Cierra Wagner

Criminal Justice 1010

Gary Cox
18 November 2014
Alternatives to Incarceration:
The concept of incarceration has existed since the conception of our country. Crime and
punishment is the key component of our criminal justice system, and the most highly accepted
form of punishment is locking someone behind bars. Prison and jail populations have grown
exponentially to our populating, however in the last century, the rate of incarceration has begun
to rise dramatically faster. In 1925, 119 people per 100,000 were incarcerated. The number
slowly began to rise, and then exploded in the 1980s. By 2006, there were 750 inmates per
100,000 people in America. That number is a 500% increase from the 119 inmates in 1925. In
2008, the number of people in custody in local jails, not just prisons, was added to the mix and
the numbers showed that one out of one hundred adults were behind bars. A man named Tom
Barrett was one of those men in the local jail of Augusta, Georgia. Tom was told he had to pay
twelve dollars a day to wear an ankle monitor, or go to jail for twelve months. Tom could not
afford the ankle monitor; he was hardly able to afford to pay the twenty-five dollars a month for
the subsidized efficiency apartment he lived because of his homelessness. After spending two
months on jail, an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor agreed to help pay for the monitor and Tom
was released. Over that two month period, Georgia State spent around $2,880 on Tom Barrett, it
would have been $800 for Tom to wear the ankle monitor for two months. All of this was over a
two dollar can of beer.

Tom Barrett is not the only example of unnecessary incarceration. Kevin Ott has just
completed his eighteenth year in prison; he only has the rest of his life to go. Kevin was handed
down a sentence of life without parole for the possession of 3.5 oz of methamphetamines and the
possession of a firearm. The police came into the trailer where Kevin lived and searched without
his permission, and this is where they found the methamphetamine and the firearm. He was on
parole at the time for a previous conviction of possession of methamphetamines, and the
possession and manufacturing of marijuana. According to Oklahoma law, the police had a right
to a warrantless search based on Kevins parolee status. Oklahomas repeat drug offender laws
and the fact that Ott had a firearm during the commission of a felony lead to a sentence of life
without the possibility of parole. Kevin Ott was never arrested for using his firearm, or for any
other violent crime. Kevin Ott will be in prison until he dies, he will be offered no treatment
options because of his status, nor any job or education programs that may be offered to inmates
that will be released. Oklahoma State has paid $263,154 on Kevin this far into his sentence, and
he still has years to go. He is being punished for his crippling addiction to drugs, which all began
because he was fired from his job. Being locked up multiple times obviously did not help Kevin,
and he was never a part of an intensive rehab program. This is a case where incarceration could
have been avoided if the state had only decided to use and alternative such as a drug
rehabilitation program for Kevin Ott, instead of just throwing him away.
Toms and Kevins cases showcase the many negative effects of incarceration. The most
apparent flaw of incarceration is the cost. This is what hurts society the most, because the
citizens taxes are what are paying for these inmates to stay behind bars. Do the people of
Oklahoma know that they have spent almost $300,000 on Kevin Ott? If they were aware of this
information would they still agree with his sentence, or fight for him to be released? Utah alone

allots $259,404,866 towards jails and prisons each year, the majority of which goes towards what
is called Programs and Operations (P&O). Programs and Operations encompass the living
costs, transport and education of inmates among other things. 187 million dollars of the P&O
money goes towards feeding the inmates, add that to other basic human needs provided for in the
prison and that makes up for 58% of the P&O budgeted money. Only 6% goes towards what
they call programming. That 6% can equal anywhere from 1-10 million dollars depending on
how much is budgeted for that year. Programming is the classes used to help inmates get their
GEDs, achieve certificates and skill training for jobs outside of prison, therapy, and substance
abuse and sex offender treatment programs. The money also goes toward AP&P funding. AP&P
is the adult parole and probation division of corrections. 24% of the money from P&O funds
goes towards monitoring offenders after their release. None of this funding goes towards any
aftercare treatment, therapy, or job training for the parolee. Cost, however important, is not the
only problem associated with the corrections department. We are also faced with the problem of
the psychological effects that incarceration may have on inmates. Studies have found that people
released from prison have difficulty settling back into life outside because of many factors.
Prison can create a dependency on an institutionalized culture. An inmates life is dictated by
the corrections officers in the prison; they are given a specific schedule that does not change
from day to day. On the outside, it is difficult for a parolee to know how to act or what to do
without being told, and they often times fall back into old habits, and are rearrested for new
crimes. Recidivism is a major issue for the criminal justice system. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics did a study where they tracked 404,638 offenders after their release from prisons in 30
states. After three years of freedom, two-thirds of those being tracked were rearrested for similar
crimes to those they were originally incarcerated for. These numbers alone should make it clear

that incarceration is not doing enough to reduce recidivism and rewire the way criminals think to
keep them from reoffending. Therefore it becomes obvious that we need to begin exploring
options alternative to incarceration.
There have been many proposed alternatives to incarceration, and many states do in fact
employee these alternatives. In my opinion there are three options that need to be seriously
looked at, revised, and heavily funded. The first is rehabilitation programs. These programs need
to include treatment for addiction, cognitive restructuring programs, and continued therapy and
assistance. Secondly, we need to consider more community based corrections. The parole and
probation programs in our state need to be looked at and reorganized. Parolees and people on
probation need to be watched, but also need opportunities to serve the community and reintegrate
or become a more functioning member of society. The first two options focus on changing the
way an offender thinks, and reimagining their life and the role they play in our communities,
however we still need a punishment aspect of the criminal justice system and thats where the
third option comes in. This option would be payment back to the community; this includes
restitution, community service, taking victim impact classes, and serving time in home
confinement as opposed to time in jail. All three of these options are much more cost effective
than simply incarcerating and offender. Also, there are no negative psychological effects on the
people committing non-violent or small time crimes. We can help restructure their thinking
through education, therapy, and teaching and using empathy; all of which will have a more
positive effect than incarceration.
In a report written for the Colorado Department of Public Safety, people who had gone
through alcohol and drug treatment were examined for their criminal activity. It shows that 64%
of people in treatment had sold drugs at least twelve months prior to starting the program, and

only 14% were arrested for selling drugs twelve months after the completing the program. That
is a 50% drop in offenders, which shows us that rehabilitation does in fact work. The report also
shows that the chance of recidivism among offenders who underwent treatment and therapy is
33%, compared to the 58% of offenders who will be rearrested and taken back to prison for a
similar crime. The report written by the RKC group indicates that intensive drug abuse treatment
programs are 25% cheaper than keeping an inmate incarcerated. Rehabilitation is not only more
cost effective, it creates more positive results. If the court were to order rehab programs instead
of jail or prison, the offender would be given the opportunity to learn the error of their ways, beat
their addiction, and receive assistance with learning correct behaviors. Being imprisoned only
does not change the way an offender thinks, or help them beat their addiction; all of their
problems are still out there waiting for them when they are released. Rehabilitation and
education erases their need to fall back into destructive habits, something incarceration cannot
do. There are many options when it comes to rehabilitation, ranging from classes to treatment
and intensive therapy and care. When you commit a crime such as retail theft, you should be
sent to a thinking errors class, where your cognitive organization is unraveled and put back
together so that youre thought processes follow the norms of society more closely. An alcohol
or drug related crime should be viewed as being caused by an addiction, and that addiction
should be treated. Most crimes committed have an underlying reason, whether it is an addiction,
a thinking error, or a skewed set of values. All of these causes can be treated and effectively
changed so the crime is not committed again. All incarceration does is build your frustrations,
keep you locked inside, it does not teach you skills or coping mechanisms that rehabilitation can.
The skills in you acquire during a rehabilitation program or education class is what will keep you
from committing another crime, something that being behind bars cannot do for you.

Community corrections are something that courts use quite often. Parole and probation
are both programs in which the offender has the chance to be out in society while being observed
by the courts. Probation officers meet with clients often and discuss the steps they are taking to
stay out of trouble and create a better life for themselves. Drug and alcohol testing is also a large
part of parole and probation. If addiction is what got these people into trouble in the first place,
we need to make sure that they are being observed and tested constantly so they do not get
involved in the drugs that got them into trouble in the first place. In my opinion, the people on
probation and parole need to be given the option to engage in work programs and education
programs suggested by the state. Instead of going to jail, a nonviolent offender could be given
the option to go on 12 months of supervised probation, but they also must attend an educational
course or show that they are working a steady job. For example, for $700 someone could go to
EMT school, become certified, and obtain a job in 12 months. A probation officer should give
them assistance in finding programs like this, and help them find jobs or join volunteer groups.
The point of community corrections should not just be to shove and offender back into society
and see how they do, we need to give them opportunities to succeed and improve.
I sit in a court everyday for work and something I hear the judge say quite often is Im
sorry, but I have to make it hurt a little bit. I think he is absolutely right, if someone commits a
crime, and wrongs society, they do deserve to punish. We can let someone off the hook because
it was their first offense or because it wasnt violent. For these lesser crimes, I believe we should
impose things such as community service, paying restitution and fines, and victim impact
classes. When a crime is committed, something is taken away from society and it is the
offenders responsibility to give back. Community service should be harsh enough to get the
message across and still do something to help the community. Community service does not

mean mowing your neighbors lawn every other weekend, it means being a part of an approved
nonprofit organization such as the food bank or homeless shelter that gives back to society as a
whole. The offender also needs to give back the individual victim of a crime, and therefore must
pay restitution if their crimes damaged the victims life in any way. Victim impact classes are a
great deterrent from future crimes Mothers against Drunk Driving puts on a victim impact panel
twice a month that some courts require dui offenders to attend. During the panel, victims and
family members talk about how a drunk driver impacted their life. It is a very in your face
punishment, and is very effective in deterring future offenses. Victim impact classes should be
put on for more than just dui crimes. Thefts, domestic violence, drug crimes all involve victims
and family members who have seen firsthand how these crimes affect lives. By making people
attend these panels, we are giving them a slap in the face and opening their eyes to empathy. All
of these punishments are painful for the offender and they give back to society, something that
being locked up in jail cannot do.
Kevin Ott will spend the rest of his life in prison because of an ongoing addiction to a
drug we have deemed to be illegal. He was arrested four times before for drug related offenses
and yet he never received any help for his sickness, instead we took his life away. Does Kevin
deserve to spend his life in prison? Do the people of Oklahoma deserve to have their taxes go
towards maintaining Kevins life behind bars? The answer is no. Kevin should be given the
opportunity to go through rehabilitation, experience community corrections programs, and have
the chance to pay society back for the wrongs we accuse him of committing. All of these things
are alternatives to his incarceration, and yet we just throw his life away and allow his potential as
a functioning citizen to rot. What right do we have to take Kevins life away before weve even
given him the chance to fix himself and apologize through action? This is something that will

continue to happen within our corrections system unless we choose to begin exploring different
options when it comes to sentencing an offender. Our prisons are too crowded, and we do no t
have the space and money to support them all. It ism imperative that we begin to look for
alternative solutions to incarceration before our system fails any more people.

Works Cited
ACLU. "Combating Mass Incarceration." Http://www.acluga.org/. ACLU, 2013. Web. Nov. 2014.
ACLU. "A LIVING DEATH Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses." ACLU, 2013. Web. Nov.
2014.
Gostin, Lawrence O. Todays Prisoners. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 18 July 0000. Web. 19
Nov. 2014.
Haney, Craig. "The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison
Adjustment." The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison
Adjustment. University of California, 2001. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
Lee, Nella. Recidivism: An Analysis of Adult Felons. Olympia: State of Washington Sentencing
Guidelines Commission, 2001. Print.
Legislatur Auditor General. "An In-depth Budget Review of the Utah Department of
Corrections." Audit Subcommittee of the Legislative Management Committee (2013): n. pag.
Web.
"Louisiana Department of Corrections." Statistics Briefing Book. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
Metcalf, Hope, and Sia Sanneh. "Uncoupling Pipelines to Prison." Overcriminalization and Excessive
Punishment: (2014): n. pag. Http://www.law.yale.edu/. Yale Law Review, July 2012. Web. Nov.
2014.
"OTT v. STATE." Findlaw. N.p., 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
"Pay for What Works." Scientific American 298.2 (2008): 32. Http://www.colorado.gov/. RKC, 2014.
Web. Nov. 2014.
"Why Recidivism Is a Core Criminal Justice Concern." National Institute of Justice. N.p., 2014. Web.
21 Nov. 2014.