Habitual Violators The author of this report has been asked to select a crime control policy and then use the facts and facets of the policy to answer a few questions. First, there will be a summary of the key elements of the policy. Second, there will be an explanation of the political process for the policy. Third, there will be an examination of the role that the federal government plays when it comes to formulating crime control policy. To get a little more specific about the federal role, there will be an evaluation of how the United States Congress gets involved and influences crime control policy. This is despite the fact that many of the applicable crime control policies in play are decided at the state level. All of this will be looked at through the lens and rubric of who has the most influence and control when it comes to crime control policy. While the current societal and political push is to lessen incarceration rates, the habitual violator policies that exist in many places around the country would seem to have the opposite intention in mind, even if the motivation for the policy is well-intentioned.

Analysis

As indicated by the thesis statement, there is a large focus on bringing down the number of people that are in jails. This is especially true when it comes to ostensibly minor offenses like drug use, theft and other crimes that do not involve violence. However, there are plenty of other people that chortle when people use the term "victimless crime" and they also assert that anyone that makes it their business to commit crime after crime should not be allowed to walk free. These same people are even more emphatic when they speak of offenses that always or often end up hurting people from a physical or monetary standpoint. For example, many drug users are fairly harmless when it comes to physical violence but other drug users get quite manic and volatile when they are high and people that are drunk, which is from a substance that is entirely legal for those over twenty-one years old to consume, can themselves cause their own calamities and victims. Indeed, there are people that are charged with DUI after DUI and there seems to be no end to their drunken driving. This is no small detail given that a drunken driver can absolutely maim or kill someone as such a thing happens every day around the United States (Costa, 2016).

When it comes to people that simply cannot or will not abide by the laws and stop recidivating, this is where habitual violator laws come into play. Indeed, to use the DUI example above, it is very much a public safety issue and everyone can agree on this even if the way to deal with the problem is up for debate. Whether it be that the person does not think they have a problem or their mind is so fried from being intoxicated that they have no semblance of logic or order in their brains, many argue that something has to be done to deal with people that will not prevent themselves from being a danger to themselves or others. Indeed, the only answer that really addresses the problem fully and without fail is making sure they are incarcerated. Indeed, they can get alcohol treatment and so forth, both behind bars or outside of it, but the person in question has proven to be unreliable when it comes to reforming themselves and allowing them to roam free can quite likely lead to that person killing himself or someone else (MADD, 2016).

The political process that leads to habitual violator laws, as is the case with most crime laws, are debated and passed laws at the relevant level of government in question. For example, the state of New York can pass a lot saying that five DUI's means five years in jail, which is much longer than what a normal DUI case (even a felony one) can garner. There are other jurisdictions that say that a third DUI is an automatic felony no matter what while the first two are misdemeanors, presuming no one is injured or killed. When it comes to the federal government's role in these policies, the Obama Administration and others are trying to whittle down the population of jails around the country and habitual violator laws are seen as victimizing some people. For example,...

For example, being caught with marijuana could lead to five to ten years in jail due to the presumption under the law that the person is a detriment to society, at least for now, so long as they are on the streets (White House, 2016).
Even with the above back and forth, Congress and the federal government does do its best to keep laws as similar as possible from state to state. Indeed, one state treating a crime with much more punitive measures as compared to others not consistent. However, it happens all of the time. Illinois and many states in the northeast have very strict gun laws while many other states are much more relaxed by comparison. Indeed, there are some states where concealed carry is allowed for even without a permit. Marijuana is another example of inconsistent laws. Indeed, possession of a small amount of marijuana is a misdemeanor or even a ticket in many corners of the country while it is completely legal for medical purposes (with a prescription) in many states and legal across the board in Washington and Colorado (Brookings, 2014).

It would obviously be nice if there was more congruity and similarity between the states when it comes to crime control policy. However, there are just some things that some states have very entrenched ideas about and the prospect of there being more unity between the different states is just not in the cards. Indeed, marijuana and gun control are two of those things and crime control is another. There can be an argument made that sending people to jail is not the right move a lot of the time. Indeed, one can also argue that jails and prisons are becoming the modern-day version of asylums that are simply warehousing for the undesirables of society. To wit, there are a lot of people in prisons that are drug-addled, mentally ill or both. Throw in what happens when a new inmate is exposed to the violent and depraved atmosphere that is pervasive in many jails, both from the guards and the other inmates, and it is easy to see how people can feel as though jail is where they need to (Persons, 2016).

Even with all of that, both mental illness and drug abuse have strong ties to the idea of repeat offenders and habitual offender laws. One major reason they are inextricably linked is because if a man or woman is not participatory in their reform, the reform just will not happen. If a person is addicted to alcohol and they do not think they have a problem, that person will not get off the alcohol. If a person is mentally ill and they refuse to get therapy or take their medication, they will not become and stay better. The problem with that is that such people are not in their right mind and they are a danger to themselves or others. One's first suggestion might be to send them to a mental institution but they are just taking up a space that someone needs if they are not trying to get and stay better. This, at the end of the day, leaves jail as the only real recourse. Generally speaking, people that make a mistake and commit a crime should indeed get a chance at redemption presuming the crime is not something violent or depraved such as rape, murder or something of that nature. However, there should be limits to the mercy and "chances" extended to someone. There is a fine line between enabling and helping and this is surely one of the main reasons habitual violator laws have become so popular with many people (Glazer, 2014).

Conclusion

There is something to be said for giving someone some slack when they have done their time. If they do their time, come out of jail/prison and have their mind right, those people truly should have a chance to start with a clean slate and this includes their criminal record. However, there are those that game the system and/or simply do not care about doing the right or safe thing. These are the sorts of people that jails were built for and the federal authorities and Congress would be wise to avoid making excuses for people where no good ones exist.

References

Brookings. (2014). Legal Marijuana: Comparing Washington and Colorado. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved 13 June 2016, from…