Criminal Justice Reform Essay

A. I have a strong proposition for the atomic number 20 equity-makersand that is a strict and logical reform to the present Criminal jurist scheme in calcium.B. The atomic number 20 Legislature is to be commended for its stance on hatred. not for their get tough policies much(prenominal) as the Three Strikes justice just nowadays for their enactment of a little known section of the punishable economy entitled the Community Based Punishment Act of 1994. (Senator Quentin Kopp, clock clip Feb 14, 1996)C. By passage of this act, the State of California has acknowledged the limitations of im prison housement as some(prenominal) penalty and a deterrent to barbarous air.D. The law-makers has in fact decl ard that Californias criminal justice remains is seriously out of balance in its heavy habituation upon prison facilities and chinks for punishment and its lack of appropriate punishment for nonviolent offenders and message abusers who could be successfully treated i n appropriate, less restrictive programs without whatever development in danger to the overtII. More facts, Opinions and Developmental IdeasA. In essence, this law proposes a club based remains of intermediate restrictions for non-violent offenders that fall amid jail time and traditional probation such as home cargo area with electronic monitoring, boot camps, mandatory community service and victim restitution, twenty-four hour period reporting, and others.B. take flight programs are to be developed as a collaborative endeavor between the order and counties requiring a community based object describing the sanctions and run to be provided.C. A progress report on an actof this configuration would be made by the California Board of department of corrections on January 1, 1997 and yearly on that pointafter to selected legislative committees.III. InformativesA. It seems clear that the California Legislature has fit(p) that imprisonment is not appropriate for many cr iminal offenses and that alternating(a) sanctions are favored for non-violent offenders. (Randy Meyer, Political decreed)B. But while this approach is to be applauded, its bedspread impedes the fulfilment of its true authorisation.C. By retaining those non-violent offenders that are reliablely in state prison and continuing to pursue defensive punishment at the local anaesthetic take aim in the form of short term shock imprisonment and bootcamps, the dear(p) and ineffective methods of criminal behavior correction remain intact. (Charles Calderon-US News)D. By this instant eliminating incarceration for all non-violent offenses and requiring victim compensation and community service, resources stomach be committed to preventing aversion rather than to the feeding and housing of offenders.E. This is consonant with the findings of the legislative body and is cost efficient, requires minimal transcriptionic convince, and enlarges public gum elastic and security.IV. The endA. Our current criminal justice frame appears to be based upon the former(a) Testament dictum that your eye shall not pity it shall be lifespan for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, exit for hand, foot for foot. Revenge thus plays a vocalization of the punishment model.(LA Official Boland)From a societal standpoint, we expect punishment to prevent the offender and others from get ahead criminal behavior. Incarceration of offenders as the punishment of choice thus theoretically provides revenge, single(a) incapacitation, and restriction.But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge while understandable from an individual clement situation is not a proper basis for rescripts answer to the misbehavior of its laws. This human urge to punish should be removed from the current system and replaced with methods of restrictions that utilize the offenders potential to benefit his victim and connection at large.In other words, in a forgo soci ety the end desired is the correction of behavior that utilizes the least deplumate . This conforms to the principles of limited government, efficiency, reduced cost, and ain immunity as advocated by both liberals and conservatives alike.The basic underlying concept of this project is that incarceration should be taciturn for those who are violent and thus dangerous to the public. flushed crimes would be delineate broadly to include any act or attempt to offend the person of another except by accident. This would thusly range from take out to driving under the influence with current distinctions of violation and felony offenses remaining in place.The chat up sentencing procedures would also be modified to cast aside incarceration for non-violent crimes with an stress on victim restitution and community service. The court would maybe desire on probation reports to provide the necessary offender personal history including employment, craft skills (or lack of), and person al resources, e.g. bank accounts, property ownership, and so on Based on this information, the court would apply the appropriate sentence of victim restitution and community service with close monitoring by probation officials.As with all human endeavors, compliance by offenders would almost likely not be ampere-second%. The threat of incarceration would have to exist for those failing to submit to or comply with court ordered repayment and public service. Many leave not agree with this due to the complexity and in many cases there bunghole be more harm do then it could be beneficial. But for the most part there is no reason to recollect that the failure rate would be any high uper(prenominal) under this instance of system than is currently the caseV. ConclusionThis marriage offer provides a policy alternative to the current criminal justice accent mark on incarceration as punishment. It is based on the premise of metier and cost efficiency with a high regard for in dividual familiarity that is essential to a alleviate society. It moves away from the concept of punishment and focuses on a more functional goal of victim and societal repayment. The proposal offers prevention at the mien end rather than repayment at the back end of crime reduction efforts.The advantages of such a system are numerous. One of the most important assets of a revision of this mixture is that of allowing for a major change in the criminal justice system with a lower limit of mental disturbance to the status quo. Rather than requiring an entire general change, this proposal works deep down the current practices of the court, natural law, and corrections. Indeed, very few original changes would have to be made. handing over of this proposal would eliminate the need for afterlife bond measures for prison construction. not only would it save taxpayer money, it would be most advantageous to the remaining employees of the California surgical incision of Corrections by allowing for the resolution of outdated and unsafe facilities. In addition, unemployment could be kept to a minimum by offering fitted state correctional officers employment with local law enforcement agencies.It is time now to look beyond revenge and the emotionalism associated with current justice system practices.There is only one hard-nosed method of reducing crime and the subsequent publics parentage organisation and that is through a high level of police presence on the street.(Randy Meyer, M.A.)In essence, this revision allows for a return of the local neighborhood police officer who is familiar with its residents and business owners.In the final analysis, our very freedom depends on how we treat societys criminals and misfits. By continuing to stimulate a criminal class that has not been rehabilitated through incarceration, we are at long last sabotaging our own security. Maybe with this we can have a means of reversing the course of instruction of incarceration as punishment while increasing our personal safety and diminishing the fear that is uncontrolled among us.QUICK FACTS*The current California prison population is 135,133 and is expected to increase to about 148,600 by June 30,1996 per the California Department of Corrections.*42.1% of these inmates are incarcerated for violent offenses, 25.3% for property offenses, 26.2% for drugs, and 6.4% for other.*Average yearly cost per inmate, $21,885 and per parolee, $2,110.*California Department of Corrections budget for 1995-1996 $3.4 billion proposed budget for 1996-1997 for both Corrections and Youth Authority $4.1 billion. This compares to $1.6 billion for community colleges and $4.8 billion for higher education.*California Legislative Analysist Elizabeth Hill advised on February 26, 1996 that 24 new prisons leave behind need to be built by the year 2005 to keep whole tone with the incarceration rate. This will cost taxpayers $7 billion for their construction and increase operating co sts to $6 billion annually.*California Attorney command Dan Lungren announced on March 12, 1996 that the number of homicides reported in 1995 in the most populated two-thirds of the state had declined 3.1%, rape 3.9%, robbery 7.9%, aggravated encroachment 4.2%, burglary 8.9%, and vehicle theft, 11.4% (San Jose Mercury News, 3/13/96). This is consistent with a 5% decline in the national violent crime rate for the premiere half of 1995 per the FBI.MANUSCRIPTAn analysis of Department of Corrections data by the Center on Juvenile and CriminalJustice in San Francisco, CA, in Nov, 1995 indicates that since the enactment ofCalifornias Three Strikes law two age ago, 192 have struck out for marijuanapossession, compared to 40 for murder, 25 for rape, and 24 for kidnapping.I have a strong proposition for the California Legislatureand that is a strict and logical reform to the present Criminal Justice System in California. The California Legislature is to be commended for its stance on crime. Not for their get tough policies such as the Three Strikes law but for their enactment of a little known section of the Penal Code entitled the Community Based Punishment Act of 1994. (Senator Quentin Kopp, Time Magazine Feb 14, 1996). By passage of this act, the State of California has acknowledged the limitations of incarceration as both punishment and a deterrent to criminal behavior. The legislature has in fact declared that Californias criminal justice system is seriously out of balance in its heavy dependence upon prison facilities and jails for punishment and its lack of appropriate punishment for nonviolent offenders and substance abusers who could be successfully treated in appropriate, less restrictive programs without any increase in danger to the publicIn essence, this law proposes a community based system of intermediate restrictions for non-violent offenders that fall between jail time and traditional probation such as home detention with electronic monitoring,  boot camps, mandatory community service and victim restitution, day reporting, and others. Pilot programs are to be developed as a collaborative effort between the state and counties requiring a community based plan describing the sanctions and services to be provided. A progress report on an actof this kind would be made by the California Board of Corrections on January 1, 1997 and annually thereafter to selected legislative committees.It seems clear that the California Legislature has determined that incarceration is not appropriate for many criminal offenses and that alternative sanctions are preferable for non-violent offenders. (Randy Meyer, Political Official). But while this approach is to be applauded, its spreading prevents the fulfillment of its true potential. By retaining those non-violent offenders that are currently in state prison and continuing to pursue defensive punishment at the local level in the form of short term shock incarceration and bootcamps, the cos tly and ineffective methods of criminal behavior correction remain intact. (Charles Calderon-US News).By immediately eliminating incarceration for all non-violent offenses and requiring victim compensation and community service, resources can be committed to preventing crime rather than to the feeding and housing of offenders. This is consistent with the findings of the legislature and is cost efficient, requires minimal systemic change, and increases public safety and security.Our current criminal justice system appears to be based upon the Old Testament proverb that your eye shall not pity it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Revenge thus plays a part of the punishment model.(LA Official Boland). From a societal standpoint, we expect punishment to prevent the offender and others from further criminal behavior. Incarceration of offenders as the punishment of choice thus theoretically provides revenge, individual incapacitation, and restriction.But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge while understandable from an individual human perspective is not a proper basis for societys response to the misbehavior of its laws. This human urge to punish should be removed from the current system and replaced with methods of restrictions that utilize the offenders potential to benefit his victim and society at large.In other words, in a free society the end desired is the correction of behavior that utilizes the least force . This conforms to the principles of limited government, efficiency, reduced cost, and personal freedom as advocated by both liberals and conservatives alike.The basic underlying concept of this proposal is that incarceration should be reserved for those who are violent and thus dangerous to the public. Violent crimes would be defined broadly to include any act or attempt to injure the person of another except by accident. This would therefore range from murder to driving u nder the influence with current distinctions of misdemeanor and felony offenses remaining in place.The court sentencing procedures would also be modified to exclude incarceration for non-violent crimes with an emphasis on victim restitution and community service. The court would maybe rely on probation reports to provide the necessary offender personal history including employment, job skills (or lack of), and personal resources, e.g. bank accounts, property ownership, etc. Based on this information, the court would apply the appropriate sentence of victim restitution and community service with close monitoring by probation officials.As with all human endeavors, compliance by offenders would most likely not be 100%. The threat of incarceration would have to exist for those failing to submit to or comply with court ordered repayment and public service. Many will not agree with this due to the complexity and in many cases there can be more harm done then it could be beneficial. But fo r the most part there is no reason to believe that the failure rate would be any higher under this type of system than is currently the caseThis proposal provides a policy alternative to the current criminal justice emphasis on incarceration as punishment. It is based on the premise of effectiveness and cost efficiency with a high regard for individual liberty that is essential to a free society. It moves away from the concept of punishment and focuses on a more functional goal of victim and societal repayment. The proposal offers prevention at the front end rather than repayment at the back end of crime reduction efforts.The advantages of such a system are numerous. One of the most important assets of a revision of this kind is that of allowing for a major change in the criminal justice system with a minimum of disruption to the status quo. Rather than requiring an entire systemic change, this proposal works within the current practices of the court, police, and corrections. In deed, very few authorized changes would have to be made.Enactment of this proposal would eliminate the need for future bond measures for prison construction. Not only would it save taxpayer money, it would be most advantageous to the remaining employees of the California Department of Corrections by allowing for the closure of outdated and unsafe facilities. In addition, unemployment could be kept to a minimum by offering qualified state correctional officers employment with local law enforcement agencies.It is time now to look beyond revenge and the emotionalism associated with current justice system practices.There is only one practical method of reducing crime and the subsequent publics fear and that is through a high level of police presence on the street.(Randy Meyer, M.A.)In essence, this revision allows for a return of the local neighborhood police officer who is familiar with its residents and business owners.In the final analysis, our very freedom depends on how we treat so cietys criminals and misfits. By continuing to create a criminal class that has not been rehabilitated through incarceration, we are ultimately sabotaging our own security. Maybe with this we can have a means of reversing the trend of incarceration as punishment while increasing our personal safety and diminishing the fear that is rampant among us.