Incarceration Nation

In this final post for AP US GOV, I would like to discuss domestic policy, more specifically, prison reform. I was inspired to write about this topic because I watched an episode of the television show 30 Days where Morgan Spurlock spent thirty days in prison. My eyes were opened to the many deficiencies of the system. Being the nerd that I am, I decided to do more research on this topic immediately after watching the episode. I believe that if Congress implemented more domestic policies to fix problems with the prison system, rather than economic policies to finance these largely ineffective institutions, that the country would be a safer place.

Currently, the United States leads the world in the highest prison population. Approximately 2.3 million Americans are behind bars, which translates to about 1 in every 100 people. Within our state, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to reform the state prisons in 2005 with a re-branding campaign. He added the word “rehab” to the department of corrections, making it officially the “California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation”. However, this name change was not enough to fix the system because three years later California has the second highest prison population in the country and the highest recidivism rate, an astounding seventy percent. One of the main reasons Schwarzenegger failed is because although prisons have become economic burdens, many people believe that locking up so many people is making the community safer. In attempts to not appear looking soft on crime, Schwarzenegger backed off the issue.

In its annual report in 2005, the Corrections Corporation of America described new legislation that was being proposed “that could lower minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release…Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitors who would otherwise be incarcerated.” I thought that finding alternatives to prison sentences, such as electronic monitoring, might be a good alternative because the prison system is overcrowded, costly, and obviously ineffective at rehabilitating people if 70% return.

Because there are multiple issues that make the current prison system ineffective, I have tried my best to come up with policies that address each individual issue. Firstly, with staggering amounts of new and returning inmates, laws such as the “Three Strikes Law” definitely need to be overturned. It is both costly and ineffective to incarcerate a person for the rest of their life for something like petty theft. Secondly, a large portion of the prison population suffers from mental illness. These people may have committed crimes due in part to their illness and become violent within prison. Upon release, they cannot function in society and end up back in prison. I propose that there needs to be a large increase in the amount of facilities for the mentally ill. These facilities would reduce the prison population, curb homelessness, and get these people the care that they deserve. Drug rehabilitation should also be a part of prison. Currently, adequate preparation is not given to inmates educating them how to function in society and making them effective citizens. Often times, criminals fall into the lifestyle of prison and enjoy being there as opposed to living on the outside. One problem that I thought of with rehabilitation is that oftentimes when one commits a crime, they receive rehabilitation and job instruction that was not available to them before they committed the crime. This got me to thinking that in order to truly decrease the population of prisons, not only do changes need to be made inside, but within the community as well. Having better education, job opportunities and community centers can give people the tools to be successful in life instead of resorting to theft or drug dealing which constitutes why a large number of people are in and out of prison.

Many companies, such as those that build the prisons, provide food, the clothing companies and security agencies are not pushing with reform. Prisons, like anything else, are a business and a profitable one at that. However, they are burdensome to taxpayers and their money could be better spent providing proactive programs within the community as well as rehabilitation for current prisoners. There is a difference between being tough on crime and being smart on crime and Americans better start thinking before its too late.

Iowa Caucus Results

This week I read an editorial from the Los Angeles Times about the results of the Iowa Caucuses and how they may affect the election of the next president of the United States. The leading candidates were Barrack Obama and Mike Huckabee. This article pointed out that while the caucus had some unexpected winners, it made evident that there were some clear losers. The most evident was Hilary Clinton who came in third, which was very surprising, considering all the time and money she spent campaigning in Iowa. On the Republican side, the caucuses resulted in a big defeat for Guiliani. The surprising thing about Huckabee’s victory was that he did not do as much preparation for Iowa as many of his fellow candidates. Although it is not likely that Huckabee will be successful in New Hampshire, the author of this article made the point that the voters of Iowa seemed to be more concerned with the personality of the candidates, rather than their reputation of being a “front runner”. The fact that the winners were unexpected definitely leaves the door for president open and the race is not over yet. Although its just a bunch of people from Iowa’s opinion, this caucus definitely plays a big part in the opinions of voters across the country and how they will cast their ballot.
I believe that the author of this article makes a valid point that while this caucus will not necessarily reveal the results of the next presidential election, they always seem to have interesting turnouts. Whether than declaring a definite winner, it displays who will really struggle in the election, because national polls can only show so much and people can change their minds frequently.