Mass incarceration is a worldwide problem in the U.S. that is yet to be solved. There are many people in the U.S. that are incarcerated based on crimes and issues goin on in the criminal justice system. The main concern here is what is mass incarceration? Mass incarceration is defined as the increase number of people put in prison everyday. The issue of mass incarceration is occurring because of the high recidivism rates due to violating an order from the court and not following the rules whiloe on probation. “War on drugs” is another factor for mass incarceration, which are drug offenders for minor or big crimes.The main issue that this paper will address is the “the three strike rule”.
Another issue that will be covered is “War on drugs” and how it contributes to mass incarceration in the U.S. In the U.S. many people are charged with small drug possesions and they are given a long sentence up to life. This is due to having drugs on them and this leads to a higher incarceration rate because of the harsh punishment for a small possession of drugs. Mass incarceration affects Americans because they have to pay more tax and people are in long prison sentences for non-violent crimes. Mass in carceration is a big issue that the supreme cout and judicial branch battles with in history.This research paper will discuss the issues of mass incarceration specifically “War on drugs” and “Three strike rule”. Also how different concepts ties into the issuce of mass incarceration.
There are many issues surrounding mass incarceration. There are law policys and cases that are further discussed and battled in the Criminal Justice System in supreme courts. In the book by Michelle Alexander she discuses the race related issues with the African American males and mass incarceration system in America based on the “War on drugs” (Michelle Alexander 2010).Throughout her book she relates it to the rebirth of the caste system which determines a class structure and where you stand in the criminal justice system.
127 our experts are availableright now
In the United states blacks are arrested for minor crimes and are trapped in the criminal justice system in which they are denied basic rights especially in poor communuities. There are a few issues Michelle Alexander points out which are: 1.excessive punishment are given to prisoners for non-violent crimes. 2. The “War on drugs” prisons are packed with drug offenders. 3.Offenders now sereve a larger portion of their sentence. 4. Many incoming prisoners are drug users not drug dealers, the tougher laws are designed to capture. 5.People are swept into the Criminal Justice System by police who conduct the drug operationin poor communities of color. 6.The police officers are rewarded in cash through drugforfeture laws and federal grant programs for rounding as many people. 7. 8.Once you are arrested defendants are generally denied meingful legal representation and pressued to plead guilty whether they are or not (Michelle Alexander 2010). All the issues that Michelle Alexander sated are reasons why mass- incarceration is going on and why the numbers in prison are constantly increasing.
A recent case that applies to a poin that Michell Alexander states is excessive punishment for non-violent crimes. According to the case of (Rummel v. Estelle 445 US 263 1980) it was about William James Rummel who was charged with three counts of felonies within the frame of 15 years. Rummel was charged with a sentence of life in prison by Texas statue. This occure in the U.S. District court of Texas the case was argued on January 7, 1980. The issue of this case was whether “Rummels life sentence was under the Texas recidivist law constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amendment? (Rummel v. Estelle 445 US 263 1980)”. The decision of the case was a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the sentence did not violate cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th and 14th amendment. The court stated that Texas was found of harsh sentencing and if a crime was repeated , then yiu are not able to follow the laws of society(Rummel v. Estelle 445 US 263 1980). The court also stated “ Texas had a relatively liberal policy of granting ‘good time’ credits to its prisoners” (Rummel v. Estelle 445 US 263 1980). So the court was basically implyingthat Rummels would not be imprisoned forever or his entire life. This case applies to the “three strike law” which is a law defined as according to (Tomislav V. Kovandzic; John J. III Sloan; Lynne M. Vieraitis 2004) “three strikes laws, designed to deter criminal offenders by mandating significant sentence enhancements for those with prior convictions.” So basically it is a law for offenders who commit 3 or more offenses if you commit a thrird crime you will receive 25 to life in prison.
Furthermore, under the 8th amendment as cruel and unusual which the court ruled as not cruel and unusual in this case. Rummel v. Estelle was based on the 8th amendment argument on life sentence under the Texas recidivist stattue. In the case of Rummel v. Estelle the opinion of the court do not clearly address any understanmding of the constitution of how the 8th amendment applied to Rummels case as “cruel and unsual”. The court itself did not interpret what cruel and unusual meant referring to Rummels appeal instead thyey mention how the state had a significant way in dealing with the offenders who continuously repeat crime offenses stating that they cnnot adapt to the rules and laws in society they are “incapable” (Rummel v. Estelle 445 US 263 1980). The court does not make clear of any firm reasoning of what is incapable and explaining why this case was ruled as uncruel and unusual.
This shows how vauge the courts reasoning is. For Rummel to be sentenced to life in prison until he dies is unfair in the sense of a harsh sentencing for a third time offense which was non-violent this punishment was unfair and excessive. This unnecessary decision contradicts how the district court works and how it contributes to mass incarceration of excessive punishment for non violent crimes. The concept that applies to this is the legislative branch because they are responsible for developing the countries law by imposing a lesser sentence foe a non-violent crime to protect citizens and stopping crime, not overcrowding the prison with excessive punishment. Federalism has a limit of power on the eight amendment due to the fact “you cannot take away a person’s freedom, or life or property without due process” (Constitution.org).
Furthermore, another case that deals with mass incarceration through the 8th amendment law of cruel and unusual punishment is Harmelin v. Michigan. In this casse Ronald Harmelin was charged with 650 grams of drugs he was sentenced by the Michigan law pertaining to mandatory life imprisonment without any hope of parole. His charges were non violent crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and claimed that the mandatory sentence with life imprisonment was not cruel and unusual under the 8th amendment (Harmelin v. Michigan 501 US 957 1991). According to Scott K. Peterson he states “Federal government has used the awesome weapons at its disposal to combat growing drug tide by sealing our boarders, destroying drug corps at home and abroad and imprisoning drug offenders for lenghthing terms (Scott K. Peterson 1993 P. 748).”
This shows a reason for why there is an increase in mass incarceration due to long sentences of drug offenders for non-violent crimes drug is a major issue and contribution to the population of prison because most offenders have never commited a crime and for one time they get caught with drugs on them hey receive the highest sentence. This relates to Harmelin because he was found with possession of drugs but he had never been in trouble wit the law or sold any drug but he was sill given a harsh sentencing. In this case Justice White, Blackmum .H, Stevens J. and Marshall .T in conclusion of their dissenting opinion they argued hat the three prong test that was decided in the (Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 1983) case decides punishment by determining he harm caused by looking at it, the sentence given to other “criminals in the same jurisdiction and sentences that people are charged within other jurisdiction should be used to determine and examine whether the law violates the 8th amendment” (Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 1983).
I agree with the dissenting opinion due to the fact that 3 factors can be looked at to determine how to punish a prisoner rather than one factor that determines your life of being incarcerated for life. The courts decision was based on the 8th Amendment stating “The 8th Amendment does not contain a proportionality guarantee, determination whether punishment is cruel and unusual (Harmelin v. Michigan 501 US 957 1991).” Even though this is the courts decision I disagree being that the court should use reference and sources to make a final decision on a case that has the 8th amendment.
In addition, a precedent case that relates to Harmelin v. Michigan case in the U.S. v. Weems this case occurred in the 1910 in the U.S. Supreme Court Weems was selected in the Philippine’s to be an officer as a coast guard. He was sent there by the U.S. government he was approved by the requirements applied to that position. He was later charged with fraud and sentenced to 25 years in prison with hard labor (Weems v. U.S. 217 U.S. 349 1910) . While he was in prison he was in chains most of the time. His rights was taken away after being imprisoned. He challenged he court on the 8th Amendment that his punishment was cruel and unusual (Margeret Raymond 253 2006) .
In the Weems case the court hel that the sentence of the individual Weems was not found as cruel and unusual punishment and the “propationality principle”(Margeret Raymond 253 2006) . Also that the sentence should fit the crime done. The court did not define why the case was ruled as cruel and unusual what was so cruel about it and why was it unusual. They need to define what those terms mean and what is usual and unusual. The treatment of Weem was unfair due to the excessive amoun of years he received for his sentence. This is why the prison system is increasing due to unfair punishments at courts with no valid explanatory reasons especially if they are basing it on the 8th amendment. This case is significant because in both cases they discuss cruel and unuual punishment and in both cases they rule that the decision does not violate the 8th Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. This case shows how the system is unfair without reasoning and using facts and history to sentence a person.
Another significant case that presents a look into mass incarceration is (Brown v. Plata). In this case the main summary was about Marciano plata and other prisoners stating that the California prison was a violation of the 8th Amendment referring to cruel and unusual punishment due to the issue of overcrowding. In this case three federal judges decided that there was overcrowding in California prison and it may have been the issue for for violating the 8th Amendment (Chase Wagnire 2013). Therefore, the court instructed to let out some prisoners so that the prison population would decrease with 137.5% between 38,000 and 46,000 inmates were being released (Chase Wagnire 2013).
The main issue of this case was wheher filing an order from the court decrease the prison population to help the coditions in the prison institutions violate the Prison Litgation Reform Act? (Chase Wagnire 2013). In the dissenting opinion of this case by Justice Claren and Scalia stated “ What is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nations history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted crimnals (BROWN v. PLATA ( No. 09-1233 ).
In my understanding the dissenting opinions sees that that the decision of he court is not reasonable. If there are too much people in prison it is uncomfortable and there are many bad conditions which constitutes in the 8th amendment cruel and unusual. The people being released can be non-violent offenders and people that are wrongly convicted in jail also people that are in prison for a crime that they served half the senctece already and they are not a danger to the community. They wouldn’t release murderes or rapist because they know that they are a harm to society. When prisoners are let out am sure that precaution is taken to onl release the non violent offenders not prisoners that are incapable of living in the society.
According ( Hg.org/prisoner-rightslaw)to the prisoner rights law prisoners have a right to have liberty under the 8th Amendmnt of cruel and unusual punishment, also a right to complain on prison conditions and right to file a complaint at court. Also medical and mental care should be given and free discrimination and first amendments rights to a certain extent if it does not involve inmates interfering with thesatus of another inmate ( Hg.org/prisoner-rightslaw). Even through the prisoners rights law it shows what rights prisoners have, and in his case the Plata and other inmates complained about conditions in prison which is legal and right. If the court did not make this decision the conditions can resort to worse conditions. The 8th Amendment law and prisoners right law presents how prisoners are also human and have a right to complain if there are bad conditions in the prison system. However, I do see why Scalia and Clarence dissented maybe the reason as Prisoners that are not ready to come out or have not punished enough are being released. People hat are threat to society won’t be release just non-violent offenders and people that have served a longer portion of their sentence.
In all the cases federalism applies but to an certain extent of power over the issue of mass incarceration. Some pars of the state control the prison system. The federal government funds the prison system through the taxes that we pay in the U.S. The taxes goes to keep people incarcerated I feel like if people were more educated on the prison system and what goes on we can have a say in what our money contributes to. This can even help save money if non-violent offenders are released out of prison and the issue with “War on Drugs” and “Three Strike law”.
Another concept that applies in to this cases around the issue of mass incarceration is the legislative brance because that branch forms and write laws. This concept applies because sometimes law are vauge and in order for it to fully apply to decisions in court they have to be thoroughly reviewed. For eample the 8th Amendment in many of the case the decisions of the courts they tated they could not explicity state why something cruel and unusual and it couldn’t be defined of what cruel and unusual meant. According to (Brennancenter.org) they stated to enact sentencing reform “ Reintroducing and passing the sentencing reform and corrections Act of 2015.” This is why am saying laws can be altered to give a better resoning and definition of a law and why it was applied. This is why I chose this as a concept because in other cases the 8th amendment couldn’t be explained in the decision of the court.
Another concept that applies to the cases and mass incarceration is the executive branch the reason being the carry out the laws and sign. The executive branch also select he justices for the supreme court. Through the judges they select can determine wheteher a law is not right or is due to cases and reasoning in a law if it clear. The executive branch applies to this case because laws passed from the legisatve branch should be carefully looked at like the 8th Amendment rights for prisoners.
In the final analysis of this research paper. We can see a good number of cases that show a problem with the 8th Amendmnt law. Another factor pointed out is the issue of mass incarceration referring and focusing on “War on Drugs” and “Three Stike Law”. Through the selected cases you can see changes through precedent cases and current cases battled in the supreme court and federal courts. The court systems should review more into the 8th Amendment law refered to in the cases of the decision being vauge. Mass incarceration is a world wide issue and there are many cases that presents over the time decisioning and courts decisions on these cases.
References
- Drug War Statistics – Drug Policy Alliance
- Recidivism Statistics – Bureau of Justice Statistics
- Mass Incarceration – American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- Two-thirds of pretrial detainees in jails have not been sentenced. That needs to change. – The Hill
- Shrinking Gap Between Number of Blacks and Whites in Prison – Pew Research Center
