Colleen Menchinger
Colleen Menchinger
Colorado Technical University
Professor Rhonda Hawkins-Lyke
CJUS141-1301B-11
February 26, 2013
Many habitual offenders have been targeted for incarceration that should not be. Habitual offenders could include homicide, rape, robbery, theft, and arson to name a few. Most of these offences should require jail time but a few of these crimes do not. Consider someone who has been caught stealing a candy bar. This same offender has already been caught twice before for the same crime. Using the “three strikes” style of justice could put this offender behind bars for 25 years. The same amount of time can be given to a person who was found guilty of rape three times. I think the punishment fits the crime for the rapist but is too harsh for the candy thief. Each case should be decided according to the crime.
In 1994, the Justice Department released a report on mandatory minimum sentences. 21.2% of the federal prison population is small time drug offenders. These drug offenders are serving longer prison time than robbers and rapists. We, the tax payers, are paying the price to keep these non-violent low level drug offenders in prison for 5 to 10 years. The Justice Department say that keeping a low level drug offender in prison for years does not prevent crime any better than shorter sentences. It costs us $25,000 a year to house a prisoner but costs only $5,000 to keep a prisoner under close supervision at home.
Over 85% of the prison population, state and federal, are serving time for violent or repeat offenders. The prisons are overpopulated already so giving a stiff sentence to a first time offender requires releasing a more hardened criminal. It would cost 10 billion to build enough prisons to house both the violent offender and the first time offender alike.
Another reason to shorten prison time for first offenders is a law that was imposed by the federal courts. It