Institute of Justice notes in its report that many states have adopted sentencing reforms that reduce prison populations and costs. This includes allowing community supervision for most first and second drug offenders and overturning state truth in sentencing programs, which made it difficult, if not impossible, for the prisoners to earn a “good time”. (Henrichson and Delaney) Additionally, many states have begun to recognize that the.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch