The Link Between Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Recidivism, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Society has always used the sanctions imposed by the legal system to control and deter crime. The US, in particular, has employed prison sentences, especially the mandatory minimum sentencing to suppress criminal conduct. The approach discredits the role of jurists in weighing the factors surrounding criminal cases and determining the best sentence terms for the convicts. The judicial system, therefore, has the minimum sentencing for some criminals, especially those related to drug abuse, robbery with violence, or other capital crimes. Beckett and Beach (2021, p. 14) reasoned that the main justification for mandatory minimum sentencing is that they teach offenders that the punishment for their actions is certain and severe and that their undesirable behaviors are associated with negative outcomes. It is thus grounded on the notion that specific sentencing deters crime. There are, however, different schools of thought with unique reasoning on the need for mandatory sentencing. According to Aharoni et al. (2019, p. 43), the proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing argue that incarceration suppresses criminal behavior. On the other hand, the opponents of mandatory minimum sentencing argue that prisons increase criminality and recidivism (Heffner and FeldmanHall 2019, p. 5). Thus, it is essential to understand the link between mandatory minimum sentencing and criminal repeat behaviors to allow the policy and decision-makers to formulate the best policies that guide the sanction approaches in the criminal justice system.

Research Question and Rationale of the Study

The study’s research question is, “Does mandatory minimum sentencing result in offenders’ subsequent criminal behaviors after serving in jail? The role of the punishment is to change the behavior of the offenders. It is therefore expected that jail terms, one of the modes of punishing criminals, would have positive implications for the conduct of the convicts after their prison sentence. The topic is interesting since its findings would inform the need to change policy to adopt the best measures that deter crime, assure society of safety, and suppress criminal activity after the offenders are subject to the best sanction method in the judicial system.

Literature Review

Prisons have always been viewed as places where criminality is suppressed, with rehabilitation programs helping individuals to adopt desirable behaviors. The prison experience itself acts as a deterrent. According to the deterrent theory, individuals subjected to a more severe punishment are likely to suppress their engagement in criminal behavior in the future (Johnson 2019, p. 48). Economists have supported this notion with a specific deterrence model. According to economists, incarceration is a costly experience because it makes criminals lose their jobs and their extra earnings. Additionally, the stigmatization associated with imprisonment stop individuals from engaging in crimes after their release (Aharoni et al. 2019, p. 47). Thus, former offenders are less likely to engage in criminal activities after experiencing the harsh economic costs of criminal activities. Besides the cost element, the proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing argue that prison life is degrading and a dehumanizing experience that must be viewed as a psychological cost of wrongdoing (Baranyanan 2021, p. 86). Therefore, the harsh experiences deter potential criminals, especially those who directly experience prison life.

The opponents of mandatory minimum sentencing argue that prisons are schools of crime since they encourage instead of deterring undesirable conduct. According to Davis et al. (2021, p. 896), inmates who serve longer in prisons become culturalized into crime, thus strengthening their criminal conduct. Such individuals are reported to get used to prison life and, therefore, are more likely to recidivate than the inmates who have served a short time. Aspects of popular culture, such as cinema, reinforce the perception that jail centers are mechanistic and brutal environments likely to increase criminality (Heffner and FeldmanHall 2019, p. 9). The incarceration process destroys inmates’ emotional and psychological well-being, making it hard for them to adjust to societal norms and values upon release. As such, the criminals are likely to participate in criminal activities upon release since they are used to the prison environment and, therefore, unable to adjust after serving their long jail terms (Davis et al. 2021, p. 898). The stigma associated with prison life also explains why individuals subjected to prolonged imprisonment are likely to recidivate. Therefore, mandatory minimum sentencing is associated with heightened criminal conduct on the originally imprisoned offenders.

Prolonged stay in prison and recidivism are associated with the social learning theory. The proponents of the theory argue that the social and physical environment impacts the behavior of individuals since people tend to emulate the deeds exhibited by those close to them (Berger and Scheidegger 2022, p. 63). Even though prisons are tools for punishing offenders, the prolonged exposure of the convicts to other individuals with undesirable behaviors makes them adopt the criminal conduct they exhibit upon release. Turanovic and Tasca (2022, p. 934) studied the link between a prolonged stay in prison and recidivism. They established that convicts might turn from bad to worse when exposed to individuals with undesirable conduct. The offenders with minor offenses, such as possessing drugs, maybe the perpetrators of capital drug offenses, such as trafficking. These findings, therefore, indicate that even though prisons are centers for rehabilitating individuals, they are breeding grounds for criminals who exhibit learned behavior after exiting jails.

However, gaps in the reviewed literature inform the need for the proposed study. Most data that support prison as a tool for deterring crime originates from ecological studies whose findings are based on averages and rates. One such study is by Shen et al. (2020, p. 653), who report that a 30% increase in mandatory minimum sentencing leads to a 5% drop in crime rate within five years. Such data provide convincing evidence that prison punishment effectively reduces crime rates. The limitation of ecological studies is that they provide average results while failing to delve into individual crime-related behavior.

Additionally, the opponents of prison punishment pay less attention to the putative psychological destruction of the prison environment. For instance, Beckett and Beach (2021, p. 24) fail to appreciate the role of rehabilitation in prison in changing the conduct of the convicts and only stress the costs and psychological trauma associated with the environment and how the convicts find it hard to adjust upon release. The literature review has established that the data presented is inadequate in establishing the link between mandatory minimum sentencing and the recidivism of individual offenders. The authors provide narrative reviews that provide convincing but contradictory findings. There is, therefore, a need for the proposed study that adopts a direct approach to assessing the individual offenders and their likelihood of committing crimes after completing their jail terms.

Research Methodology

Research Design

The proposed study would adopt the phenomenological research design. This approach allows the researchers to get first-hand descriptions of the lived experiences of the studied individuals. According to Dawson (2019, p. 43), the goal of phenomenological research design is to describe the meaning of the experiences held by each subject and, therefore, effective in studies with limited knowledge. In the phenomenological research design, the participants are required to describe their experiences as they perceive them. Even though they must write about their lived experiences, such information is obtained through interviews (DePoy and Gitlin 2019, p. 37). The design will allow the researchers to understand the prison experiences of former drug convicts. Also, the degree to which such punishment deters or encourages them to engage in criminal activities after their release on completing the jail terms.

Population Of Study

The study’s targeted participants are former drug and substance abuse prisoners. In the US, the mandatory minimum sentencing applies to individuals involved in drug abuse and trafficking (LawInfo 2021, para 1). The first offenders for crimes involving the possession, use, and trafficking of drugs are subjected to 2 to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $20,000 (LawInfo 2021, para 2). The penalty for subsequent offenses is more severe, with the involved offenders serving prolonged periods in prison. The drug offenders would thus be targeted in this study, with the main reason being to assess the level to which their lived experiences in prison are likely to deter or encourage them to engage in the same or related crimes in the future.

Data Collection Instrument

Data for the proposed research will be gathered using the interview method. Three main reasons inform the use of the approach. First, interviews are effective in enabling the researcher to understand the opinions, behaviors and experiences of the respondents (DePoy and Gitlin 2019, p. 36). Secondly, the interview provides an excellent opportunity to collect detailed data from the respondents. Adequate time is allocated to the participants to narrate their experiences, allowing the researchers to gather in-depth data (Liamputtong 2019, p. 91). Finally, the interview method is effective since it fosters an understanding of each aspect of the narration. The researchers can ask guiding questions to understand the context from the respondents’ perceptions and seek clarification in ambiguous statements. Thus, the approach would effectively gather adequate and accurate data from former drug offenders.

Sample Size and Sampling Procedure

The sample size for the proposed study would be 672 participants. A significant portion of respondents is informed by the need to generalize the findings to other populations. According to Dawson (2019, p. 47), the selected sample size should represent the entire population to generalize the findings and to assure the audience of accurate results. Thus, the selected sample size would facilitate accurate data collection for decision-making and policy formulation processes. The former drug prisoners would be the study’s respondents. The first sampling step would involve reaching out to the prison registers to establish the released prisoners. Getting their contacts would facilitate the interview process. The second stage involves calling the available former prisoners via phone and interviewing them on their experiences and likelihood of repeating the same or related offenses. A convenience sampling approach would thus be adapted to sample the participants. DePoy and Gitlin (2019, p. 53) noted that the approach involves selecting easily and conveniently accessed respondents to save time and data collection costs. Thus, the approach would be used to reach out to 50 former drug convicts.

Ethical Considerations

There are some ethical issues related to the proposed approach. The first is voluntary participation. Hesse et al. (2019, p. 563) stated that the researchers should not force or use other methods of convincing the targeted populations to participate in the study. The respondents would voluntarily opt in or out of the study, depending on their perceived benefits, risks, or other factors surrounding their participation. For example, former drug offenders may not be ready to take part in a study due to the stigma and safety grounds. Thus, the researcher will ensure that only those willing to participate are engaged. The second ethical issue is informed consent. This ethical principle provides that the researchers should inform the targeted respondents about the study’s aim, risks, benefits, and funding (Hesse et al. 2019, p. 564). Such information allows the respondents to make informed choices on whether or not to participate in the research based on the perceived risks and benefits. The proposed study aims to establish the link between mandatory minimum sentencing and recidivism, with the findings targeted to influence the making of decisions and policies in managing criminals in the judicial system. The respondents would therefore be informed of this aim to enable them to make sound decisions about participating in the study. Thirdly, the proposed study will adhere to the principle of anonymity. This ethical principle requires the researchers to hide the participants’ identities (Hesse et al. 2019, p. 565). The researchers will ensure that the proposed study does not collect personally identifiable information likely to disclose the identity of the respondents. Finally, the researchers are required to adhere to the confidentiality principle. It provides that the researchers should protect the collected data and use it only for the intended purpose (Hesse et al. 2019, p. 567). The information from the proposed study will be hidden from other parties and be used only for its intended purpose of informing decision-making and policy formulation purposes.

Data Analysis

The proposed study aims at establishing the relationship between mandatory minimum sentencing and recidivism. As stated in the methodology section, the interview method would be used to gather information from former drug convicts. The collected data will be analyzed using the thematic technique. According to Hair, Page, and Brunsveld (2019, p. 67), thematic analysis involves identifying and interpreting themes or patterns from the collected information. A coding approach for the transcribed themes would be adopted. Coding involves establishing the significant themes from the responses provided to foster accurate and sound interpretation (Hair, Page, and Brunsveld 2019, p. 67). Researchers using the qualitative approach always face challenges analyzing large amounts of information. The thematic and coding approach allows for the grouping of the collected data into groups for timely interpretation.

The data analysis process will also involve listening to the recorded interviews and reading several times through the transcripts to establish the similarities in how the respondents responded to the questions. The similarity identification will be followed by coding and later establishment of the internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Internal heterogeneity is the text to which the data placed in categories hold together, while external heterogeneity relates to the absence of overlap between the identified themes (Dawson 2019, p. 68). The repeated listening, reading, and rereading process of the interview recordings and transcripts would lead to sound themes that are independent of each other.

Some approaches will be employed to enhance the study’s internal validity. The first approach will involve regular peer review. The researcher will have regular meetings with the research peers and experts in qualitative research. The strategy would enhance the accuracy in the coding and interpretation of the results while also interpreting the possible bias. The second measure would be a member check. According to Hair et al. (2019, p. 68), this technique involves the researchers allowing the participants to verify the entries made regarding their responses to ensure that their responses are not misinterpreted. Finally, the researcher would use the audit trail technique. This technique allows the researchers to track every aspect of the data analysis process to ensure that the approach is accurate to foster credible results (Dawson 2019, p. 73). It is thus expected that the implementation of these measures would aid in the accurate analysis of the data to be collected in the proposed study.

Practical Problems Expected in The Proposed Study

There are some challenges likely to be encountered during the research process. The first attrition of the respondents. Even though some of the targeted respondents may agree to participate in the study, they will likely exit before the data collection process. Dawson (2019, p. 106) indicates that the attribution is likely to reduce the number of participants, compromise the accuracy of the results and hinder the findings from being generalized to other populations. Therefore, the researcher must empower the respondents on the need to participate in the study since it is essential in improving the strategies used by the criminal justice system to correct the offenders. The other challenge expected in the proposed study is the unwillingness of the offenders to open up on whether or not they are likely to be involved in related crimes after serving long prison sentences. DePoy and Gitlin (2019, p. 87) noted that researchers collecting data on sensitive and personal aspects would likely experience challenges with their participants since the latter tend to hold back the most crucial information. The failure to open up or provide clarification for their responses would compromise the study’s credibility. Thus, the researcher must devise the best strategies for managing these challenges to ensure that the proposed research realizes its goal.

Bibliography

Aharoni, E., Kleider Offutt, H.M., Brosnan, S.F. and Watzek, J., 2019. Justice at any cost? The impact ofcost–benefit salience on criminal punishment judgments. Behavioral sciences & the law, vol. 37, no.1, pp.38-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2388

Baranyanan, S.D., 2021. Simplification of Law Regulations in Copyright Criminal Act Settlement. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 1(2), pp.80-91. http://download.garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/article.php?article=2167576&val=21841&title=Simplification%20of%20Law%20Regulations%20in%20Copyright%20Criminal%20Act%20Settlement

Beckett, K. and Beach, L., 2021. The place of punishment in twenty-first-century America: Understanding the persistence of mass incarceration. Law & Social Inquiry, 46(1), pp.1-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2020.4

Berger, E. and Scheidegger, K.S., 2022. Sentence length and recidivism: A review of the research. Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 35, no.2, pp.59-72. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2022.35.1.59

Davis, R.C., Reich, W.A., Rempel, M. and Labriola, M., 2021. A multisite evaluation of prosecutor-led pretrial diversion: Effects on conviction, incarceration, and recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 32, no. 8, pp.890-909. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211000403

Dawson, C., 2019. Introduction to research methods 5th edition: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project. Robinson.

DePoy, E. and Gitlin, L.N., 2019. Introduction to research E-book: understanding and applying multiple strategies. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Hair, J.F., Page, M. and Brunsveld, N., 2019. Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.

Heffner, J. and FeldmanHall, O., 2019. Why we don’t always punish: Preferences for non-punitive responses to moral violations. Scientific reports, 9(1), pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49680-2

Hesse, A., Glenna, L., Hinrichs, C., Chiles, R. and Sachs, C., 2019. Qualitative research ethics in the big data era. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), pp.560-583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218805806

Johnson, B., 2019. Do Criminal Laws Deter Crime? Deterrence Theory in Criminal Justice Policy: A Primer. MN House Research.

LawInfo, 2021. “Drug possession penalties and sentencing”. Available at: https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/drugs-possession/drug-possession-penalties-and-sentencing.html (Accessed: January 3, 2023).

Liamputtong, P., 2019. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer.

Shen, Y., Bushway, S.D., Sorensen, L.C. and Smith, H.L., 2020. Locking up my generation: Cohort differences in prison spells over the life course. Criminology, 58(4), pp.645-677. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12256

Turanovic, J.J. and Tasca, M., 2022. Conditions of contact: Reexamining the relationship between prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 5, pp.923-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1944284