Criminal Justice Theory and Policy Discussion Chapter

Excerpt from Discussion Chapter :

The reduction occurs through allowing the counties to acquire other methods of jailing apart from the prisons. This includes out-of custody rehabilitative treatments, which could serve in reducing the number of the criminals taken to the prisons. However, the AB109 criminals must be individuals whose crime are not violent and not that serious as provided by the law. This means that that jailing of the A109 criminals in other alternative would involve selection from the other criminals. However the unstated implication is that it would be much difficult to rate a crime as either more serious or not serious. Consequently, the rationale provides higher chances of biasness of selecting some non-serious cases while leaving others.

Implication of the policy

The criminal justice implication of the policy will mainly affect the non-violent arrestees. The decision of keeping them in custody, would affect their ability to avoid recividism future. The social implications include pressure on the local sheriffs and Mims who might not be having enough cash of keeping the inmates. The locals do not have enough cash to keep the large number of realigned inmates. Further, the State government would have to restrain in spending some cash on finding the better accommodation thereby affecting the operation of the economy.


31% of the individuals in the pretrial population had not witnessed incidence of arrests before. Further, 43% of the pretrial population had no record of incidences of prior convictions. Another data shows that 63% of the total pretrial population was on arrest of non-violent properties, drugs or alcohol crimes (California prison plan, 2011). Further, higher percentage of the population was from the local region and presented little risk related to flight.


Apart from the AB109/AB117, there are alternatives to help in solving the problems of overcrowding in the California's prisons. One of the alternatives arises from the question of whether the pre-trial custody should be there. It is not reasonable to hold the people in the custodies yet there trials are not in the process. Instead of keeping these people in the custody, there should be some other places of keeping this people in order to reduce on the population found in the custodies. Keeping these people in the custody also, bears some detrimental effects towards them since the high probability is that there arrest occur for nonviolent behaviors. Consequently, looking for other alternative places will reduce the prison's population while also working for these people. Another alternative is ensuring that there are enough mental health resources, which can help in keeping the victimized individuals in the treatment programs. Keeping the individuals in the treatment programs would help in utilizing jail space that the grand jury has always wasted on them.


I am against the decision, provided under the AB/109 policy, of scrambling to find rooms for the new inmates. This decision of prison alignment would involve using a lot of cash in accommodating the individuals. The decision also mentions the need to host the individuals at the local level. This cannot happen...
...My decision concerning this matter would to have the state come up with more facilities. These facilities will accommodate more of the prisoners in that people are likely to commit unlawful acts knowing that they have a bill in support of their sentencing. This happens to be the best solution in reducing the rate of crime and dealing with the over populations within the correction facilities. Setting the inmates free stands a chance of augmenting the rate at which people will commit crime. Impounding discipline on the facilities ensures that the individuals responsible take maximum responsibility. Coming up with committees is wastage of funds that are likely to be efficient for construction of other additional facilities or alternatively expand the existing penal systems.

American Prison System

Categorizing the Prison system as corrupt would not be harsh at all. There are illegal activities going on in the American prisons. The same persons responsible with the mandate of ensuring this does not happen often propagate these illegal activities. Some prison wardens involve themselves in illegal activities with the prisoners. The benefit that they get from this is that they get bribes, which serves a source of extra income. Most United States prison systems are corrupt. Although it is true that the majority of prison wardens do not involve themselves in these activities, it is a known fact that the cases of corruption continue to be on the rise. The decision to categorize these systems as corrupt is not harsh. The government should not abolish these systems, but rather they should enact laws that will discourage corruption in the system.

It is an excellent scheme to keep non-violent criminals out of the system. This is because it lowers the chances of these people learning other criminal behaviors and tactics from other violent criminals in the system. The law should put violent criminals in the system and should categorize them according to the offences committed. The state can monitor non-violent criminal with house arrest and use of ankle trackers. This will enable them to reform and be good and responsible members of society. The state should not allow violent criminals back in society, and the decision to separate these criminals with other non-violent criminals is a good idea. Those that are drug abusers should receive treatment and rehabilitation first before the prison allows them back into society. This is an effective strategy because it decreases the chances of these abusers to influence others into taking drugs. This is an effective way to guarantee that criminals go through reforms.


Kraska, P., & Brent, J. (2011).Theorizing Criminal Justice: Eight Essential Orientations (2nd

Edition). Long Grove

Hancock, B., & Sharp, P. (2004).Criminal Justice in America (3rd Edition).Upper Saddle River,

NY: Prentice Hall

Miller, R.A. (2008). The erotics of corruption: Law, scandal, and political perversion. Albany,

N.Y: State University of New York Press.

Herzog, T. (2004). Upholding justice: Society, state, and the penal system in Quito (1650-

1750). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Sonneborn, L. (2007). Chronology of American Indian history. New York: Facts on File

Egelko, B. (2011, May 24). California must cut prison population by 30,000. SFGate website.

Retrieved from

California Prison Plan. YouTube website. Retrieved from

Sources Used in Documents:


Kraska, P., & Brent, J. (2011).Theorizing Criminal Justice: Eight Essential Orientations (2nd

Edition). Long Grove

Hancock, B., & Sharp, P. (2004).Criminal Justice in America (3rd Edition).Upper Saddle River,

NY: Prentice Hall

Cite This Discussion Chapter:

"Criminal Justice Theory And Policy" (2013, February 19) Retrieved February 27, 2021, from

"Criminal Justice Theory And Policy" 19 February 2013. Web.27 February. 2021. <>

"Criminal Justice Theory And Policy", 19 February 2013, Accessed.27 February. 2021,