Presentation on theme: "Chapter Eighteen Incarceration Trends. Learning Objectives 1. Discuss the explanations for the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate. 2. Explain."— Presentation transcript:
Learning Objectives 1. Discuss the explanations for the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate. 2. Explain what can be done to deal with the prison population crisis. 3. Be familiar with the impact of prison crowding. 4. Discuss whether incarceration pays.
Learning Objective 1 Learning objective 1: Discuss the explanations for the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate.
Prison Population Trends 1930-1980, incarceration rate fairly stable: 93-139 per 100,000 1980: 200 per 100,000 1990: 389 per 100,000 2000-2007: 486 per 100,000
Prison Population Trends 5 states with highest incarceration rate: Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Alabama 19 states and federal government operated at or above capacity in 2007
Prison Population Trends 5 reasons for increase: Increased arrests and more likely incarceration Tougher sentencing Prison construction 1990-2005 – over 500 prisons built War on drugs State and local politics
State and Local Politics Study, 1971 – 1991: – States with high violent crime have higher levels of imprisonment. – States with higher revenues have higher prison populations. – States with higher unemployment and higher percentage of African Americans have higher prison populations. – States with more-generous welfare benefits have lower prison populations.
State and Local Politics Study, 1971 – 1991: States with more conservatives have not only higher incarceration rates, but their rates grew more rapidly than did the rates of states with fewer conservatives. Political incentives for an expansive prison policy transcended Democratic and Republican affiliations.
Learning Objective 2 Learning objective 2: Explain what can be done to deal with the prison population crisis.
Overcrowded Prisons The null strategy: Doing nothing to relieve crowding in prisons, under the assumption that the problem is temporary and will disappear in time. The constructions strategy: Building new facilities to meet the demand for prison space.
Overcrowded Prisons Intermediate sanctions: Community service Restitution Fines Boot camp Home confinement Intensive probation supervision Prison population reduction
Learning Objective 3 Learning objective 3: Be familiar with the impact of prison crowding.
Impact of Prison Crowding Affects ability of correctional officials to do their work, because it decreases the proportion of offenders in programs. Increases the potential for violence Greatly strains staff morale Courts have cited states for maintaining prisons so crowded that they violate 8 th Amendment’s cruel and unusual prohibition.
Impact of Prison Crowding Prisoner health Higher assault rates
Incarceration Pays No definitive answer Need more accurate estimate of the number of crimes felons commit Need better method of calculating costs: Correctional capital Operating costs Indirect costs Political and moral issues
Learning Objective 1. Contrast the issues in the debate over capital punishment. 2. Understand the history of the death penalty in America. 3. Discuss the legal issues that surround the death penalty. 4. Characterize the inmates on death row. 5. Speculate about the future of capital punishment.
Learning Objective 1 Learning objective 1: Contrast the issues in the debate over capital punishment.
Debate Support: – Murder must forfeit the murder’s life, if there is to be justice (moral) – Executions of wrongdoers deter others from committing the crime (utilitarian) – Death penalty serves justice by paying killers back for their horrible crimes – Victims’ families can be reassured that the murder received a just punishment – Prevents murders from doing further harm – Death penalty less expensive than life in prison
Debate Opposition: Mistakes can and have been made Discriminates against poor people and racial minorities No deterrent effect of the penalty Wrong for government to participate in intentional killing
Learning Objective 2 Learning objective 2: Understand the history of the death penalty in America.
Death Penalty in America Executions carried out in public until 1830s Last public execution – August 14, 1936, 20,000 spectators Between 1930-1967: 3,859 executions Average: 128 per year in 1940s 72 in the 50s 19 in the 60s June 1977-June 2009: 1,125 executions
Death Penalty in America Support for capital punishment falls when other options are present 111 death sentences pronounced in 2009 Almost 3,300 wait on death row Since 1976 executions have never exceeded 98 in any one year
Learning Objective 3 Learning objective 3: Discuss the legal issues that surround the death penalty.
Legal Issues Furman v. Georgia (1972): Death penalty was itself not unconstitutional, but the way it was administered constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. Georgia (1976): Upheld laws that required the sentencing judge or jury to take into account specific aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding which convicted murders should be sentenced to death.
Legal Issues McCleskey v. Kemp (1987): – Court rejected a challenge, on the grounds of racial discrimination, to Georgia’s death penalty law. Atkins v. Virginia (2002): – Execution of the mentally retarded was unconstitutional. Ring v. Arizona (2002): – Juries, rather than judges, must make the crucial factual decisions as to whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty.
Legal Issues Roper v. Simmons (2002): Offenders cannot be sentenced to death for crimes they committed before they reached the age of 18. Strickland v. Washington (1984): Defendants in capital cases have the right to representation that meets an “objective standard of reasonableness.”
Legal Issues Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968): Potential jurors who have general objections to the death penalty or whose religious convictions oppose its use cannot be automatically excluded from jury service in capital cases. Uttecht v. Brown (2007): Enhanced state’s ability to remove potential jurors with doubts about the death penalty
Legal Issues Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008): – Capital sentence where the crime did not involve murder was in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. Coker v. Georgia (1977): – Use of death penalty for rape of an adult was unconstitutional. Medellin v. Texas (2008) – President did not have the power to order that states to follow the Vienna Convention.
Learning Objective 4 Learning objective 4: Characterize the inmates on death row.
Death Row Inmates Poorly educated men from low-income backgrounds 65% have prior felony convictions 8.4% have prior homicide convictions 27% were on probation, parole, or in prison Only 58 women, only 11 have been executed since 1976
Death Row Inmates Where: – 54% in south – 2.5% in West – 14% in Midwest – 7% from northeastern states 65% of executions carried out in 5 states 1977-2009): – Texas (439) – Virginia (103) – Oklahoma (90) – Missouri (67) – Florida (67)
Learning Objective 5 Learning objective 5: Speculate about the future of capital punishment.
The Future Innocent death row inmates Decrease in number of death sentences States abolishing death penalty
Chapter Twenty-One Surveillance and Control in the Community
Learning Objectives 1. Understand the goals of surveillance. 2. Know the techniques of surveillance and control now in use. 3. Describe how control is a double-edged sword. 4. Recognize the limits of control. 5. Explore how to develop an acceptable system of community control.
Learning Objective 1 Learning objective 1: Understand the goals of surveillance.
Goals Generally main goal is thought to be community protection: – Most offenders are not dangerous for 2 reasons: Once caught many offenders do not return to crime When offenders continue, most crime are petty acts that do not really endanger their victims. More motivation for surveillance is to reduce prison overcrowding. Without surveillance, treatment providers cannot know for sure if a given treatment is working.
Goals Some argue that tough surveillance deters crime in 2 ways: It makes offenders less willing to decide to commit a crime because they are being watched so closely. It catches active criminals earlier in their recidivism.
Learning Objective 2 Learning objective 2: Know the techniques of surveillance and control now in use.
Techniques Drug controls: – Antabuse – Depo-Provera: A “chemical castration” drug that eliminates sexual response in men. – Thorazine: A drug used to control violent or aggressive behavior caused by psychiatric problems. – Prozac: A drug used to decrease the negative emotions associated with depression.
Techniques Electronic controls: Global positioning system (GPS): A type of tracking system used in corrections. The offender must carry a “bag” that transmits a signal to a satellite, allowing correctional officials to identify the person’s location at all times. Human surveillance: Sex offender registries
Techniques Programmatic controls: Drug testing
Learning Objective 3 Learning objective 3: Describe how control is a double-edged sword.
Double-Edged Sword Social control and personal liberty: Main cost of increase in surveillance is civil liberty Politics of surveillance and community protection: Traditionally, conservatives have opposed government intrusion into personal affairs. Traditional liberal view calls for the use of government power to promote equal access of all citizens to the benefits of society.
Learning Objective 4 Learning objective 4: Recognize the limits of control.
Limits of Control Technology: All technologies have the capacity to fail Limited in terms of capacity Human responses: Intrusions of technical surveillance Shift in goals from helping to controlling
Limits of Control Moral and ethical limits: Techocorrections: The use of technological mechanisms, by corrections systems, to control offenders. Trade off between safety and freedom
Learning Objective 5 Learning objective 5: Explore how to develop an acceptable system of community control.
Acceptable Community Control Is the surveillance/control truly being used in lieu of imprisonment? Is the offender’s risk to the community such that without this control the offender would be highly likely to engage in crime? Could some less-intrusive method achieve the same basic result?
Acceptable Community Control Are steps being taken to eliminate the indirect intrusion of the surveillance into the lives of innocent individuals who live or work with the offender? Is the offender allowed opportunities to demonstrate self-control, so that the surveillance/control system can be gradually reduced?