As for a solution to this ever-growing problem, it gets somewhat complicated. The most common solutions are providing better health care, expanding prisons, and creating programs for minor criminals. Most law abiding Americans do not want to provide more of their hard earned money for people who have disobeyed the law and are now paying for it. An argument can be made for both sides. The law-abiding population may say that these people have done it to themselves and they knew the consequences of breaking the law, so they should not have to pay for this prisoner, the prisoner should have to pay, by losing natural rights. From the perspective of the prisoner, the majority of the law abiding population wants the criminals off the street so they should have to pay to lock them away. The poor conditions prisoners are forced to live in can almost be solely blamed in the issue of overcrowding. If there can be policies put in place to eventually eliminate overcrowding, then healthy, safe conditions can ultimately follow. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is largely aware of the problem at hand and has been working to fix it a number of different acts. The policies include, but are not limited to: the “Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” the “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” the “Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015,” the “Justice Safety Valve Act of 2015,” the “Corrections Act of 2015,” the “SAFE Act of 2015,” and the “Recidivism Risk Reduction Act.” The “Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” established the United States Sentencing Commission, According to the USSC Website, “The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) and the sentencing guidelines it spawned represent perhaps the most dramatic change in sentencing law and practice in our Nation’s History.” (USSC.com)The purpose of this act, again according to the USSC Website, was to provide sentencing based specifically on the situation at hand, to create, “independent, expert sentencing commission to devise and update periodically a system of mandatory sentencing guidelines,”(USSC.com) and lastly to create a better understanding of criminal behavior. All in all, the goal of this act was to make sentencing more comprehensive and subjective. Next, there was the, “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” the “Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015,” and the “Justice Safety Valve Act of 2015.” These three acts are all effected by each other. With all three acts in place there would be a large amount of retrials for sentence reduction, which could benefit the prisons and decrease the inmate populations. For a better understand of the effect the acts had on each other, “ARTICLE TITLE” states;
“…the ‘Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015’ would expand the safety valve to authorize more defendants to be sentence below an applicable mandatory minimum penalty, lower mandatory minimum penalties in certain drug offenses, and make the ‘Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’ (which reduced the disparity in penalties for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine) applicable to inmates who were sentenced before the Act was passed. Similarly, the ‘Justice Safety Valve Act of 2015’ would expand the safety valve by allowing a judge to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum.”(Fitzgerlad)
These three Acts could essentially lower the amount prisoners already serving time, and lower the amount of people who are incarceration in the future. The overcrowding in prisons needs to be controlled before the conditions can be addressed. The “Corrections Act of 2015” “…would require the [Bureau of Prisons] to develop a dynamic risk needs assessment and create a system of earned credits that inmates could use to shorten the amount of time they must serve in prison.”(Fitzgerald) The “Recidivism Risk Reduction Act” is, in a sense, a glorified “Corrections Act of 2015.” The difference is that the warden would have to report the credits earned toward early release to the courts, who then approve the release from there.
I have come to the conclusion that mass incarceration negatively effects prisoners, prison workers and the general health of the public. “We do not care about prisoner’s welfare. We should care deeply because as to prominent commentators on the history of prisons have said, ‘Prisoners are ourselves writ large or small. And, as such, they should not be subjected to suffering exceeding fair expiations for the crimes for which they have been convicted.’” (Jacobi 447.) A thief may not deserve as harsh of a punishment as a felon, but not even a felon deserves the tragic conditions the prisons offer.
“…the ‘Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015’ would expand the safety valve to authorize more defendants to be sentence below an applicable mandatory minimum penalty, lower mandatory minimum penalties in certain drug offenses, and make the ‘Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’ (which reduced the disparity in penalties for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine) applicable to inmates who were sentenced before the Act was passed. Similarly, the ‘Justice Safety Valve Act of 2015’ would expand the safety valve by allowing a judge to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum.”(Fitzgerlad)
These three Acts could essentially lower the amount prisoners already serving time, and lower the amount of people who are incarceration in the future. The overcrowding in prisons needs to be controlled before the conditions can be addressed. The “Corrections Act of 2015” “…would require the [Bureau of Prisons] to develop a dynamic risk needs assessment and create a system of earned credits that inmates could use to shorten the amount of time they must serve in prison.”(Fitzgerald) The “Recidivism Risk Reduction Act” is, in a sense, a glorified “Corrections Act of 2015.” The difference is that the warden would have to report the credits earned toward early release to the courts, who then approve the release from there.
I have come to the conclusion that mass incarceration negatively effects prisoners, prison workers and the general health of the public. “We do not care about prisoner’s welfare. We should care deeply because as to prominent commentators on the history of prisons have said, ‘Prisoners are ourselves writ large or small. And, as such, they should not be subjected to suffering exceeding fair expiations for the crimes for which they have been convicted.’” (Jacobi 447.) A thief may not deserve as harsh of a punishment as a felon, but not even a felon deserves the tragic conditions the prisons offer.