Criminal justice system's current approach to sentencing

Incapacitation: This principle seeks to prevent an offender from committing more crimes by physically removing them from society, most commonly through incarceration. This is the rationale behind lengthy prison terms, especially for violent or repeat offenders.

Rehabilitation: This approach focuses on reforming the offender and helping them become a productive member of society. While less emphasized in recent decades, it is still a stated goal of the system and is often pursued through programs like education, job training, and therapy.

The balance among these principles has shifted over time. In the late 20th century, a "tough on crime" movement led to a greater focus on retribution and incapacitation, resulting in policies that increased sentence lengths and limited judicial discretion. This is seen in the widespread adoption of mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing laws, and sentencing guidelines.

Is Our Current Approach Successful?

Based on outside research, there is a strong argument that the current approach to sentencing and corrections is not successful in achieving its stated goals, particularly those of public safety and rehabilitation.

Lack of Evidence for Deterrence: A significant body of research suggests that long prison sentences do not effectively deter crime. Studies have found that while incarceration incapacitates an offender while they are in prison, it does little to prevent them from re-offending once they are released. In fact, some research suggests that longer sentences may even increase recidivism, as the experience of incarceration can destabilize a person's life and make it harder for them to successfully reintegrate into society.

High Recidivism Rates: The high rate of recidivism (re-offending) in the United States is a major indicator of the system's failure. The "warehousing" of offenders in prisons, with little focus on rehabilitation, often means they are released without the skills, support, or resources needed to succeed. This cycle of incarceration and re-offending is costly to taxpayers and harmful to communities.

Disproportionate Impact: The current system has had a disproportionate impact on minority communities. Policies like mandatory minimums for drug offenses have led to a mass incarceration crisis that has particularly affected Black and Latinx individuals, even when they commit the same crimes as their white counterparts.

Cost and Inefficiency: The sheer cost of mass incarceration is unsustainable. States and the federal government spend billions of dollars each year on prisons, often at the expense of more effective public safety measures, such as education, mental health care, and community programs.

Do We Need a New Paradigm?

Yes, there is a compelling case for a new paradigm for sentencing and corrections. The current model, heavily reliant on long prison sentences, has not delivered on its promises of increased public safety and has instead led to a range of negative social and economic consequences.

Sample Answer

The Criminal Justice System's Current Approach to Sentencing

The current approach to sentencing in the criminal justice system is a complex and often debated topic. While there isn't one single, universally applied philosophy, the dominant principles that shape sentencing today are a mix of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.

Retribution: This principle focuses on punishing an offender for their past actions. It's about "just deserts"—the idea that the punishment should fit the crime, and the offender should be held accountable for the harm they caused. This is a foundational element in many sentencing policies, including mandatory minimums and "three-strikes" laws.

Deterrence: This is a forward-looking approach that aims to prevent future crime. It can be specific (preventing the individual offender from re-offending) or general (discouraging the public from committing similar crimes). Long, harsh sentences are often justified under this principle.