Recent orders
Benefits drawbacks of reducing (banning) single-use of plastics
Student
Professor
Course:
Date
Benefits/ drawbacks of reducing (banning) single-use of plastics
Single-use of plastics is often described as the one-time use and disposal or recycling of plastics such as straws, bottles, bags and other common types of packaging. As much of these plastics are designed to be thrown away or disposed of after use. Banning and reducing single-use of plastics is made possible by the adoption of bans and levies by governments policies on the production of the plastics with the aim of replacing them with more environmentally friendly alternatives (Lambert, Scott, and Wagner, 6870). The advantages of the single-use of plastics recorded are undeniable thus the reducing and banning of single-use plastics is set to weigh on drawbacks. The effects of single plastics usage impact both the environment and the living creatures. Through their impact on society, the benefits and drawbacks of single-use of plastic papers are evaluated. As much as it is easily disposable, majority of the single-use plastic takes years to decompose, they are easily available and cheap a factors that make their usage more common in various places (Bartolotta & Hardy).
In the year 2008 according to UN a report generated by global analyst’s industry, 260 million tons was the world’s plastic consumption rate. The benefits and drawbacks are evident with most literature and research recording more benefits arising from banning single-use of plastics due to its effects as related to drawbacks. This paper sets to evaluate countries worldwide with a focus on the 68 countries that decided to adopt the banning and regulation of plastic paper usage. Benefits of single-use of plastic highlighted include cheap packaging, 40 per cent of the world packaging rely on the single-use plastics whose pollution causes are termed to be unnecessary as this resource’s pollution effective are becoming unsustainable (Bartolotta et. al). The benefits draw from single-use of plastics in the world agenda of fighting hunger and famine, the single-use of plastic come in handy as they help keep food protected and fresh for a longer period of time. Thus the banning of this miracle material will imply that foods will not be preserved effectively leading to wastages thus increasing the stains of hunger. The banning of the use of paper has seen countries record high numbers of unemployment as plastic producing companies shut down as a result of the banning legislation aimed at checking and controlling the unnecessary disposal and consumption of plastics (Romer, Jennie Reilly, 439). These companies, however, have developed mechanisms to restore operation with a shift to developing non-replaceable plastics.
The elimination of plastics is essential as it can help shoppers lower their prices helping shoppers in saving. shoppers can save $18 to $ 30 annually as it would see into a reduction in the cost of goods (Bartolotta et. al). The banning of plastics helps in reducing litter and lowering the pollution levels as these plastics are non- biodegradable, their disposal would mean litter and more pollution. Rwanda developed sanctions and hefty penalties on the usage of plastics and as a result, it is regarded as the cleanest city in the world (Danielsson, Michaela). A study that was carried by a group from a Western university in Ontario developed a conclusion that single use of plastics should be banned upon assessing plastic pollution and its mitigation in Lake Harun. The findings were regarded as a sample of the general population in other water bodies. Plastics banning was developed as a long term solution to help combat the unnecessary use and disposable of the plastics. The effect of banning would suggest that people’s daily routine would be interrupted resulting to change with customers being advised on the usage of reusable bags or even reusing plastics. The scientific studies carried have indicated over 5 trillion bags with an average weight of 250,000 tons are today floating of oceans thus competing and choking marine life which is a crucial element in the world food chain elements (Lambert, Scott, and Wagner, 6870). Planktons in the marine form a source of food for seeing animals and produces oxygen for land animals as a byproduct and with the floating plastics blocking sunrays essential for their growth has led to the death of hundreds and thousands of marine animals, sea birds among others. 86 per cent of turtles, 44 per cent of marine birds, and 43 per cent of marine mammals have plastic in their guts (Xanthos, Dirk, and Tony R. Walker, 64). In business, the ban on single-use paper can lead to an enhanced economy as more opportunities for employment are developed in the creation and development of reusable bags manufacturers. The ban will ensure efficient growth and development of marine life. As a result, the drainage clogged by plastics will significantly reduce thus ensuring drainage systems run effectively avoiding floods. The reduction of plastic bags who essential cause breeding of diseases such as malaria will see a reduction in the breeding as the breeding grounds are discarded upon the limitation of use of the bags(Suhail).
With no doubt single-use plastics has in modern life become a major source of pollution hence calls for a well-legislated ban on almost all these products are a good idea. The debate in which we can live without them, there has been a debate of smart ways to replace plastic use, as the application of metal straws, using of wood made cutlery, developing glass bottles and even use of canvas and muslin bags Lambert, Scott, and Wagner, 6870). The approach to ban and introduce levies in order to reduce the single-use of plastics is informed from the vast environment effects and pollution affecting the world, these materials have at times led to blocking of drainage that causes flooding thus allowing breeding of diseases. This essay evaluation is aimed at informing the users who mostly are the governments on the perks around benefits and drawbacks of banning the single-use of paper. Although their due to lack of enough monitoring there are no conclusive information to ascertain the impacts of banning and levies measures of the assessment and evaluation analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of the banning of single-use of plastics in controlling the rate of environment pollutions shows a huge benefit for people and the environment that seeks to avert pollution crisis with the reduction or banning being a painless but profitable initiative (Suhail).
Recycling of plastic only encourages the production of more single-use plastics making the current situation worse thus not a viable idea to develop or even validate. It is recorded that only 7-18 per cent of the world plastic used to make it to recycling. With recycling and cleaning costs being shifted to taxpayers (Romer, Jennie Reilly,439). With a few positive impacts evaluated by the essay as compared to the negative costs single-use plastic has. The paper can conclusively recommend the effecting of banning and other levies to help combat the single-use of plastics menace. The evaluation of the essay may, however, be out of balance as the plastics under study are not the problem but rather the focus should be on how the people choose to use the plastics and what they do with it. Which illustrates that it is should be left for the people to decide in smarter ways what they ought to do with the plastics (Foster et al, 1392). The evaluation should also help to enhance or focus on other actions to be pursued in efforts to reduce single-use of plastics rather than banning. Other methods can include the development of waste management systems through enhancing technology (Schnurr, Riley EJ, et al, 158)
Works cited
Analysts, Global Industry. “Plastics: A Global Outlook.” San Jose, CA: GIA (2012).
Bartolotta, Jill, Scott Hardy, and Susan Bixler. “Partners in Plastic Reduction.” (2019).
Danielsson, Michaela. “The plastic bag ban in Rwanda: local procedures and successful outcomes.” (2017).
Foster, Stephen, Ricardo Hirata, and Bartolome Andreo. “The aquifer pollution vulnerability concept: aid or impediment in promoting groundwater protection?” Hydrogeology Journal 21.7 (2013): 1389-1392.
Lambert, Scott, and Martin Wagner. “Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead.” Chemical Society Reviews 46.22 (2017): 6855-6871.
Romer, Jennie Reilly. “The evolution of San Francisco’s plastic-bag ban.” Golden Gate U. Envtl. LJ 1 (2007): 439.
Schnurr, Riley EJ, et al. “Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review.” Marine pollution bulletin 137 (2018): 157-171.
Suhail, Obed. “Plastic pollution.” (2018).
Xanthos, Dirk, and Tony R. Walker. “International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review.” Marine pollution bulletin 118.1-2 (2017): 17-26.
Literature- New Life wakening
(Name)
(Instructors’ name)
(Course)
(Date)
A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose
In his book, Eckhart Tolle introduces readers to the concept of the power of now. In essence, the book examines the state of humanity, highlighting the different ways through which people live their daily lives based on a mistaken identity. He examines humanity’s egoism and how human beings have used their intellect for survival. As the author explains, the world presents humanity with plenty of opportunities for personal growth and self-improvement. However, this opportunities are only available to those who have the ability to recognize them and accept them into their personal lives. The author further explains that all human beings face plenty of challenges, which they need to accept and confront at all times.
This paper presents a critical analysis of the book, A New Earth: Awakening Your Life’s Purpose by Eckhart Tolle. Specifically, the paper explains how the book teaches its readers on how to overcome their life challenges
New Journey
In his book, Tolle writes ‘‘to forgive is to overlook, or rather to look through. You look through the ego to the sanity that is in every human being as his or her essence.’’(Tolle63). This statement simply means that forgiveness is a crucial aspect in the human life and that individuals must practice forgiveness in order to survive their life’s challenges. In support of this statement, my personal life has been a good example of what Tolle proposes. After a fight with my parents, I experience a swam of negative thoughts owing to the conflict between my parents and me. However, through forgiveness, I am able to overcome some of these negative feelings and be able to let go of these challenge with ease. Every time I practice forgiveness, it feels like a new awakening, just as Tolle explains. Forgiveness is the first step towards overcoming life’s challenges, as it allows individuals to evade the potential for suffering. As Tolle explains, “How you react to people and situations, especially when challenges arise, is the best indicator of how deeply you know yourself.” (Tolle188). Put simply, if one decides to forgive others for their shortcomings, there is a higher likelihood of such an individual to successfully proceed on with their lives with minimal disruptions.
Tolle also explains that
Travel to an unknown destination may lead to unpredictable dangers but I believe that is a challenge for me. When I travel to new cities or new countries, I make it a point to talk to as many locals as possible. You can learn so much more from one conversation than you can from one hundred tour books, so I introduce myself to strangers, share experiences with travelers, bargain with shopkeepers and ask taxi drivers questions. When I speak to a waitress, I ask her where she’s from and what life is like there. If you open yourself up to strangers this way, you can learn so much not just about this new place in the world but also about yourself. Sometimes there is no way to predict what balance of enlightenment and endangerment might occur when one takes a chance with the unfamiliar such as venturing to speak to an unknown member of the opposite sex may lead to embarrassment, or a high seas adventure might well lead to scurvy, but there is, to be sure, value in the experience either way. To this end, great challenge has the capacity to bring about great insight.
4. In the journey of my life, any conflict and unhappiness is a kind of test. Also, this is a best practice opportunities for the awareness. I remember when I attended the growth groups; the speaker Mr. Chen tells a story about awareness: At the first time, when you walk on the road, you don’t notice that there has a big hole on the middle and then you will always fall into it. At that time, you need to spend lots of time to climb out from the hole. The second time, you walk on the road, and fall into the hole again. However, you stay in the hole’s time is shorter than before. Again, you walk on the road, and you try to go around, but still fall into it accidentally. But, you know how to climb out. Finally one day, you know there has a hole on the middle of the road, and you are able to bypass. On the other hand, this does not guarantee that you will not fall into another the hole. The hole perhaps is depression, sadness, anger, or the pain, and the only thing you can do that is we need to maintain awareness. This story makes me realize that we must be willing to fail, to falter, to suffer, in order to become greater versions of ourselves. Sometimes, being shown lesser versions of us can be the key to this personal evolution.
5. And perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that this personal evolution doesn’t occur in a freedom like Albert Einstein says that “A human being is a part of a whole, called by us the ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space.”To the contrary, we improve ourselves only if we improve the value we represent for the whole of humanity, in whatever modest capacity this may be possible. By dispatching with these prejudices, we have a chance to know so much more, not just about the world but also about ourselves.
6.This is perhaps the standard in our discussion. Nothing that we do occurs independently of the needs and wishes of family, friends, communities, societies, civilizations and so on. We are insignificant units of an infinitude that is well beyond our comprehension. The best we can do is attempt to comprehend this notion as a function of that which we can impact. Where we can improve our lives, the lives of those around us and the lives of those beyond us, we have a responsibility to attempt to do so. Only through openness to the unfamiliar, a willingness to learn from suffering and recognition of the broader level of the universe will allow us to do this.
Work Cited
Tolle, Eckhart. A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose. New York: The plum Book, 2005. Print
Mass Incarceration in the United States
Lauren Williams
Florida A&M University
CCJ 5446
Dr. Felecia Dix Richardson
Turning the Thinking Curve
Mass Incarceration in the United States
Background
The population of the United States makes up about 5 percent of the global population while, the nation has 25 percent of the global population of prisoners (Wagner, & Sakala, 2014). Approximately 2.2 million Americans are in prison. This population began growing at a rapid rate in the early 1980s due to a number of factors that will be discussed in this paper. The rate of incarceration grew by an annual average of 12 percent between 1970 and 2000, bringing the total growth increase to about 400 percent, which the highest rate of imprisonment recorded anywhere in the world. The 2.2 million people in confinement are locked in the following categories:
1,772 juvenile correctional centers
over 3,000 local jails
80 Indian county jails.
1,833 state prisons
110 federal correctional centers
218 migrant detention centers
Military prisons
Psychiatric hospitals
Civil commitment facilities
Wagner & Sakala (2014). How many people are locked up in the United States? (chart). In Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017. Prison Policy Initiative.
The information in this pie chart details the actual facilities where people are locked, indicates the reason why rectifies speculations about the drivers of mass incarceration, and focuses on the real reasons for such a huge number of people in prison such as the exceedingly punitive action taken against even the least offenses. Looking at the chart allows a reader to focus on the crucial drivers of mass incarceration and point out crucial but ignored confinement establishments. Local jails are not significantly included in the discussion on mass incarceration as one of the main contributors to this huge number and have a more significant impact that the population suggests.
It is important to note that this pie chart does not include the huge churn of people going in and out of correctional facilities or an even larger group that is affected by mass incarceration or the criminal justice system. Over 600,000 people go through prison gates each year, although people find themselves in jails 10.6 million times annually. The number is greater than those in prison because most people that have been to jail have not been convicted. Some get arrested and make bail within a few hours or days, while the poor that cannot afford bail are remain in locked up until they can face trial. Usually, about 160,000 people on average in a single day find themselves convicted for small offenses or misdemeanors carrying sentences bellow one year. Al least one in four people arrested will be arrested again in the same year particular the poor, those with mental illness, and those battling substance abuse disorders, whose problems even become larger with incarceration.
Reasons for a Disproportionate Prison Population
The reason why many people are locked up can be explained through the number arrested for drug offenses, the profit motives of bail corporations with a direct interest in mass incarceration, or whether it is a response to threats on societies. Today they are various myths circulating as to why America harbors so many people in its confinement facilities. Some have a substantial amount of truth in them, such as the over-criminalization of drug use, the use of unpaid prison labor, or the use of private prisons. However, looking at this myths, they do not actually explain why many people are found with offenses that warrant their arrest and conviction, or how the nation can dramatically and cautiously bring down the number of people in our prisons.
At the Minimum
The main reason for the huge number of incarcerated people in the United States includes the reliance on sentencing guidelines by judges when imposing penalties for crimes. Judges also consider mitigating factors during sentencing. It happens that when a crime is subject to a stipulated minimum according to sentencing laws, the judges are required to impose this minimum or higher. The war on drugs introduced in the 1970s introduced the use of minimum sentencing. This was followed harsher mandatory minimum sentences passed by Congress in the 1980s, particularly in connection to federal drug possession. Since then, these requirements have been adopted for sex and crimes related to gangs. Thus, mandatory minimum sentences have hugely contributed to the increase in prison populations.
The American Center for prison studies reports that one in every 107 Americans is locked up in a confinement facility. The land of the free is ironically the land with the most number of unfree people in the entire globe. Although this paper mentioned the war on drugs as a mythical factor contributing to the rise in prison populations, it does so indirectly as it influence greatly minimum sentencing laws that extended to other offences. This has led to misdemeanours with significantly disproportionate consequences.
The mandatory minimum sentences introduced in the 1980s and 1990s ensured that people served longer sentences or forced convicts to service a predetermined number of years in prison (Kang-Brown, Hinds, Heiss, & Lu, 2018). On particularly inconsiderate sentences was the one introduced under the “three-strikes” laws, which forced a person convicted of their third felony to serve a prison sentence amounting to 25 years to life. There is also the “truth-in-sentencing” laws that required convicts to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before they were legible for parole. The harsher sentencing policies of the 1980s and 1990s and the increased probability of imprisonment per arrest are the biggest causes of the explosion of mass incarceration.
Small offenses with huge consequences, or the “massive misdemeanor system” is significant but hugely overlooked contributor of mass incarceration and overcriminalization. Offenses such as jaywalking or sitting on the sidewalk contribute a jaw-dropping 13 million misdemeanor charges that drive a similar number of Americans to the criminal justice system annually (This number does not include speeding and civil violations) (Alkon, 2015). These low-level offenses make up about a quarter of all daily arrests nationwide, and a significantly higher proportion in certain states and counties.
Reading or hearing about this misdemeanors without actually experiencing their consequences makes them look like small offenses until the reality of serious financial, personal and social costs sinks. This effect is not just felt by individuals but also the society that bears the cost of these court processes and the unwarranted incarceration that accompanies. There are also moral costs: people charged with misdemeanors are often pressured to accept a guilty plea in order to get probation and avoid jail time. However, this information goes into their criminal record, which significantly influences sentencing in case an individual is charged again. Other collateral consequences of accepting a guilty plea in order to get probation include the high risk of violating probation, which increases the probability for future incarceration for the violation offense. This misdemeanor system that pressures people to plead guilty undermines the American principles of justice by a huge extent.
The Impossibility of parole
Before the 1970s, a life sentence did not mean a convict spent their entire life in prison. People sentenced to life in prison were given their first parole after 15 years. However, when the supreme court withdrew the death penalty in 1972, most states responded by introducing life sentences without the possibility of parole. Since then, Louisiana, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and the state of South Dakota have withdrawn the possibility for parole altogether. As of 2012, 160,000 Americans were serving life sentences.
Juvenile Incarceration
For almost a century, the criminal justice system has distinguished between juvenile and adult crimes, recommending counselling, training, and rehabilitation for those considered of minority age or too young to be held accountable for their actions. However, a dramatic increase in the rate of crime committed by minors in the late 1980s contributed to public support for dealing with juveniles as adults and moving juvenile cases to adult courts. Since then, juveniles tried and convicted in adult courts were moved to adult correctional facilities. In the last decade, the number of people under the majority age serving time in adult prisons has increased two-fold. By 2010, 9,855 juveniles each day on average were incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
Fifteen-Hundred Fold Increase
When the founding fathers finished drafting the constitution, they identified three federal crimes-piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Since then, the number of federal crimes stands at 4,500, which means they have increased by a jaw-dropping 1,500-fold. Most significantly, is the decrease in laws written that require proof of intent in order to be found guilty and be convicted of a particular crime. In the decade between 2000 and 2010, over 780,000 people were found guilty and sent to prison for federal crimes and received sentences that ranged from up to a year for misdemeanors to multiples of 10 years for felonies.
There is also the issue that most people arrested today are more likely to go to jail because the prosecution and the court process has apparently become more effective over the years. According to the National Research Council (NRC), the prosecution has become more efficient, significantly contributing to the explosion of the number of incarcerated people (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). More people who are arrested and charged with a crime are more likely to go to prison today than they would have three decades ago. This is partly because most crimes today require prison sentences that they did in 1980, meaning more people found guilty end up serving a prison sentence rather than getting a fine or serving probation (Tonry, 2016). There is also the issue that most people who are convicted today do not even go to trial-they take plea bargains, which are agreements between the defense and the prosecution for the defendant to plead guilty for a reduced sentence instead of having to go to trial and face the risk of a full-sentence if found guilty. The court system uses this method to reduce pilling up of cases and reduce workload. A plea bargain is not a question of effectiveness but of necessity and undermines the theoretical point of the prosecution working to figure out if a person committed an offense or not.
Various Stakeholders have a role to play in dealing with the issue of mass incarceration.
Federal prosecutors are considered to be tough-minded, strict on enforcing the law, and dedicated to dealing with crime wherever it lurks. There is a bipartite agreement today that too many people are being locked up for far too long. Although nobody would fancy going back to an era where they genuinely fear for their safety, public safety can be maintained without having to rely on stratospheric levels of incarceration seen today. Nobody understands this better than federal prosecutors. The role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system is significant, and one that comes with immense power. They decide whether a person should be charged, with what offense, and what plea bargains to reject or accept. Judges highly rate sentencing recommendations from prosecutors, which makes it safe to say that they influence the decisions of the judges greatly.
The Congress also has a significant role to play in reducing mass incarceration. Republican and Democratic leaders both agree that long prison sentences get in the way of rehabilitation, encourage economic inequality, and drive recidivism (Schiraldi, 2018). However, these two parties are so torn on issues such that it becomes tempting to assume that the progress towards a federal reform has no chance. Congress needs to redefine the way the nation confronts problems in the way Americans are arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated.
The White House and the Justice department also have a major role to play in addressing the problems in our criminal justice Department that have caused these bizarre numbers of incarcerated people. The White House and the Criminal Department need to support this work fully. The president should outline clear views on the issue and put his team, including the Vice President, his Senior Advisor, among others in line with these views. The Attorney General should also be instrumental in efforts aimed at reducing the prison population.
Formerly incarcerated leaders known as “leaders with conviction” also have a crucial role to play in dealing with mass incarceration. To be fair, this group is working to achieve this reality in their effort to rebuild communities (Sturm, & Tae, 2017). To date, these “leaders with conviction” have been able to gather a set of capacities that put them in a position to drive change not only in the lives of individual affected by mass incarceration but also in the criminal legal systems that have caused devastation in the lives of individuals and communities.
Leaders with conviction have been able to mobilize various forms of social capital that are unusually diverse. They have been using this resources shred through relationships and networks to help those affected by mass incarceration to move forward. They have also used this social capital to catalyze change. They are equipped with extensive experience to speak the language of various communities allowing them to communicate effectively with different audiences. They are trusted by people that have suffered recurring stigmatization and dispel myths among people who hold the stereotype that prevent them from the actual realities of the criminal justice system. They have the ability to influence public opinion and rally the public towards federal and criminal justice reform.
Reducing Mass Incarceration
It is important to mention that bipartisan criminal justice reform is a key issue in the upcoming presidential election and a very hot topic today. Senator Cory Booker and Senator Richard Blumenthal brought the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act back to the floor of the house with the aim of mending the country’s criminal justice system just like the Step Act that passed last fall intended to do. The former bill gives $20 billion from the Federal Reserve to states that reduce their prison population by a minimum of 7 percent in the course of three years while maintaining a low crime rate. This money will be offered over a 10-year period.
Although the intention of the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act is good, it will not effect any changes as long as certain laws are still in the book. Meaningful reform must start with the restructuring of the most common and fastest-growing form of punishment in the country-parole, probation, and various types of community supervision (Dagan & Teles, 2014). The number of adults under community supervision in the country stands at 4.5 million, which is double the number in prison and jails.
Although community supervision was introduced as an alternative to imprisonment but has turn into a key driver for mass incarceration. The technical requirements for adhering to community supervision should be revised because some are too demanding and appear to create a trap for incarceration. Violations of these requirements lead to further restrictions that end up in incarceration. People are supposed to adhere to between 10 and 20 conditions; some that appear to invade on the rights of people found guilty of even the small offenses (Subramanian, Moreno, & Broomhead, 2014). Fines, fees and restitution should be revised because they are one of the major traps for people with low incomes who most times cannot genuinely afford these amounts. It is enough to have someone fulfill work and community service requirements without the need to add a financial burden on them. Some requirements, such as disassociating with criminals, are understandable.
The enforcement of these requirements through sophisticated monitoring devices that are highly intrusive sometimes sends inaccurate information because they are too close and collect even the slightest of mistakes that are translated into a violation. It does not help to mention that private vendors who are working to boost their income blurring the moral line peddle these gadgets. Judges are ready to penalize these easily detected violations with punitive “backup time” sentences. Because of parole and probation violations, more than 50 percent of people serving prison sentences having been charged with violations that have nothing to do with public safety or criminal acts.
Congress should pass the Smarter Sentencing Act that would reduce mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. The Act allows for some convicted of drug offenses to apply for a sentence reduction. The Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act should also be a priority. This Act provides more drug treatment and job training for inmates rehabilitating them to be useful members of the community. Those inmates who complete these programs are eligible for reduced sentences.
The National Research Council (NRC) has called on policymakers to revise criminal justice policies to prevent to aide mass incarceration. These policies revisions include a review of mandatory minimums, drug laws and long sentences. The consideration of more community-based alternatives to imprisonment is not necessarily a recommendation because it is already a failed experiment. Rather, it should be an introduction of new and revised community-based alternatives to the penitentiary. These alternatives should not be punitive all round but should include resources that ensure those found guilty of a particular offense do not re-offend. The goal should be to reduce recidivism that is encouraged by the current “massive misdemeanor system” that set up numerous requirements that create a trap for people service community sentences to land in prison eventually. Resources should also be available in prisons, including vocational training and improved convict re-entry programs.
The other issue is to allocate resources to collect information on how social and economic conditions cause crime. Mental illnesses are also important issues that should be evaluated for its effect of incarceration and recidivism. This will inform the development of resources to aid people dealing with mental health issues that require health care rather than jail terms.
The criminal justice system should identify a model correctional facility that has effectively adopted “intermediate care units” which help people with severe mental conditions to switch from inpatient correctional amenities to the general prison population. The initial attempt should, however, be working to keep people with mental problems out of jail in the first place using drug courts, veterans’ courts, and health courts.
Not all these programs will be effective without a single unit coordinating these policies reforms and other measures nationwide. The single unit or agency is the first point to showing the nation’s will for improvements in the criminal justice system. The nation is a very long way from desirable prison numbers, which means relentlessness and aggressive ways of doing things. Before these goals are realized, the people currently in prison should have services that increase their chances of integrating into the community once they are free.
Conclusion
More prisoners per arrest and handing each prisoner long sentences are the huge causes of the most significant causes of mass incarceration with the punitive sentencing policies enacted in the 1980s and the 1990s being the common denominator for both. Sentencing reform policies proposed by politicians, pursued by some state government, and recommended by other stakeholders is a decent place to begin. Stakeholders should take execute their responsibilities in this transformative phase with conviction. Prosecutors should ensure that they deal with crime but ensure they do it by executing there primary role to the best of their ability rather than relying on plea bargains just to close a case. The Congress should revise old laws and introduce new ones that will change this curve. The federal and state government should provide the necessary support to make this goal a reality. Non-governmental agencies should act as reform catalysts in bridging, bonding and linking social capital. They should work to shift the narrative and increase the capacity for collaboration with people at every government level by ensuring civic participation.
References
Alkon, C. (2015). An overlooked key to reversing mass incarceration: Reforming the law to reduce prosecutorial power in plea bargaining. U. Md. LJ Race, Religion, Gender & Class, 15, 191.
Dagan, D., & Teles, S. M. (2014). Locked in? Conservative reform and the future of mass incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 266-276.
Kang-Brown, J., Hinds, O., Heiss, J., & Lu, O. (2018). The new dynamics of mass incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice.
Schiraldi, V. N. (2018). Too big to succeed: The impact of the growth of community corrections and what should be done about it.
Sturm, S. P., & Tae, H. (2017). Leading with conviction: The transformative role of formerly incarcerated leaders in reducing mass incarceration. Columbia Public Law Research Paper, (14-547).
Subramanian, R., Moreno, R., & Broomhead, S. (2014). Recalibrating justice: A review of 2013 state sentencing and corrections trends. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Tonry, M. H. (2016). Sentencing fragments: Penal reform in America, 1975-2025. Oxford University Press.
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences.
Wagner, P., & Sakala, L. (2014). Mass incarceration: The whole pie. Prison Policy Initiative, 12.