According to data from the Pew Center on the States, the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, but almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population 15. The total number of inmates in the United States, in 2008 was larger than the populations of Seattle, Boston, Kansas City and Atlanta combined 16. Incarceration is intensely determined by race and ethnicity. Among men the highest rate is black males aged twenty to thirty-four, among women the highest rate is black females aged thirty-five to thirty-nine. According to the Pew Center, African Americans make up roughly 13% of the U.S. population, but are 40% of its prisoners, this leads to the following statistics about “Who’s Behind Bars"17.Therefore, Hatt states that " one of every six Latino males and one of every 45 Latinas born today can expect to go to prison in his or her lifetime"16. Professor Mark Kleiman offers the most well-developed policy alternative to mass incarceration, one that starts with the assumption that “crime is a genuine problem of substantial magnitude”.
…show more content…
He focuses on how to make community corrections work to reduce crime better than our current failed system of mass incarceration 18. According to Kleiman, the current system of mass incarceration is a social problem on the same level as crime itself. Mark Kleiman offers a really effective program of community supervision that could reduce incarceration directly by reducing both revocations and sentences for new crimes. Professor Kleiman offers an example of this model working in the real world - project HOPE which was launched, in Honolulu, Hawaii and produced truly dramatic results19. Professor Michael Seidman looks to an earlier era for parallels and compares modern American society’s reaction to mass incarceration to the reaction of individuals of positive attitude in Nazi-occupied Europe to the Holocaust. The professor explains how the interaction of the “economic model” and the “moralism model” of mass incarceration control has contributed to the isolation of poor African-American communities in a cycle of increasing crime and punishment 20. Professor Seidman offers three strategies for ending the mass incarceration: amelioration (working around the edges to make things marginally better), transformation (large-scale mobilization), and accommodation (using the system’s own conservative and even racist impulses to argue for change within it) 20. Professor Andrew Taslitz offers the solution for ending the mass incarceration that is grounded in the state of our democratic politics. For example, he emphasizes the populist deliberative democracy (PDD) that includes all social groups in strictly informed and deliberative political action and decision making. Professor Taslitz performs an experimental examination of interstate and comparative national data that connects the strength of PDD institutions and culture to reduce incarceration rates. He uses this analysis to argue that PDD uses more preventive and rehabilitative approaches to crime control, rather than the highly punitive ones that currently predominate 21. According to the policy brief: "Ending Mass Incarceration: Social Interventions That Work.", the cause of mass incarceration is an imbalance in our national approach that relies heavily on the criminal justice system to public safety. …show more content…
Social interventions are more cost-effective in producing better public safety outcomes than expanded incarceration. The brief discusses interventions and prevention in early childhood education, juvenile justice, and interventions in community investment. This policy brief also demonstrates the effectiveness of programs, such as the Nurse Family Partnership and Functional Family Therapy that have been confirmed to be effective in reducing crime 22. In collaboration with policy makers, stakeholders, and experts that work together to develop initiatives based on state specific data and public safety needs mass incarceration could be prevented. Therefore, these policies generate cost savings that can be reinvested in rehabilitative community-based programs and prevention programs for reducing mass incarceration 23. Interventions The New York City government is in the progress in reducing mass incarceration and implementing legal reforms and programmatic interventions that help sustain lower rates of incarceration. For example, Cure Violence is a violence prevention program that works with communities that have high levels of violence in an effort to address gang violence and reduce retaliatory killings 24. This program applies public education, anti-violence slogans “Don’t shoot. I want to grow up.”, conflict mediation and community mobilization activities25. The
He focuses on how to make community corrections work to reduce crime better than our current failed system of mass incarceration 18. According to Kleiman, the current system of mass incarceration is a social problem on the same level as crime itself. Mark Kleiman offers a really effective program of community supervision that could reduce incarceration directly by reducing both revocations and sentences for new crimes. Professor Kleiman offers an example of this model working in the real world - project HOPE which was launched, in Honolulu, Hawaii and produced truly dramatic results19. Professor Michael Seidman looks to an earlier era for parallels and compares modern American society’s reaction to mass incarceration to the reaction of individuals of positive attitude in Nazi-occupied Europe to the Holocaust. The professor explains how the interaction of the “economic model” and the “moralism model” of mass incarceration control has contributed to the isolation of poor African-American communities in a cycle of increasing crime and punishment 20. Professor Seidman offers three strategies for ending the mass incarceration: amelioration (working around the edges to make things marginally better), transformation (large-scale mobilization), and accommodation (using the system’s own conservative and even racist impulses to argue for change within it) 20. Professor Andrew Taslitz offers the solution for ending the mass incarceration that is grounded in the state of our democratic politics. For example, he emphasizes the populist deliberative democracy (PDD) that includes all social groups in strictly informed and deliberative political action and decision making. Professor Taslitz performs an experimental examination of interstate and comparative national data that connects the strength of PDD institutions and culture to reduce incarceration rates. He uses this analysis to argue that PDD uses more preventive and rehabilitative approaches to crime control, rather than the highly punitive ones that currently predominate 21. According to the policy brief: "Ending Mass Incarceration: Social Interventions That Work.", the cause of mass incarceration is an imbalance in our national approach that relies heavily on the criminal justice system to public safety. …show more content…
Social interventions are more cost-effective in producing better public safety outcomes than expanded incarceration. The brief discusses interventions and prevention in early childhood education, juvenile justice, and interventions in community investment. This policy brief also demonstrates the effectiveness of programs, such as the Nurse Family Partnership and Functional Family Therapy that have been confirmed to be effective in reducing crime 22. In collaboration with policy makers, stakeholders, and experts that work together to develop initiatives based on state specific data and public safety needs mass incarceration could be prevented. Therefore, these policies generate cost savings that can be reinvested in rehabilitative community-based programs and prevention programs for reducing mass incarceration 23. Interventions The New York City government is in the progress in reducing mass incarceration and implementing legal reforms and programmatic interventions that help sustain lower rates of incarceration. For example, Cure Violence is a violence prevention program that works with communities that have high levels of violence in an effort to address gang violence and reduce retaliatory killings 24. This program applies public education, anti-violence slogans “Don’t shoot. I want to grow up.”, conflict mediation and community mobilization activities25. The