Mass Incarceration Reform
Introduction
The prison system policy contributes greatly to increasing rates of overcrowding prisons
and disproportionate rates of incarceration. The prison system holds about 2.3 million people
throughout the United States facilities. In a previous policy solution, the Brennan Center stated,
“Astonishingly, if the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans were a state, it would be more
populous than 16 other states.” (Waldman, 2019), it is recognized that the United States
incarceration rates are extremely high for unnecessary reasons. Within that 2.3 million that are
incarcerated, 226,000 are in federal prisons/jails, 631,000 are in the local jails, 1,291,000 are in
state prisons, 42,000 in immigration detention facilities, and 44,000 are in youth facilities. Mass
incarceration is constantly generating social inequalities that are not limited to anyone, the prison
system exposes those who are vulnerable due to economic status, race/ethnicity, education, and
even parental status.
In the United States, anything contributes to the mass incarceration in the prison
facilities. The popular media can be a good and bad thing towards the criminal justice system,
especially regarding mass incarceration. The media has the power to bring to light the problems
that are happening within the prisons in the United States, but the media can also put that
incarcerating people as the only option to ensure safety. The media has the opportunity to help
raise awareness about the importance of reform within the prison system.
The prison system is in need of fixing and putting policies in place will help improve it.
In order to enhance an effective system, knowledge about the history of mass incarceration,
previous policies, current policies, solutions, and the effects of policies is essential to the prison
system and to decrease the rising numbers of mass incarceration. The focus of this paper is to
bring light to the problems with mass incarceration and the factors that have contributed to it and
what reforms and laws have helped or worsened incarceration. Mass incarceration has many
consequences that do not only affect those who were once incarcerated but society and everyone
who lives in it. Mental health is commonly overlooked in the general public but especially those
who have been incarcerated, after released many experience depressions, anxiety, panic attacks,
and rage. Mass incarceration also does not allow for the economy to grow. Building more
prisons and imprisoning more and more people is costing the local, state, and federal
governments extreme amounts of money and the local taxpayers are also paying for the
governments to incarcerate people. Incarceration is an obstacle for society to grow in ways that
benefit everyone, society is injured the more that is poured into incarcerating the public
population.
Background
Mass incarceration has been a part of American history since the 1900’s, the idea of
incarcerating people has become an addiction to the American people. Since the 1970’s, the U.S.
prison population has increased by 700%, at this rate the prison population grows faster than the
U.S. population and increases more than crime rates (ACLU, 2015). Although the U.S.
population is 5% of the world’s population, the number of incarcerated people in the U.S. makes
up one quarter of the world’s incarcerated population. The criminal justice system in the U.S. is
constantly breaking records, many Americans have a criminal record that prohibits them from
finding employment and continuing their lives after prison. The obsession with incarcerating
people has become a leading cause of mass incarceration.
So, what are some reasons for mass incarceration? In the 1970’s the nation started to see
a rise in crime, so in order to gain control of rising crime rates the “tough on crime” policies and
enforcements were put in place. The “tough on crime” idea sparked many other ideas that have
contributed to mass incarceration, as the years continued the policies and acts have continued to
create a fast-growing prison system. Laws were passed that created draconian sentencing
(punishments that are extremely severe or cruel) and parole schemes (intended to keep people in
prison for long periods of time), these laws have made it incredibly difficult to not enter the
prison system again or have a successful life after prison. Mandatory minimum sentencing and
three strike laws have also contributed to the increased amount of incarcerations and the amount
of time people are imprisoned for.
International Perspective
Having relations with other countries could possibly help decrease the skyrocketing rates
of incarcerations within the United States. Internationally, the U.S. has 5-10 times the
incarceration rates, in other countries incarceration is not the first solution to fix crime. In many
other countries the solution is fines, fining citizens who have committed a crime has proven to
stabilize or even lessen the crime rates in that country. For example, Scottish courts have fined
60% of those who are processed and only 13% have received a custodial sentence; whereas the
U.S. has incarcerated 78% of the cases and only have fined 3% (Weiss & MacKenzie, 2010).
Despite the drastic difference in incarceration rates the crime rates are still higher in the U.S.
than other countries. The reason is due to the differences in the policies that are in place. The
U.S. has still to figure out what works for the people to ensure safety and reform.
The levels of government (local, state, and federal) play different roles in mass
incarceration and each could have great contributions to reduce the incarceration rates within the
United States. The local level, also known as county, house 482,000 people in local prisons who
are waiting to be convicted of a crime (Eisen, 2020). The local level admits 19 times more than
prisons, they have about 12 million admissions of incarcerated persons each year. Those who are
admitted at the local level are usually of low-income, people of color, the homeless, and those
who struggle with mental health/illnesses (Love, 2016). Mass incarceration at the local level is
dangerous and needs to be addressed in order for those to have an influential part in reforming
the rest of the system. At the state level, crimes that are handled are drunk driving, shoplifting,
and homicide. State facilities hold around 1.3 million people, 14% are imprisoned for nonnegligent manslaughter and 13% are in for rape or sexual assault (Eisen, 2020). But of those 1.3
million, many are in for violating probation and/or parole, forcing them back into the facilities.
State governments are responsible for many of those imprisoned, creating and seeking out plea
deals that force people to have long sentences and do not give enough access to the rehabilitation
needed to reenter society. Finally, the federal level has all the power to create reform and address
the issues that is at hand, but as the years have shown the federal government has only worsened
the rates in incarceration. Drug charges is the biggest thing that is housing people at federal
prisons, the war on drugs has created a national problem with incarceration and the federal
government has the ability to change those rates with new policies. Each level of government
plays a significant role in stopping the addiction to incarcerate people in the United States.
Recent Prison Legislation
The First Step Act was first introduced in 2018, and late December of 2018 Former
President Trump signed the law into place. The First Step Law is the idea that the prison system
provides guidance to prevent recidivism (the chances of an already convicted criminal to be
convicted again), within the act prisoners will be assigned to groups according to their
sentencing to help them in whatever ways are needed. The First Step Act contributes to the
Second Chance Act. The Second Chance Act “represents a federal investment in strategies to
reduce recidivism and increase public safety, as well as to reduce corrections costs for states and
local governments.” (CSG Justice Center, 2018). Both of these acts are in place to help prisoners
leave the facility and not come back, they are intended to make going back into society easy and
possible. Another policy that was first introduced in 2017 and later reintroduced in 2019 was the
Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. The act is a grant program that was designed to allow states to
invest in programs that are specifically constructed to decrease incarceration rates and lower the
crime rates. In order to be considered for the grant states must decrease the prison population by
7% and do it without increasing crime rates. Biden made the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act a
part of his criminal justice reform plan, ‘” create a new $20 billion competitive grant program to
spur states to shift from incarceration to prevention.’” (Brennan Center for Justice, 2020). In
order to successfully decrease the rates of incarceration and the chances of people reentering
prison facilities, policies and acts must be in place that favor those who have had the system
against them for a long time.
In New Jersey, it recognized the high rates of incarcerated people, especially those who
face inequalities, and proceeded to address those high rates. In order to address the problem, the
bill A- 4369 was passed. The bill passed is to end the mandatory minimum sentencing laws for
those convicted of nonviolent crimes regarding drugs and property (NJ Spotlight News, 2020).
This bill will be the start to eliminate the inequalities that are within the criminal justice system
and reduce the number of incarcerated people.
Literature Review
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an organization that was created to
protect and fight for individual rights and liberties, especially rights and liberties that were
promised to everyone in the United States but have not been given. The ACLU in 2015
submitted report that focused on mass incarceration in America. The reports name is
“Overcrowding and Overuse of Imprisonment in the United States”, with many subsections that
talk about history of mass incarceration, this is a well-written report that highlights the problems
with mass incarceration in the United States. One subsection in the written report by ACLU is
about the war on drugs and how that has contributed to mass incarceration. The war on drugs
was intended to help people using drugs to stop their addiction and stop the distribution of drugs,
the intentions was to help, but it ultimately worsened the prison system. Many policies and acts
came out of the war on drugs, one being mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The sentencing
laws was to conflict harsh punishment on the distribution of drugs and are almost always based
on the drugs weight. Those laws have put people who were nonviolent in prison for periods of
time that were extremely harsh, the sentence could range from 5 years to life without parole.
Although laws are put in place to help certain situations, the war on drugs operations that put
certain laws in place did not lessen the rates of drug use. The war on drugs had contributed to
mass incarceration, 19-23% of state prisoners are in prison due to drug offenses (ACLU, 2015).
The report continues with a history of the U.S. sentencing commission in 1984. The 1984
sentencing commission was put in place to regulate the sentences regarding federal cases, it put
harsh mandatory sentences on a variety of crimes. It did not take into consideration individual
sentences. This commission was just another contributor to mass incarceration and the constant
rise in long prison sentences to people, just the start of the incarceration addiction in America.
Louisiana’s Addiction to Mass Incarceration by the Numbers
In the academic journal article, Loyola Law Review, the focus is on Louisiana and how
the so called “world’s prison capital” made adjustments to fix the problem that was creating
damage to the public and those incarcerated. Throughout the article it goes into detail about the
history of the drastic rise in mass incarceration and how war on drugs contributed greatly to the
incarceration rates increasing. It continuous to emphasize how the building of prisons were
another factor to incarcerations rates. The article does a great job highlighting the certain areas
that can be reformed and how reversing the damages of the idea of war on drugs could help
reduce those rates and create the criminal justice system to be truly impactful. Giving specific
details about what bills are in place and how they will impact those incarcerated and those who
are in the public, is how this article tackles the problem of mass incarceration.
In the state of Louisiana, or the “world’s prison capital”, it has the highest rate of
imprisonment compared to any state in the U.S. and any other country (Turkington, 2020). The
state is constantly imprisoning nonviolent offenders, the state had come the conclusion that in
order to prevent crime and protect the public, incarcerating people was the best idea. But those
who were incarcerated were those of minority communities and those of low-income, they were
targeted at an outstanding rate compared to others. In this article the history about Louisiana’s
rise in prison population is addressed as the war on drugs. As the whole nation was trying to
crack down on those who are producing and distributing, it put those who were the most
vulnerable away, and put them away for long periods of time. As those rates continued to rise so
did the costs of taxpayers, the taxpayers were giving billions of dollars every year to keep
inmates in prison. In 1992 the head of the Louisiana Department of Corrections had pushed
sheriffs to build local facilities in order to be able to house more of those that were to be
incarcerated, although the new facilities costing those within the county millions of dollars, those
in rural communities relied on those new facilities for employment (Turkington, 2020). Due to
the local prisons in Louisiana there was a lack in resources to ensure that those imprisoned were
to have a smooth transition into society and be able to stay out of prison. 73% of the inmates did
not receive the education and tools needed to have a successful life after prison, recidivism is
more likely in the Louisiana local prisons (Turkington, 2020).
As the rates continued to grow, proposals were created to reduce the increasing rates of
mass imprisonment. In 2010, the mandatory minimum sentencing is approved to be eliminated in
nonviolent crimes. Years later, following the elimination of the mandatory minimum sentencing
laws, in 2017 Governor John Bel Edwards signed a criminal justice reform package that was
made up of 10 bills addressing the problem of Louisiana’s high incarceration rates. These bills
were projected to reduce mass incarceration rates by 10% and save the taxpayers $78 million
dollars in the next decade (Turkington, 2020). The bills were able to focus on reforms related to
drug offenders. Making drug offenders eligible for food stamps and welfare right after release;
the bills are able to alter the sentencing based on the drugs weight; a task force would be created
to make suggestions for a felony class system in 2018; it will expand inmates eligibility for
probation and parole; and it gives the alternative to prison time as fines and fees (Turkington,
2020). The bill was also able to expand the alternatives to prisons, like pretrial diversion and
specialty courts. Pretrial diversion is “an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain
offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services
administered by the U.S. Probation Service.” (The United States Department of Justice, 2020).
The pretrial diversion is meant to help those who are first time offenders or committed minor
crimes, making them rehabilitate through community service or different treatment. Specialty
courts are put in place to address social issues, like mental health and substance abuse. Drug
courts are a part of specialty courts, they are treatment that is available to those who are
struggling with drug abuse and alcohol abuse. These drug courts save the state around $29,390
every year, rather than spending millions on sending those who have drug addictions to prisons
(Turkington, 2020).
The Loyola Law Review journal does a great job assessing the policies, bills, and laws
that were in place and were later signed to benefit society regarding mass incarceration,
specifically in Louisiana. They layout the proposals well that other counties, states, and even
countries could follow to prevent a rise in overcrowding prisons.
Evaluation
Over the history of the prison system it has been clear the impacts of certain policies,
many that have had the intentions to fix crime rates and to allow people to feel safe have only
fueled the fire that is mass incarceration. The parole laws are one significant factor to
overcrowded prisons, so changing those laws and creating new policies is essential to creating
reform. In 1984 the federal system eradicated parole, soon after many states abolished parole as
well. In 2000, 28 states made it mandatory that a prisoner complete 85% of their sentence before
becoming eligible for parole, after that four states did not make parolee available for violent
offenders. Dissolving parole can have a positive and negative effect on the population of a
prison. The ACLU states that “severely cutting back on or abolishing parole while leaving
extraordinarily long prison terms intact, can fuel excessive sentences and contribute to mass
incarceration,” (ACLU, 2015). To achieve a decrease in prison population there must be balance
that allows for justice and reform, having both is attainable but with the right policies and laws in
place.
The future of the criminal justice system depends on the policies, four policies that could
improve the system are either ending previous laws/acts or creating/enacting future ones. One
way to improve is by abolishing the federal grants of mass incarceration, by shifting the grants to
other areas that advance the prison system is crucial, “federal grants help shape criminal justice
policy at the state and local level.” (Grawert et al., 2017). Ending the incarceration of low-level
crimes is another effective way to decrease the population in prison facilities, the Reverse Mass
Incarceration Act is one way to achieve that goal. Two ways that could improve the system is
through modernizing law enforcement and creating sentencing reforms. There are ways to
improve the system, but in order to get there, policies and acts must be in favor of both the public
and those who are incarcerated.
Conclusion
The prison system is constantly overlooked and the policies that are in place can and
should be improved to better the nation. With mass incarceration comes inequalities and an
endless cycle of crime, the system is supposed to be rehabilitating but instead pushes many
prisoners in a position that is not sustainable for them. Since the 1960’s the idea of preventing
crime has turned into over policing and punishment rather than rehabilitation, prevention of
crime, and addressing the problem. This addiction to incarcerating whoever has committed a
crime is not an effective way to seek change. Through policies and laws, the prison system could
go back to what it is meant to be, rehabilitating to all.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). Overcrowding and overuse of imprisonment in the
United States. ACLU.
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Overincarceration/ACLU.pdf
Brennan Center for Justice. (2020). A federal agenda for criminal justice reform. [White paper].
New York University School of Law.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/202101/FederalAgendaCriminalJustice_Final.pdf
Charles Koch Institute. (2019, August 9). Why prison reform matters in America.
https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/whyprison-reformmatters/#:%7E:text=Evidence%2Dbased%20prison%20programming%20has,rule%20vi
olations%20in%20prison%20facilities.
Eisen, L. B. (2020, January 2). Criminal justice reform at the state level. Brennan Center for
Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/criminal-justicereform-state-level
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2018, December 21). BOP: First Step Act Overview. Bop.Gov.
https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp
Grawert, A., Camhi, N., & Chettiar, I. (2017, May 17). A federal agenda to reduce mass
incarceration. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/ourwork/policy-solutions/federal-agenda-reduce-mass-incarceration
Jubitana, C. (2019, March 27). Behind Locked Bars: The role of media and mass incarceration
(March). The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
https://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/behind-locked-bars-the-role-of-media-and-massincarceration-march/
Love, H. (2016, August 17). One way to reduce mass incarceration: Start local. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/one-way-reduce-mass-incarceration-start-local
NJ Spotlight News. (2020, August 3). Prison reform bills will offer early release, end mandatory
minimum sentences. https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/08/prison-reform-bills-will-offerearly-release-end-mandatory-minimum-sentences/
The Council of State Governments. (2018). The Second Chance Act. [Fact Sheet].
https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/July-2018_SCA_factsheet.pdf
The United States Department of Justice. (2020, January 29). 9-22.000 - Pretrial Diversion
Program. JM | Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-22000-pretrialdiversion-program
Turkington, C.H. (2020). Louisiana’s addiction to mass incarceration by the numbers. Loyola
Law Review, 63 (3), 557-591.
U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. (2019, May 21). Cory Booker.
https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-blumenthal-c-and-aacuterdenasintroduce-bill-to-reduce-mass-incarceration-andcrime#:%7E:text=The%20Reverse%20Mass%20Incarceration%20Act,reduce%20crime
%20and%20incarceration%20rates.&text=Grants%20would%20be%20awarded%20ever
y%20three%20years.
Waldman, M. (2019, May 19). Ending mass incarceration: Ideas from today’s leaders. Brennan
Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/endingmass-incarceration-ideas-todays-leaders
Weiss, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. M. K. (2010, June 21). A global perspective on incarceration:
How an international focus can help the United States reconsider its incarceration rates.
Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2010.485910