Reconsidering incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders in America

¶ … nation is one with finite resources. In the midst of our current economic recession, every tax dollar spent counts. This leads one to wonder why so much money is spent incarcerating low-level and nonviolent drug offenders, who essentially need medical treatment above criminal punitive punishment. In today's judicial system, drug offenders are treated like criminals, and not the addicts and medical patients that they are. Our nation is dead bent on a war with drugs, physically forcing these addicts out of their addiction. However, "Getting tough on drugs may be good politics but inefficient public policy," (Kim et al. 1993:174). Typical solutions tend to gravitate towards either harsh criminal punishments or an increase in drug awareness education, both have their own successes and failures, (Kay 2002). In today's unstable economy, it is clear that changes must be made, not only for the physical and mental health of the addicts themselves, but also for the general taxpayer who is forced to foot the bill of their incarceration.

Literature Review

Our nation's prisons are filled to the brim, many way overcrowded, many with drug offenders. After the drug induced days of the rebellious 1960s a wave of reformist laws swept over the nation. Much of the legislation passed during the 1970s and 1980s was aimed to stop a new war America had just declared -- the war on drugs. Today, almost half a million of our nation's inmates are incarcerated for drug related crimes (Drug War Chronicle 2008). These offenders take up over one-fifth of the prison space allocated here within the United States (Washington Post 1994). This enforced the idea that drug abuse was a crime, and that the drug user was nothing better than a common criminal. Little attention was turned to the concept that drug abuse was in fact, actually a disease. What resulted from this new war on drugs was "a noticeably disproportionate increase in our prison population over the past three decades" spurred by the "jailing of low-level nonviolent drug offenders who not previously have been incarcerated," (McCormick 2000:508). Offenders receive sentencing based on the nature of the drug they were charged with possession of. The Controlled Substance Act established a tier system which placed various illicit drugs in a hierarchy based on their presumed danger to the body and society. Heroine and crack cocaine, for instance, are one of the most illicit drugs -- and therefore hold greater prison time in sentencing, (Kay 2003). However, what this system fails to realize is that the harder the drug, the greater the addiction and the more the addict needs help to come clean. Harsher prison sentences for harsher drugs do little more but seal the fate of the addict turned criminal.

Drug abuse is a disease. However, using incarceration as punishment for drug possession is not acknowledging such; "the state views discrete incidents of detected possession not as manifestations of an over-arching addiction, but as isolated crimes deserving punishment," (Armstrong 2003:133). This view fails to secure the proper treatment addicts need as true medical patients. Rather than be medically treated as any other individual suffering from a potentially life threatening disease would be, they are thrown in jail for extensive periods of time with little or no support or programs to help them get clean, (Nadelmann 2007). This type of treatment will only lead the addicts to revert to their addictive behavior once back into the real world, leading to high levels of recidivism and suffering on behalf of the addicts themselves.

In many cases, the public is greatly swayed by the promises of politicians stating that they have a real solution to the drug problem through heightened punishments. However, increasing punishments and cracking down only presents media coverage, and not a true solution of the problem. Yes, it is true that many drug offenders do participate in other crimes; however, studies show that they are generally related "to participation in the drug market," (Kim et al. 1993:174). However, once in jail, many potentially harmless addicts are exposed to a greater world of crime and abuse which proves to only doom their future success in the real world.

It also opens them up to other criminal endeavors which they may not have been exposed to if directed towards treatment or other more viable solutions. Overall, prison is no place for a recovering addict.

Imprisoning drug offenders costs the state billions of dollars annually. Both federal and state budgets are strained by the costs of housing and feeding the average 50,000 to 80,000 new inmates coming into our prison systems annually, (McCormick 2000). Entering into an already overcrowded prison system means that more and more funds must be allocated to caring, housing, and providing medical care for the thousands of inmates across America. What are these costs? Research states that the average cost for caring for an adult inmate within a year can range between $25,000 to $70,000 -- almost the average household income per year (McCormick 2000).

Since the 1980's, there has been an increased push to provide treatment for inmates with drug problems. Such treatments include practices such as assessments, support groups, drug education, group counseling, methadone maintenance, and therapeutic communities, (Lemieux 2002). However, the length an inmate spends within these treatments greatly affects the outcome, (Lemieux 2002). Yet, prison sentences have nothing correlated with necessary treatment durations. The end of a prison sentence ay come abruptly and much too early to provide a successful result with the inmate clean and off drugs. Prison sentencing has made no changes in order accommodate inmates with substance abuse problems, leaving many researchers to question the viability of prison funded treatments all together.

Overall, the research is clear -- the current punitive punishment system in place is ill-equip and inefficient to truly fight the war on drugs. In order to establish a more relevant and effective solution, this nation needs to look at the addict not as a criminal, but as a patient in need. Until we re-evaluate how we think of drug addiction, it will continue to cost millions of dollars to the average tax payer.

Conclusion

It is clear that imprisoning drug offenders based on the conditions of their disease is inefficient. Current prison treatments fail to encapsulate the true nature of the disease and current alternatives fail to present a solid plan to get the addict off of drugs. In this day with limited financial resources, it is clear that drug offenders should be somewhere other than spending the tax payers' money in federal and state prisons.

In the midst of the current system there are several recommendations to be considered which would improve the state of our judicial system. One would include

Three recommendations mandatory follow up treatments for inmate's leaving prison. One program in California showed an impressive reduction of the recidivism rate by 50% with the use of a treatment program that followed the newly released inmate into the real world, (Limieux 2002). Following the lines of such successes could vastly improve the success of addicts attempting to cleanse themselves of their addictions. Another recommendation would be absolutely no prison sentencing for mere possession cases. Rather than implement prison sentences, the state and federal courts should require mandatory rehabilitation and treatment sentencing in order to best provide for the recovering addict. Finally, the judicial system should encourage familial support through treatment process and imprisonment. Research has shown that "family and community ties can facilitate an inmate's successful reintegration into society upon release," (Lemieux 2002:52). Thus effort place on improving familial support during the entire recovery process should prove of great importance, especially over the isolation seen in the current punitive design.

Annotated Bibliography

Armstrong, Andrew. (2003). Drug courts and the de facto legalization of drug use for participants in residential treatment facilities. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol 94(1):133-156.

Andrew Armstrong presents a look into one of today's most popular solutions, other than sheer force used by police and legislators. This article explores the nature of drug courts and how they are use in various states across the nation along with their history as starting in Florida in 1989. Through this exploration there are signs of success and of failure, with many states still not treating drug addiction like the disease that it is.

Drug War Chronicle. (2007). Sentencing U.S. jail and prison population hits all-time (again) -- 2.3 million behind bars, including more than half a million drug offenders, Drug War Crusade. Issue 564. Retrieved July 19, 2009 at http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/564/US_jail_prison_population_all_time_high_drug_offenders.

This startling article from the drug war's opposition shows exactly how out of hand drug related prison sentences have thrown our judicial system into. Using the finite amount of space and resources our prison system offers, we have packed in real addicts to suffer with criminals instead of getting the true medical help they need. This proves not only a strain on the addicts themselves, but also on all the U.S. taxpayers who foot the bill for our correctional system.

Hodulik, Jennifer. (2001). The drug court model as a response to "broken windows" criminal justice for the homeless mentally ill. Journal of Criminal Law. Vol 91(4):1073-2005.

This article looks specifically at dealing with the use of drug courts within the context of determining punishment for homeless drug offenders. Jennifer Hodulik expresses the need to treat homeless drug abusers as individuals suffering from a disease, and in many cases also some form of mental illness as well. The research shows that punitive punishments for this vulnerable demographic only exacerbate the problems of those homeless who are addicted to some drug and suffering the mental ramifications of that addiction. Drug courts provide the best available solution, for they allow for some growth and potential rehabilitation which would change these peoples' lives in a dramatic way and help get them off the streets and out of trouble with the law.

Johnson, Holly. (2006). Concurrent drug and alcohol dependency and mental health problems among incarcerated women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Vol 39(2):190-211.

This article focuses primarily on the link between substance abuse problems and mental health problems. The research study followed a survey of incarcerated women to determine the link between mental health problems and substance abuse problems. What was also uncovered by the research was the overall inefficiency of prison drug treatment programs to effectively target both the substance abuse and the mental health problems attached to that abuse, leaving many women in the study to relapse despite going through the motions of proper treatment.

Kay, Amanda. (2003). The agony of ecstasy: reconsidering the punitive approach to United States drug policy. Fordham Urban Law Journal. Vol 29(5):2133-67.

This article presents researcher Amanda Kay as a forefront for objecting to typical punitive punishments for various possession offenses. It highlights the drug ecstasy in particular based on its rising popularity with America's you and the debate within the scientific community on how dangerous of a drug it is. Beginning with explaining the drug classification system, Kay then turns to explain how various classes are punished differently -- ecstasy being a drug with a harsh punishment attached, despite its general recreational use by American teens in comparison to other drug which carry higher chances for abuse.

Kim, Il-Joon; Benson, Bruce L.; & Zuehlke, Thomas W. (1993). An economic analysis of recidivism among drug offenders. Southern Economic Journal. Vol 60:169-173.

Researchers in Florida conducted a study which aimed at exploring the recidivism rate among Florida's drug offenders and how that recidivism affected both the individual offender's financial stability as well as the entire state correction's economic health after dealing with such large numbers of drug-related prisoners. The study followed 16,788 drug offender released before 1989 to see what percentage would recidivate with future drug offenses and how those future offenses would effect the economic climate of the Florida State Corrections. Researchers found that although prison proves more of a deterrent for future drug offenses than probation, there are still large numbers of drug offenders who do recidivate, showing that punishment for our nation's drug problem fails to efficiently provide real solutions.

McCormick, Patrick T. (2000). Just punishment and America's prison experiment. Theological Studies. Vol. 61:173-181.

Researcher Patrick T. McCormick presents an exposing overview of America's war on drugs and how it has affected both addicts and non-addicts alike. Since the 1970's, the United States has proven to heighten the punishment for drug offenders, leading to real jail time and harsher sentences. However, this has lead to an enormous influx in prison population, leading not only to inefficient solutions to getting addicts clean but also to a huge strain on federal and state budgets. Tax payers are forced to pay the bill for thousands of inmates incarcerated for drug offenses, and who are bound to just keep returning to prison based on a lack of real solutions to their addictions.

McKay, James R.; Cacciola, John S.; McLellan, Thomas; Alterman, Arthur I.; & Wirtz, Phillip W. (1997). An initial evaluation of the psychosocial dimensions of the American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria for inpatient vs. outpatient substance abuse rehabilitation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol 58(3):239-267.

This article focuses on comparing the different strategies currently utilized to help ease drug addicts of drugs through the rehabilitation process. It compares a much more structured and rigid inpatient program to a more fluid and less reliable outpatient program. Its results show that the more structure, the better off the addict is on his or her way to recovery.

Nadelmann, Ethan. (2007). Drugs: prohibition has failed again. Instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frighten Al Capone. Finally, a smarter drug control regime that values reality over rhetoric is rising to replace the war on drugs. Foreign Policy. (162) [HIDDEN]

This article reviews the current state of punitive punishments handed out in the war on drugs and shows them for the sham that they are. Instead of treating addiction like a real disease, this country has continually sought to stamp out drug use with violence and harsh punishments. Such actions just fuel the fire, and fail the addicts who should be treated as patients, while making drug lords richer than ever. The research here shows not only the value of viewing the addict as a patient, but also the ramifications of blindly punishing drug abuse and its affect on the drug subculture which thrives off the illegal profits made even larger by the war on drugs.

Lemieux, Catherine M. (2002). Social support among offenders with substance abuse problems: overlooked and underused. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling. Vol. 23:41-56.

Catherine M. Lemieux examines and analyzes of the importance of support systems and programs for prisoners with substance abuse problems. According to previous studies, there is a lack of real viable support systems for those afflicted by drub addiction within our nation's prisons. The research here shows that not only are substance programs needed in the context of prison, they also need to be supplemented by the support of friends and family in order to have the most efficient result in avoiding recidivism in future years.

Roberts, Cookie. (1999). Mandatory minimums in drug sentencing: a valuable weapon in the war on drugs or a handcuff on judicial discretion. American Criminal Law Review. Vol 36(4): 1279-1293.

This piece shows both favoritism and opposition for mandatory minimum jail sentencing for drug offenders, however does so not from the viewpoint of looking at addiction as a disease, but rather as a limitation on judicial discretion. While many are supportive of minimum sentencing requirements based on the idea that it is the most powerful weapon against the current war on drugs, others believe it to be restricting when looking at individual cases. Overall, many believe that it should be up to the individual judge and the individual case circumstance which determines the nature of punitive punishment in U.S. courts.

Washington Post. (1994). Low-level drug offenders fill one-fifth of prison space. Washington Post. February 5, 1994.

Astounding numbers of drug offenders fill our nation's prisons. This article uses statistics from the 1990s, an era of a crack epidemic, to show exactly how filled the prison system is with low-level and nonviolent addicts who essentially need medical treatment and not prison time.