Alex Higham
12.15.11
2B
Argument
Victimless Crimes and Their Offenders
It is society’s best answer to the problem, and it all comes down to the cliché idea of “out of sight, out of mind”. Offenders of the law that result in non-violent “victimless” crimes are being punished just as severely as their opposites. These offenders are not the people shown on the news with the heading, finally behind bars, plastered under their picture that is displayed across the television screen; no these are coworkers, neighbors, family, and friends. These are the people society would least expect to be imprisoned. Our penal system is out of focus and it’s time to take a closer look at our policies toward non-violent offenders.
First off, a crime is not a crime until there is a victim at hand. The term “victimless” crime refers to the aspect in which there is no apparent victim, pain, or injury. (Legal-Dictionary). So the question at hand is: Should prison sentences for non-violent "victimless" crimes be commuted to community service or alternative methods of punishment instead of strict prison sentences?
The line isn’t very clear in ruling when the penal system puts non-violent “victimless” offenders into the mix of imprisonment and punishing. Community service should be a factor when considering punishment by judges with a non-violent offender. Locking up a non-violent person with hundreds of violent people is bound to make the non-violent, violent. Some studies, like those conducted by Jesse Shapiro and Keith Chen, have found that criminals are more violent when they are released from prison, then when they first arrived. (Is Locking ‘em Up the Answer?). This is to be expected when a person is exposed to all the violence and harassment within prison walls. Rehabilitating an ex-con back into society is a hard task. Most ex-cons face the hardships of having no money, very little education beyond what the entered prison with, no place to live, no job and few friends or family to help them along the way of rehabilitation. Once a person has a record finding a job becomes a difficult task. Employers would prefer not to hire an ex-con and other positions are simply not available. Also, when incarcerated, personal relationships become damaged and the key people that would help greatly in rehabilitating the ex-con are lost. So, instead of incarcerating every individual that commits a crime, violent or non-violent alike, and trying to rehabilitate them afterwards, the penal system should allow community service before packing prisons full of non-violent criminals. Community service isn’t proven to work in the rehabilitation of all criminals. But, taking into consideration the offenders past history and insufficient record, community service is bound to work. Allies of incarceration would disagree with the previous statement. Society is very good at labeling people into groups. If a person is in jail it has to mean that they are violent and horrendous in their ways. But society doesn’t see the other side until they are somehow affected by crime and punishment by the penal system.
As more and more offenders are being dumped into the prison system, states are facing another marketing reality: Imprisonment is a costly business. Any type of punishment is going to cost large amounts of money, but probation is a more cost effective alternative to imprisonment. Some will argue that keeping these people locked away is worth all the spending, but it costs an average of $78.95 each day to keep a criminal behind bars. (Credit Loan). In reality, it is the tax payers of the United States that are paying higher taxes to keep these criminals in prison. On the contrary many argue that prisoners locked up are offsetting these costs by working while in prison. But, only about eighty percent of inmates work while in prison. Society still has to pay for the other twenty percent of inmates who refuse to work while in prison. A better, more cost effective alternative is putting non-violent criminals on a probationary period. Putting a criminal on probation costs an average of $3.42 a day. (Credit Loan). The difference between these two costs is staggering. $75.53 could be saved a day, which could be better spent; lets say on college education. As recently shown, California and Florida now spend more to incarcerate people than to educate their college age populations. Don’t you think something is terribly wrong with that statistic?
Non-violent crimes come in an array of different scenarios involving different types of people. A judge shouldn’t condemn every individual to prison on the cause of a mandatory minimum sentence law. Another alternative punishment should be living in a supportive half-way house with other prisoners who committed the same type of crime. Studies have shown that locking up every person who commits a crime isn’t helping lower non-violent victimless crimes. Blumstein offers one possible explanation for the disparity, pointing out the supply-and-demand aspect of certain types of criminal behavior. "There's not a market for rape, so if you take a rapist off the street, the niche is not filled," he explains. Drug crimes, which are seen as non-violent victimless crimes, are another story. "One of the strange ironies in the growth in incarceration is that we've been locking people away for drug offenses. Drug-dealing is a "demand-driven market," he explains. This means that imprisoned dealers are simply being replaced by other individuals willing to deal to make a buck. As a result, the War on Drugs is not only packing prisons with drug offenders, it is also generating a market for even more dealers out on the streets.” (Is Locking ‘em Up the Answer?). As Blumstein’s explanation states non-violent crime rates aren’t going down because they are a supply-and-demand driven market; and throwing people into jail right and left isn’t going to fix that. Also, studies have shown prisoners are more sensitive to changes in certainty than severity. One provocative study involving prisoners and college students came down on the side of certainty. When tested, both groups responded in virtually identical terms. However, in their decision-making, prisoners were much more sensitive to changes in certainty than in severity of punishment. In terms of real-world application, the authors of the study speculate that long prison terms are likely to be more impressive to lawmakers than lawbreakers. Supporting evidence for this viewpoint comes from a National Academy of Sciences panel which claimed that a fifty percent increase in the probability of incarceration prevents about twice as much violent crime as a fifty percent increase in the average term of incarceration. (A Get Tough Policy that Failed). After looking at this research it is obvious that our policies need an array of different types of punishment for non-violent offenders. Half-way houses are a prime example. An ex-con is usually sent to a half-way house after spending time in prison to help the individual learn the ways of society again. Well, why isn’t our penal system sending these offenders to half-way houses in the first place? Half-way houses can be a place where a criminal gets help from professionals, family, friends, and other criminals. Support is really all that most non-violent offenders need to get back to society’s view of a respectable life. Allies of incarceration would disagree. Society would guess that incarcerating people for crimes has to lower crime rates and half-way houses help breed crime. But most of society doesn’t see the revolving use of people that are involved in crimes every day. This is because the criminals aren’t getting the support they need from everyone around them. After an individual has been sent to prison it is most likely to late to help them.
If one of the central purposes of criminal law is to help protect society from crime, the split impact of incarceration on different types of crimes suggests that our current penal system is out of focus. While evidence indicates that incarceration may help reduce violent crimes, no such evidence exists regarding non-violent “victimless” crimes. At the very least, this suggests it's time to take a closer look at our policies towards non-violent offenders.
Works Cited Page
Fischer, Karin. "Is Locking 'em Up the Answer?." Washington Monthly. Jan./Feb. 1998: 32-34. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Nov 2011.
Cloud, John. "AGet Tough Policy That Failed." Time Magazine World. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2011. <
R, Adam. "Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate." Adam's View. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2011. <
Farlex. "Victimless Crimes." The Free Dictionary. Web. 4 Dec 2011. < Crimes>.
. "How Much Does it Cost To Keep A Criminal." Credit Loan. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2011. <