The Logic Behind Incarceration, Essay Example

Incarceration as a crime control strategy should work, considering that the criminals who commit crimes are unable to continue from prison or jail. Nonetheless, evaluations of incarceration strategies reveal their impact may be less than expected. For one thing, there is little evidence that incapacitating criminals will deter them from future criminality and even more reason to believe that they may be more inclined to commit crimes upon release. In fact, the more prior incarceration experiences inmates have, the more likely they are to recidivate (and return to prison) within 12 months of their release. Rather than reducing crime a prison experience may increase the likelihood of future criminality, a phenomenon we will discuss next week

By its nature, the prison experiences exposes young, first time offenders to higher risk, more experienced inmates who can influence their lifestyle and help shape their attitudes. Novice inmates also run an increased risk of becoming infected with AIDS and other health hazards and that exposure reduces their life chances after release.

The economics of crime suggest that if money can be made from criminal activity, there will always be someone to take the place of the incarcerated offender. New criminals will be recruited and trained, offsetting any benefit accrued by incarceration. Imprisoning established offenders may likewise open new opportunities for competitors who were suppressed by the more experienced criminals. For example, incarcerating organized crime members may open drug markets to new gangs; the flow of narcotics into the country may increase after organized crime leaders are imprisoned.

Another reason that incarceration may not work is that most criminal offenses are committed by teens and very young adult offenders who are unlikely to be sent to prison for a single felony conviction. In addition, incarcerated criminals, aging behind bars, are already past the age where they are likely to commit crime. As a result, a strict incarceration policy may keep people in prison beyond the time they are a threat to society while a new cohort of high-risk adolescents is on the street. It is possible that the most serious criminals are already behind bars and that adding more to the population will have little appreciable effect while adding tremendous costs to the correctional system.

An incapacitation strategy is also terribly expensive. The prison system costs billions of dollars each year. Even if incarceration could reduce the crime rate, the costs would be enormous. Are U.S. taxpayers willing to spend billions more on new prison construction and annual maintenance fees? A strict incarceration policy would result in a growing number of elderly inmates whose maintenance costs, estimated at $69,000 per year, are three times higher than those of younger inmates. Today there are  more than 200,000 elderly inmates, about 20  percent of the prison population will be over 50.

Despite such ominous signs, the nation’s prison population may be “maxing out.” Budget cutbacks and belt tightening may halt the expansion of prison construction and the housing of ever more prisoners in already crowded prison facilities. Although new modular construction techniques and double- and triple-bunking of inmates make existing prisons expandable, the secure population probably cannot expand endlessly. As costs skyrocket, some states are now spending more on prisons than on higher education. The public may begin to question the wisdom of a strict incarceration policy. There may also be fewer criminals to incarcerate. The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic in large cities may hasten this decline, because street crimes will decline and fewer offenders will be eligible for the long penalties associated with the possession of crack. Fewer people are now receiving a prison sentence than five years ago, and if this trend holds the prison population will eventually decline.

However, as long as policymakers believe that incarcerating predatory criminals can bring down crime rates, then the likelihood of a significant decrease in the institutional population seems remote. If there is little evidence that this costly system does lower crime rates, then less costly and equally effective alternatives may be sought.