Personal Thought on Three Articles

It is unfair to deny juveniles a chance at redemption. This message has been clearly echoed in the article, and a case has been offered of Shimeek Gridine who was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 70 years in jail without parole. Shimeek was only 14 when he was convicted, and the sentence given will mean that he might never see the outside of jail in his lifetime. Handing juveniles long sentences is equivalent to sentencing to them life, and this has been curtailed by the Supreme Court. However, judges have skirted the law, and instead of offering life sentences, they are now offering long sentences without a chance of parole, which in a real sense is similar to a life sentence. This is quite unfair to juveniles because it denies them the opportunity to reform and lead normal lives after serving their sentence. Jails are meant to reform individuals and not house them till they are aged. Juveniles should be given priority and encouraged to amend their wrong behaviors by offering them early parole and shorter sentences. Letting juveniles languish in adult jails is denying the juveniles a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity. The failure to overhaul juvenile incarceration will result in young inmates being jailed for long and dying or being released when they are aged and cannot fend for themselves.

The parole system is meant to reward inmates who have shown they have changed, grown, and are ready to rejoin society. This is the real essence of the prison system. Reforming inmates and ensuring they are ready to rejoin society after their jail term or on parole. However, this has not been the situation because most parole boards do not consider the inmate's behavior while in jail, age, education level, and what home the individual would be returning to. They seem to only focus on the crime committed. Basing a parole hearing on the crime denies the individual the opportunity to rejoin society early. Research has shown that parolees are less likely to be repeat offenders when compared to individuals who serve their full sentence. This should be a good pointer to encourage parole instead of focusing on sentence completion. In the first-place parole is supposed to be an incentive to encourage good behavior for inmates when in jail. State parole boards should also consist of individuals who are not political appointees as it is currently. This will ensure that the board will analyze the facts of the individual based on the set guidelines and not on the crime that was committed.

Isolation for young adults is considered to be a human rights violation and mostly results in the abuse of inmates, especially the young inmates. Implementations have been carried out in Rikers to eliminate solitary confinement for young adults, but the implementation has been faced with some challenges. Rushing to implement the end of solitary confinement for young offenders has not been taken well by the corrections staff as some of them have been attacked by the minors. Proper planning is required if the implementation is to succeed. The failure to include all parties in the implementation is not effective, and the corrections staff are being forced to undertake more than they can handle. The board pushing for the implementation has been forced to reconsider its earlier stance and allow corrections officers to be included the planning instead of pushing demands on them like was being done. This will ensure there is buy-in from the staff and in the case of any shortfalls they can be noted and ironed out before full implementation commences. The attacks being faced by correction officers should be mitigated against, and the lack of proper incentives for good behavior could be blamed. Good behavior of the inmates should be rewarded, and programs that push for such will be welcome in the corrections department.