Incapacitation Strategies

          Supporters of the incapacitation strategy advocate incarcerating offenders to prevent them from engaging in future criminal activity.  Confining offenders is the most common way to incapacitate criminals.  The overall goal of incapacitation is preventing the most prolific and violent criminals from re-offending in the community (Zimring & Hawkins 1995).  Some of the methods used for this strategy include mandatory minimum sentencing, habitual offender laws, and three-strikes laws (MacKenzie 2006).

         The most recent of these strategies are the federal and state three strikes laws (MacKenzie 2006).  The law specifies that a judge must sentence an offender with three are more convictions to a long prison term (Zimring, Hawkins, Kamin 2001).  Directed towards repeat offenders enacted with the belief that crime rates were rising and tough three strike laws would help reduce crime Zimring, Hawkins, Kamin 2001).  Three strikes laws were based on the conclusion that offenders with three or more previous convictions were unwilling, or has demonstrated a lack of desire to change and become a productive member of society.  It was determined that these individuals should be incarcerated for extended periods of time or life sentences (Zimring, Hawkins, Kamin 2001).
                                                                                                                             
           Repeat offenders have always been recognized in the criminal justice system.  Early in the 17th century stricter sentences for criminals that continued to commit crimes were adopted by both colonial America and England (Dvoskin, Skeem,  & Novaco 2011).  Habitual offender statutes proved to be controversial, and in some cases the laws were abandoned before being extensively put to use (Dvoskin, Skeem,  & Novaco 2011).  In spite of the controversy these laws remain popular, many considers them necessary for offenders who could not be rehabilitated.

 References

Dvoskin, J. A., Skeem, J. L., & Novaco, R. W. (Eds.). (2011). Using social science to reduce        violent offending. Oxford University Press

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006) What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of
Offenders and Delinquents.

Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of
crime. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zimring,  F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy:Three strikes
and you're out in California. Oxford   University Press.

Week 5

States Detain sex offenders after prison

        In 1999, The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act was enacted in the State of      Virginia, but did not receive funding until 2003 (Monahan, 2006). The goal of the law was to allow the
Office of the Attorney General to imitate civil proceedings against certain offenders who were; convicted of a sexually violent offense, charged with a sexually violent offense and found to be incompetent to stand trial (Monahan, 2006). According to the law, sex offenders who are deemed high risk to reoffend can be civilly committed in a secure inpatient mental health facility until they have received the proper treatment needed to return to society and not reoffend sexually (Monahan, 2006).

        The civil commitment process begins when the Department of Corrections identifies inmates who are currently serving prison sentences for the following offenses: rape, object sexual penetration, forcible sodomy, abduction of any child under 16 years of age for the purpose of concubinage or prostitution, abduction of any person with the intent to defile (Monahan, 2006). When the inmates are within ten months of release, an actuarial instrument measures the inmate’s risk level. If the prisoner is at a high risk to re-offend, his name and records are forwarded for review by the Commitment Review Committee (CRC) (Monahan, 2006). The courts may also refer offender to the CRC (Monahan, 2006).

        The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act gives State of Virginia with additional resources to protect its citizens from high-risk sexual offenders and also provides the sex offender with treatment that reduces the risk of re-offending (Monahan, 2006). Some sex offenders, such as child molesters re-offend many years after their initial sex offense; deviant sexual behavior may be a life-long problem (Monahan, 2006). Correctly applied I feel that this is a valid law to have on the books. I will admit not all sex offenders re-offend. The majority of sex offenders that do re-offend usually have a prior criminal record and child molestation offences (Monahan, 2006).

References

Monahan, J. (2006). A jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review, 391-435.

Week 4 blog

PREA

Many people had accepted the fact that prison rape was an inevitable part on prison experience.   Correctional institutions across the country turned blind eye to this brutality (Dumond, 2003). However, congress decided in 2003 that sexual abuse in prisons should no longer be tolerated.  In an effort to end sexual assaults in prison the federal government passed legislation. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 requires the Bureau of Justice Statics (BJS) to conduct a comprehensive analysis and review of the occurrence and effects of prison rape annually.  The review will include the identification of common characterics of both the victim and the offenders of prison rape (Dumond, 2003).  It will also include prisons and prison system with a high incidence of prison rape. (Dumond, 2003).  Provisions within the act are; adherence to zero tolerance standards against sexual abuse and rape in correctional agencies, Development of standards for prevention, detection, reduction and punishment of prison of prison rape, collection and dissemination on prison rape , grants to assist local and state government implement the act ((Dumond, 2003).

References 

Dumond, R. W. (2005). Impact of Prisoner Sexual Violence: Challenges of Implementing

     108-79 the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, The.J. Legis., 32, 142.

week 3

Prison Explosion ch. 6 pg. 135

             Increases in correctional populations followed changes in correctional and sentencing philosophy.  During the age of indeterminate sentencing, 1930 to 1975 when rehabilitation was the primary focus of corrections, the average rate of incarceration was 106 inmates per 100,000 in the populations (Mackenzie 2001).  Incarceration rates stated to climb, by 1985 the rates for offenders in Federal or State prison facilities was 202 per 100,000 adults in the population (Mackenzie 2001).   In 1995, the rate was 411 and grew to 447 in 1997 (Mackenzie 2001).  The increases in inmate populations continued in 1999 with 1.3 million offenders held under State and Federal jurisdictions and 1.8 million confined in prison or jail throughout the nation (Mackenzie 2001). 
            In 2006, inmate populations outpaced the growth rate of the previous five years but were less than annual growth rate in 1990 (Sabol & Harrison 2007).  The Federal inmate populations continue to grow but at a slower rate than in previous years.  Inmates under Federal jurisdictions increased by 5,428 inmates, a 2.9% growth, this rate was slower than 5.8% annual growth rate that occurred during 2000 through 2005 (Sabol & Harrison 2007).  The state inmate counts increased by 37,504 inmates, a growth rate of 2.8% compared to 1.5% annual growth rate between 2000-2005 (Sabol & Harrison 2007).  State inmate count grew at a faster rate the previous 5 years (Sabol & Harrison 2007).  The beginning of 2008, 1596,127 adults were incarcerated in state or federal prisons an additional 723,131 in local jails.  (Banks 2012). 

References

Banks, C. (2012). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage.

 

Mackenzie, D. L. (2001). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the                 Stage for the Future. University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and                 Criminal Justice, Evaluation Research Group.

Sabol, W. J., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prisoners in 2006 (pp. NCJ-219416).                      Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

 

Mandatory minimum sentencing

Mandatory minimum sentencing Ch. 7

             The subject of mandatory minimum sentences of federal and state inmates has become an often-debated topic throughout the country.  Under the guidelines dictated by state and federal laws offenders of crimes that range from; child pornography, murder, insider trading and drug possession have to be sentenced to a minimum number of years’ incarceration according to law.

The use of mandatory minimum sentences for murder and piracy date back to the 1790’s, the last few decades’ non-federal crimes and many other offenses became applicable under mandatory minimum guidelines.  In 1984 the sentencing reform act, which is a chapter of the Comprehensive Crime Control act changed statues that dealt with criminal offenses (Weigel, S. 1988).  The act dealt with many issues on federal offenses including victims’ rights, duties of probation officers and post sentencing administration.  It also required that guidelines for federal sentences be developed and the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) be established.

                The USSC is a self-determining agency and is a part of the judicial branch of the federal government (United States Sentencing Commission 2008).  The commission is made up of judges, attorney and law professors.  The objective of the commission is introduced guidelines, practices and policies regarding punishment for individuals’ that have been convicted of committing federal crimes.  The United States Sentencing Commission (2008) was also created to assist and advise the United States Congress as while as the executive branch of the government on crime policy.

References

United States Sentencing Commission. (2008). Federal sentencing guideline manual (Vol.3). West Group.

Weigel, S. A. (1988). Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: A Practical Appraisal, The. UCLA      L. Rev., 36, 83.