For the past decade and a half, the United States has managed to sustain the world’s highest incarceration rate with around seven hundred thirty prisoners per one hundred thousand residents (BBC News). While the American culture is one that appreciates leading in the charts, this is surely not to be seen as an accomplishment. However, considering incarceration rates are so high, then one can assume that the criminal justice system is accomplishing its goal and is doing America’s criminals justice, right? Well, perhaps not. Although the system may be bringing these people to justice, it is not doing them justice, otherwise known as acting or treating justly or fairly. In reality, this system excels in punishment and fails immensely to provide a means of rehabilitation for people who need help getting their lives up and running once again. Mandatory sentencing and damaging labels may be justifiable by law and criminal procedure, but they are not justifiable on a moral level and result in harm that cannot be undone. The incarceration rate of the United States is astoundingly high because 50% of the prisoners in federal prisons are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses; because these excessively harsh punishments have negative effects on the economy, curb the advancement of society, impede on the improvement of prisoners, and strain their relationships with family, we should consider reforming mandatory sentencing laws and providing efficient alternatives to prison time such as drug rehabilitation and probation.

The United States has an estimated population of 324 million people, making up only around 4.3% of the world’s population. On the other hand, China has an estimated 1.379 billion people, making up almost one fifth of the world’s population. With that established, the United States has around one billion fifty-five million less people living in it than China has. If there are over one billion more people contributing to the Chinese population, how does the U.S. prison population exceed that of China’s by more than six hundred thousand inmates? Another perspective showing the drastic difference states that for every one hundred thousand people living in the U.S., there are roughly seven hundred thirty prisoners while there are only a mere one hundred eighteen prisoners per every one hundred thousand people living in China (BBC News). It is undeniable that the amount of prisoners the United States has is not only perplexing but rather concerning. For the United States prison population to surpass that of a nation’s whose general population has over a billion more people, it is safe to assume that something is not right. Even though one could assume that the American culture is one that contains more deviant and criminal acts and behaviors than that of the Chinese culture, this assumption should still not be enough to explain the disparity. And if that does not explain the disparity, what does? 

Mass incarceration is a phenomenon that refers to “the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment… (Oxford).” While some may believe that this phenomenon is one that only affects those who are integrated into the system, it actually has a great range of effect on other people and aspects of life such as families, communities, the economy, and society as a whole. Explained in a YouTube video uploaded by the vlogbrothers, some prisons spend over one hundred thousand dollars per prisoner annually, affirming that an absurd amount of money is being spent to imprison people in this country (vlogbrothers). While a goal of the system is to incarcerate people in hopes that they will pay their time and be released as an improved individual, a function of the system is to physically confine people so that they are separated from the rest of society and are therefore incapable of inflicting harm on others. Unfortunately, there are violent people who commit dangerous, condemnable crimes towards others with malicious intent. Additionally, there are some nonviolent people who are dependent on drugs whether it be for personal use or financial gain. Fortunately, there are rational ways to handle these offenders who break the law; however, the system is not handling them rationally. Assessing the situation from a logical point of view, which group is in greater need of incarceration in order to prevent wrongdoing and protect the innocent? If the need to prioritize funding came into play, there is no question that the need to confine the dangerous subgenre of criminals who engage in killings, rapings, and more would far surpass the desire to confine those who engage in nonviolent drug offenses. While the average cost per prisoner annually in some prisons is moreso along the lines of sixty thousand dollars, New York City is home to the most expensive prisoners who cost a whopping one hundred sixtyeight thousand dollars per year. To be spending that much money and to be costing the annual average taxpayer roughly thirty one thousand dollars proves that a ton of money is spent on prisoners suggesting there are better alternatives to dealing with these nonviolent offenders who would benefit more from rehab or probation and would ultimately have a less negative effect on the economy by avoiding prison time (Santora). 

While there are many pieces to the incarceration pie, “corrections should probably be the most important piece of the incarceration pie...” because the people we incarcerate are our future neighbors; unfortunately, that is not the case considering we are not correcting but rather overly implementing punishment (vlogbrothers). The system costs families, communities, and our country as we give up on felons and make it intentionally difficult for those with a record to obtain jobs ultimately slowing the progression of society. An article written by two very educated men describes the negative effects that mass incarceration has on those who fall victim to it, such as difficulty integrating back into the labor force (Furman, Holtz-Eakin). When people who commit these nonviolent drug offenses are labeled as felons, they are forever seen through a negative light making them social outcasts. Aside from receiving the inevitable societal consequences, ex cons are discriminated against by employers who expect for them to openly share their criminal history on job applications. This makes hiring those with a criminal record a rarity, destroying their chances of rehabilitating and regaining control of their lives after serving several years behind bars. If the majority of employers are unwilling to hire someone with a criminal record and the government is unwilling to “Ban the Box,” a phrase coined by people campaigning against the box that applicants are required to check on applications in reference to having a criminal record, it is unlikely that anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime will be able to acquire a job. People who have committed these crimes are never forgiven for their mistakes and are forced to advertise their past to employers, the people who decide whether or not to hire someone based on a mere glimpse into that person’s life. Millions of nonviolent ex-offenders are unable to contribute to the economy and are therefore inclined to commit crimes in order to make money and survive (NBC News). The majority fall back into their old lifestyles of abusing drugs because they are unable to fill their time with something new and of substance, being a job, and become bored and depressed. Because the discrimination of ex cons impedes on their chances at success, Frances O’Callaghan suggests that there are alternative approaches and strategies that could assist offenders, prevent recidivism, and have more positive, long-lasting effects (O’Callaghan). By making the majority of the job market limited to those who have clean records, opportunities at success are diminished for felons, many of whom are not violent, inherently evil humans, who desire to make a positive change and actually strive to have a typical, income based lifestyle. 

While the aftermath of incarceration affects ex criminals long after they are released, the actual imprisonment itself strains their relationships with family and negatively affects the lives and futures of their children. An article on NBC News examines the life of Leo Guthmiller, a man who was involved with drugs at a time and had made seriously progressive life changes, being nearly three years sober, by the time he was actually convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison (NBC News). His sentencing provoked an emotional rollercoaster and broke the hearts of the people in his life such as his wife who had to watch his progress be stripped away from him, the progress he spent years working to achieve. Even the judge who sentenced his punishment thought it was completely “ridiculous” and was not happy to be making the decision in which he had no say. Putting someone behind bars for ten years, an entire decade, where he or she will be surrounded by the worst, most dangerous members of society for a crime that had been committed years prior and a crime that the individual no longer engages in is utterly ridiculous indeed. Although one could argue that certain actions qualify for punishment, the circumstances of the situation are very relevant and should always be taken into account when deciding which punishment would be most suitable for a crime. Looking at the situation from a human perspective, the majority of people would agree that not only did the punishment not suit the crime, the punishment obliterated his progress, ultimately causing more harm than good. While the spouse of someone who is incarcerated will always be affected, children of incarcerated men and women are put at a major disadvantage and are robbed of a parental figure. A scholarly journal written by Patricia Allard states that “more than 1.2 million inmates,” over half of the current prison and jail population, have children who are still minors (2.7 million minors). Studies have shown that a tight family bond reduces the chance that an offender will reoffend, also known as recidivism, and this will ultimately have a positive effect on the children who desperately need the guidance and presence of their parent(s) in their lives; however, it is very challenging to create this bond and for parents to prevent their children from going down the wrong path when parents are unnecessarily sent away to prisons that are located hours, and even plane rides away. Patricia Allard also explains how “the long-term impact of the sudden disappearance of a parent can also produce… high levels of aggression towards others (Allard).” In certain cases, children will begin to defy others and act out as a reaction and result of having their parent(s) taken away from them. One mother explains how her children became extremely promiscuous once she was imprisoned; her son began to have sex at the age of twelve and her daughter was impregnated by an older man and had an abortion at the age of fourteen. Another story involves Saphina, the daughter of an incarcerated father, who says that she was kicked out of school because she would “...steal, skip school and get into fights (Allard).” It is undeniable that the incarceration of a parent has an impact on the lives of their children, and this is very unfortunate considering that over 1.2 million inmates have 2.7 million children at home who are growing up in the absence of their valued presence (Allard). To make matters worse, many of these children will be robbed of the upbringing they were intended to have because they may be adults before their parents are ever released. Because studies have shown that a tight family bond reduces the chance that an offender will reoffend, it is important to consider that prison may not be the most effective option for those who are not majorly dangerous threats to the wellbeing of society. By eliminating harsh prison sentences, offenders can still play a prominent role in their children’s upbringing allowing their offspring a better chance at future prosperity.

When both the negative effects of incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders and the number of them are limitless, reform is incumbent. Not only is mandatory sentencing ineffective, it does not work to deter people from committing crimes. Marc Mauer describes the severity of United States sentences by explaining the dramatic increase in length of imprisonment in recent years for those who are imprisoned for drug crimes while sentences for robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault, crimes that are far more invasive and threatening to society, have not been increased as severely (Mauer). When someone is inherently violent, there is not much the criminal justice system can do to alter that person’s mentality, inner desires, or nature; however, if someone is addicted to drugs, he or she most likely wants to live a decent life but just needs assistance in order to conquer the dependency. In addition to negatively affecting those around them, incarceration changes people and their attitudes towards life, authority, and more. It diminishes their desire to ameliorate their situation, discouraging them to do better and persevere once they are released and unable to find work. This ultimately restarts the vicious cycle of crime and drug dependency, which are not the main goals of the criminal justice system, being crime control, prevention, and justice. If people need help getting off of drugs, then rehab and probation, and perhaps even community service would better serve them rather than integrating them into a system that chews them up and spits them back out into a society that holds no place for them. 

With the incarceration rates of the United States being at an all time high and crime rates not having increased drastically, there is no question that the criminal justice system is failing our citizens. While the criminal justice system is designed to punish the actions of those who neglect the laws, it is also meant to correct their actions in order to prevent recidivism. Because of the inevitable consequences that cons face throughout life after imprisonment, they typically return to the lifestyle they had lived prior, dramatically increasing their chances of falling victim to the system once again. If the system is failing to correct those who disobey the law in the grand scheme of things, it is also failing to fulfil its purpose to society. This misuse of the system is not only affecting those who are in prison for nonviolent crimes, their families, and communities in which they live, but also the economy in which millions of dollars are being spent in the wrong areas and for the wrong reasons. As a result, we must reestablish all mandatory sentencing laws and provide a new means of rehabilitation to those who are undeserving of unreasonable and unjust punishment. If the ones responsible for creating the laws were able to accept the blatant lack of success that is produced by the criminal justice system as well as put themselves in the shoes of nonviolent offenders, they would take the necessary measures to ensure that the system be redefined for the betterment of our country. 
