Effects of incarceration policy on criminal justice outcomes

Criminal Punishment

Dating back to 1973, the Rockefeller Drug Laws were a set of statutes that dealt with narcotics in the New York State Penal Code, named after Nelson Rockefeller, New York's Governor at the time. Designed to be as harsh as possible and seemingly in tune with the climate of the times, these laws were the toughest of their kind in the entire United States. Soon adopted by Michigan, the laws, which put drug sales and possession almost on the same par as violent crimes like murder and assault, were harshly criticized by both conservatives and liberals as being unrealistic, untenable, and taxing on a penal system already in crisis. More to the point, they simply did not work (New York Legislature to Vote, 2009). In fact, in January 2009, in his first State of the State address, New York Governor David Paterson, who had once been arrested for civil disobedience protesting these laws, was so critical of these laws, he noted, "I cannot think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws" (Liu, 2009).

The Rockefeller Laws, though, have just been indicative of an attitude toward drug offenses. The basic conservative viewpoint is to throw the perpetrator in jail, keep them in jail, and therefore engender a dual perception of keeping the streets clean and a society that punishes harshly. Ostensibly, this should deter criminal activity, reduce serious crime, and to improve the following of societal rules by those who might have an inclination to commit crime. Actually, these types of draconian laws did not accomplish any of their stated goals. Yes, they sent a great number of people to prison for lengthy sentences. But it seems that the data suggests that they also increased the number of repeat offenders, did not significantly drop the crime rate, and did not really deter drug related offenses. However, it is quite certain that overall, most prisons are now overcrowded, unable to rehabilitate, typically unable to offer the type of services necessary to help the prison population (education, psychological counseling, even adequate medical care). This is exacerbated to the point in which, just as having too many rats in a cage, the overcrowding situation with prisoners also contributes to a number of proven psychological and physical problems such as stress, increase in violence, and resultant physical issues. Overcrowding also has deeper social, political and economic costs because through litigation it often forces states to build new facilities, whether the budget is available or not (Hanrahan, 2006).

Many scholars, in fact, conclude that the "lock em up" strategy is counter-productive to the overall system of criminal justice. Drug dealers figured out how to avoid getting caught "with product;" other criminals work the system so that it is the naive being preyed upon by both sides who end up incarcerated. Certainly, there are no easy answers to violent crime, to drug addiction and proliferation, or too innumerable other criminalization issues that exist within contemporary society. In fact, "Human Rights Watch found that the United States is the only country in the world with such an array of restrictions" that are relatively ineffective (Worrall, 2008, p. 174).