David N As our speaker Bill Burks pointed out, nonviolent drug abuse offenders, especially those who belong to minorities or are impoverished, are being thrown into prison with over-the-top penalties. As each year passes, hundreds of individuals are either caught with drugs or arrested while intoxicated with them. However, rather than addressing the issue as to why the individuals began using drugs, the federal and state governments allow jail time to pass as treatment for individuals with already decaying self-image. Beyond the issue that potentially harmless citizens that have drug offenses are being hauled to jail, the arrests and penalties are typically decided by race or socioeconomic status, further separating the wealthy from the rest of society. Clearly, the law does not equally protect its citizens, and that is a major social problem. Conflict theorists would have a field day using our justice system to portray the unequal treatment of the proletariats by the bourgeoisie-paid law enforcement and attorneys. In our pop culture society, the bourgeoisie, especially owners of entertainment corporations, help decide the flow of our culture, placing the control of the next generation's priorities in their own hands. Also, many bourgeoisie corporations profit from the privatization of mental health and drug rehabilitation facilities, disabling many individuals, even from the middle class, from acquiring treatment for their problems. As a fellow citizen of the United States born from a white woman and a Filipino man who are both not "well off," I find ethnic and socioeconomic targeting to be an abomination to our justice system. The purpose of the court is to provide each individual with equal due process of the law. However, when the reasoning behind harsh sentences for nonviolent crimes and the inability to afford decent defense attorneys are factored in, justice in America is not equal. The most logical method of treating individuals with substance abuse is screening their mental health by a federally funded professionals, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, and determining the appropriate treatment, whether it be the psychiatric ward of a county hospital or penalizing an individual with court-mandated counseling. Regardless, properly identifying and addressing the offense of nonviolent substance abuse requires that all individuals be treated equally as stipulated by our justice system.
The problem discussed in this news story is about how there may be a new process for nonviolent drug offenders to be released from prison early. The clemency process is a way that non-violent drug addicts can be released early from prison because of good behavior and if they are not associated with any gangs. Many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer. This becomes a social problem when there are too many people in the prisons and the dangerous criminals are put into less secure facilities. There is limited space and when it becomes full the more dangerous criminals are overlooked and put into places like county jails instead of in a secure prison. It is a proven fact that the prisons are overcrowded and that there are many people who should be in prison who are released because of this overcrowding. Some of this problem could be solved if drug abusers were not put into prison but instead put into a rehabilitation program, however since this is not a popular option with the public, it will most likely not be put into place. Another option to take care of this problem is putting the drug abusers into the lower security prisons and have only the dangerous criminals in the high security prisons. Even though this clemency process is one step in the correct direction, it is not all that can be done to solve these problems. Conflict theorists would not agree with this method of punishment because it is a perfect example of the differences in our society and shows how the some parts of it have power over the poor and the minorities and they abuse this power. To a conflict theorist the best way to solve this problem would be to put non-violent drug abusers in the same kind of programs that alcoholics are put in and not to put them in prison.
It’s no secret that drug charges can be very serious and detrimental. Is the law going too far in their sentencing against drug offenders? This blog states yes, sentences are too harsh for non-violent, non-gang affiliated drug offenders, and I would agree. The news story explains non-violent drug offenders have a possibility of early release. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn’t have such harsh penalties and instead of just sentencing them to many years in prison we should be focused on why they are using drugs in the first place and what can we do as a society to help. Rather than forcing them into prison with murderers, rapists, and gang members we should compel drug offenders to receive treatments such as rehab, instead of just giving them a sentence to serve time. A functionalist would say inmates or prisoners can serve a function because it gives many people jobs such as prison guards, judges, police officers, and lawyers. I would argue that jails and prisons are already over-crowded and if we didn’t have such harsh penalties for non-violent drug offenders than there would be more space for people who actually deserve to be in prison which is a dysfunction. Also, as taxpayers the more people in federal or state prisons means more of our taxpayer dollars going to prisons. Instead of wasting so much of our tax dollars on non-violent drug offenders that don’t need to be in prison in the first place, we can be putting it towards their mental health and different ways to help them fix this drug problem instead of just covering it up with prison. I commented on this specific topic because I believe it is a serious problem this country is facing. Do these people really need to spend many years of their life in prisons with actual criminals? Also, if they have a drug problem its not like they cant get drugs inside prison walls so is the system really helping them or hurting them?
Peter P The article discussed the possibility of a new policy that will give non-violent offenders in federal prison an early release from their harsh punishments if they have not had a previous violent history. There are too many non-violent drug abuse users that are given too long of a punishments for their low-level crimes. This is why the Obama administration is pushing for this policy, so that these offenders could possibly be given an early release if they haven't been convicted for violent crimes in the past or associated with gangs. Many minorities are convicted for drug-related crimes, and often enough they don't have the money to opt out to get treatment. This leads them being put into custody. From a conflict-theorist's point of a view, those in the upper class can easily pay to get treatment as their punishment, instead of serving hard time like the minorities and the poor that can't. This is a social problem because minorities face an inequality where those born upper-class(bourgeoisie) have more opportunities to avoid such problems. Also, due to racial-profiling, minorities are arrested more often, whereas white people aren't pulled over as much. Drug abuse is a serious problem, but there are too many individuals who are convicted for drug busts, when there are more serious issues to look out for. Should someone really be thrown into jail for making a mistake? In my opinion they shouldn't be punished, but rather getting help and possibly the treatment they need. Which brings back to the fact that they possibly may not have the resources to get better. Possibly the stress of everyday life and hardships they faced led them to their drug use in the first place. If someone's never had a history of committing serious crimes, they shouldn't be punished for making a mistake, but rather be helped. This is an issue I chose, because my sister used to be involved in the wrong crowd, and has abused drugs before. Thankfully she has never been arrested, but has had many friends who has been. Not wanting to live like that anymore, she decided to eat healthy and start exercising has been clean for 2 years now. If she had been convicted for her drug use in the past, she possibly would have never better herself and change for the better. I think people should be given a second chance depending on their circumstances. The jails are over packed with so many people who have been convicted for drugs, where they are dangerous and violent people out there that should be locked up.
The social problem in this article is that nonviolent drug offenders are being held in federal custody for far too long. As the article states, the reason why this is a problem is because these individuals are harmless to others, so they should be released early. They should also be given other options to help them get off drugs. Keeping these inmates locked up is not necessary since they aren’t a threat to the public. Therefore, the Obama Administration is looking into having nonviolent offenders apply for early release. The people with clean records will be eligible to be released early, which I believe is a good idea. Those who are abusing drugs are in need of help; locking them up is not helping them. They have a problem that led to their addiction. As long as they are not harming the public, they should be released early to get the assistance they need to recover. An interactionist would agree that every nonviolent drug offender needs individual help to successfully eliminate drugs for his/her life. Each individual’s story needs to be heard and just because they are all drug offenders that does not mean that they should all be behind bars. Keeping them under federal custody is not going to solve this issue, but instead it’s going to keep innocent sufferers of drug abuse from getting the help they need. I also look at this social perspective through an interactionist’s perspective. I believe giving each nonviolent drug offender a chance to share his or her story and giving each individual a set of options to recover is going to be the best way to solve this problem. I have a person really close to me that is in a constant fight with drugs; therefore, I found this article interesting. I would never want him locked up because he is a good person stuck in a miserable situation. He is in a battle with his addiction and himself every single day and has no intention of harming others. I do not understand why a person like him would have to be held in federal custody. People like him need support from loved ones to win this battle against drugs.
Jonna H. The social problem that's being discussed here is the fact that nonviolent drug offenders are doing massive amounts of time in prison because of laws that were passed in the crackdown on substance abuse in the 1980's. However, the Obama administration is pushing for these sentences to be reduced. This issue is a social problem because it has become a public issue--it affects over 200,000 incarcerated individuals in our society. While Democrats and Republicans have tried to come to an agreement and justifiable sentences for drug offenders, no real solution has yet been found. These lengthy sentences keep those individuals who have committed acts of deviance away from the rest of norm-conforming society, with the goal of (hopefully) preventing more people from committing criminalized deviant acts. In addition, Obama is pushing to speed up the clemency process (although he formerly had the worst pardoning track record of any president) because he realizes that these harsh sentences disproportionately affect the minority members of society, and that's unfair. Despite the fact that government officials are beginning to talk about implementing change to the criminal justice system doesn't mean that any changes will actually be implemented. The article pointed out that if the pardon attorney's office is already swamped as it is, it won't be able to handle the impending flood of appeals about to head its way in a timely manner. A conflict theorist would look at this issue in terms of leaders attempting to maintain their power and social status. For example, they would probably agree with the idea that Obama is pushing this issue in order to make the Democrats seem more appealing to voters in the next election. And since the pardon attorney's office is incapable of handling appeals as it is, it is altogether likely that it will take years for pardons to be granted--so politicians look like they're making positive change without actually having to do so. A conflict theorist would also criticize the laws passed in the 1980's as alienating the minority ethnicities in society. A conflict theorist would argue that the only way to actually make substantial change to the criminal justice system would be to have offenders and advocates group up and protest (which will almost definitely never happen on a large enough scale to force leaders to act). I chose to comment on this topic because I think this is an unfair system.
Jonna H. (part 2!! For some reason it wouldn't let me post the whole thing, sorry!)
In my opinion, I think that people whose crimes hurt other people (like murderers, sex offenders, and so on) should do MUCH longer sentences than people whose only crime is substance abuse (which really hurts themselves mostly, rather than other people). I also think that the criminal justice system doesn't see addiction as it really is: a disease. They are understanding about other diseases like mental health problems, but a drug addict is treated as a normal person, without regard for the impact his disease has on his mind, body, and judgment. I think that's very unfair. I also think that many drug addicts are unable to hire their own lawyers, and public defenders don't always make the strongest case for them since they've got so many cases on their plate. I think the way to solve this problem is to continue supporting policies like Prop 36, which allow drug offenders to go to rehab programs instead of being incarcerated. That way, they can get the help they need while still living a normal, healthy life. Too many times, people who are incarcerated for years for drug use get out, and since they've lost so much time in the world, their only connections are to other drug users and dealers, making it almost impossible for them to get a new lifestyle. I also think that legislation should be passed that makes the system more sympathetic to individuals who relapse. How many of us have tried to quit a bad habit and couldn't? I think that by having a more compassionate justice system with fairer laws and sentence times, our society will save both taxpayer's dollars and inmates' time.
I agree completely with Danielle. Locking up nonviolent drug offenders does not benefit anyone. This only forces them to be in a environment where their habit is wide spread and the chances of recovery or rehabilitation is minimum at best. These nonviolent offenders are also grouped with some of societies worst criminals and are forced to become one of them to survive. For the tax payer this creates a nightmare where substantial amounts of their tax dollars go to keep people in prison who don't belong there. I chose to comment on Danielle's post because it was a very candid post. I also support the early release program for nonviolent drug offenders. Keeping them in prison does nothing for society. It only hurts us on the long run. Like Danielle said we need to look at the foundation of the problem instead of punishing those affected by it. A conflict theorist would look to the inequalities brought on by the capitalist system as the root of this problem. The proportion of whites and minorities involved with drugs is the same however minorities are overrepresented in prisons for drug related charges. This shows that nonviolent drug offenders aren't in prison only because their involvement with drugs but also because of their race and socioeconomic status. The reason for so many nonviolent drug offenders who are in prison today is because of the war on drugs. A failed policy in the eyes of conflict theorists that was created to oppress minorities rather than combat the rise of drugs. These people who are in prison right now were put their because their habit threatened the social structure created by the white majority not because they are dangerous or harmful to anyone. I think Danielle's solution is fantastic and completely plausible. Instead of dumping our money in a pit that is the prison system we should instead use that towards their mental health. We should be looking at permanent fixes instead of temporary solutions. Putting these nonviolent drug offenders in prison is just that a band aid on a gunshot wound. Another solution would be to instead of forcing theses people into prisons we force them into rehabilitation programs. If the problem is so wide spread why not create another agency who focuses on just the nonviolent drug offenders. This agency would be a rehabilitation center with a bit more restrictions. We can even use the money that was going towards keeping them in prison to fun this. I am aware that this might cost a bit more but if the problem is so wide reaching and dire then we must do all we can.
After reading some of the responses on the topic of punishing drug abusers, I have to agree with Anahit’s opinion. As she explains, the length and extent of incarcerations are excessive for some of the offenders, whose crimes may not be half as dangerous or disruptive to society as those who commit more violent crimes. This is what I thought was interesting and consistent with my own opinion. These people are treated as harshly as they should be if they were to commit assaults and murders; yet, those who actually do perpetrate such crimes are either offered plea bargains, released on probation and parole, or sent to county jails due to overcrowding in prisons. In addition, I also agree with Anahit on the fact that some disadvantaged defendants are underrepresented and don’t have the resources to free themselves; even president Barack Obama in accordance with the news article believes that this is a matter of civil rights and public safety, considering many of these so-called criminals are not a danger to society. It is a fact that the issue of substance abuse is problematic because of its detrimental consequences such as mental illnesses, suicides, and yes even violence; on the contrary, the biggest mistake society makes is putting all drug users under a single category, labeling them “abusers”. Still, regardless of the fact that their cases should be approached individually, their unjust incarceration is not a personal issue but a social one. It promotes racial and ethnic discrimination, creates loopholes in the justice system, and threatens the family institution by tearing apart loved ones and causing distress, leading to further societal disruptions. While I do agree with Anahit and many of my classmates as they apply the conflict perspective to this issue, highlighting the power struggles between the minorities and affluent people, I personally believe that the interactionist standpoint best describes the problem. These theorists would argue that substance users should be assisted individually, and practitioners both in the fields of law and social services should design solutions that best fit each client’s needs. Interactionists are the proponents of the labeling theory, which as discussed earlier states that our society basically brands individuals. This means that despite the functionalists’ belief that deviant behaviors set a standard for distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable behavior, interactionists state that it sets a standard for individuals to act the label they are given, which becomes their identity. Therefore, attaching names such as “abusers” and “offenders” to nonviolent drug users and sentencing them to decades in prison will not only fail to solve the issue of substance abuse, it will amplify it.
The news article is mainly about proposing a solution to the issue of harsh punishments imposed on drug users, and the process mentioned offers a way out to the incarcerated offenders who have clean criminal records, meaning they don’t have a history of violence or associations with gangs. The clemency process suggests applying for pardons to be released from prisons. As Anahit mentioned, this process is only the first step toward resolving this issue. It is true that it would terminate unnecessary confinements; still, it won’t provide them with the help they need to end the problem they were arrested for in the first place. To solve this issue, Anahit proposed that what these individuals need is rehabilitation programs and not imprisonment. I completely agree with her suggestion, but while this is a practical solution and will likely create more jobs for our economy, there will always be the issue of these drug users refusing to be helped. Some most likely ended up in prison because of this same reason, and especially after being labeled criminals, even though their charges may be dismissed, they are more likely to continue their “deviant” behavior, and we can’t stop them. Thus, I think that we need to alter our justice system by repealing the legislations that classify certain drugs such as marijuana as schedule I and apply harsh penalties for their use. These laws only result in overcrowded prisons and fail to solve the real problem. Instead, we can use the money and resources to create those rehabilitation programs and with them a few educational courses.
I agree with Nairia. The sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders should be shortened. People who are non violent shouldn’t be locked up away from society for long periods of time. This wastes tax dollars that could be spent on more pressing matters. It also groups them with violent offenders and makes the m adapt to their environment, potentially making the problem worse. I agree that the early release program is a great solution for people with nonviolent offenses. Leaving these people in prison benefits no one.
An Interactionist would look at how democrats and republicans are trying to resolve this problem. They have trouble agreeing and passing these laws. They need better communication if we wish to be able to change our laws so as to fix these problems. The solution to this problem wont be by punishing people who abuse drugs, but by finding a better solution for helping them. Personally I think if someone does drugs and doesn’t hurt anyone because of it, I see no problem. If people can abuse alcohol and tobacco and destroy their body because of it, why shouldn’t they be able to with other substances. The point is, if a criminal is non violent and is convicted because of drug possession, the sentence they should face should be minimal. These sentences have been proven to be harsher for minorities and is contributing to the inequality among our society today. We need to fine tune our justice system in the hopes to create a more equal and democratic place to live.
Tayler B. In response I agree with what my fellow student Nairia A. We agree that people charged with drug offenses should have a shorter sentencing. The part about how all drug cases are different and shouldn't be sentenced the same way stood out to me. I chose to respond to this post because I felt that it is unfair for those who get a sentence of years and years for just having possession of drugs or under the influence. My colleague wrote about this issue with the perspective of the interactionalists. In the perspective of the conflict theorists they would say that the reason that the sentencing is unfair is because of the correctional system. they would argue that the people arent the one's who are the problem. they would say that because those people arent causing problems in the society other than drugs they arent threats. I believe that her solution is good because then people would be able to have their cases re-evaluated and possibly get released early.
Kristina S. In response to Peter P., I definitely agree with him about how socioeconomic factors define the justice system and how racial profiling is a problem in our society. This social problem sheds light on how many non-violent individuals are convicted and the them having to face the harsh burden of unfair sentences. This is a major problem because it ultimately creates a chain reaction of negative effects on our society. While more low socioeconomic citizens are incarcerated, more of our tax money is spent on these individuals being under custody when in fact they should be getting the proper guidance in the form of rehab and education. If they got the proper education and medical assistance, they would more likely be able to get clean and in turn contribute to the society. I chose Peter's entry because it stood out to me when he shared with us a personal experience about his sister. She was a prime example of a non-violent individual with a drug problem that just needed some guidance to the right path. A functionalist would point out that incarcerating these citizens provides an overall function to society by creating jobs for prison guards, judges, and cops. I agree with Peter that these individuals in prison convicted for drugs should be treated in a rehab facility to give them a second chance to get better. It is a realistic solution if there are ways to pay for this service and have some way of guarantee that these individuals will not resort to violent crimes or continue their drug use. I believe a solution is to gear our taxes towards education programs and rehab facilities that provide mental and physical guidance to recovery. Our taxes could be utilized for that cause rather than for the incarceration of convicts because paying for a inmates are quite expensive.
In response to Anahit G. I completely agree with Anahit's opinion as it is a huge social problem many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer.I've noticed that social inequality plays a role. The wealthy often gets to go to rehab while the middle class gets a year in prison for possession. It's not fair that the law selectively decides who gets to go to rehab for not, and everyone should get a fair shake. According to conflict perspective it would not agree with this subject at all as it has a social inequality. That is not fair for poor people to go to jail whereas wealthy people can be in freedom. The law should be equal for every one and it should work for every other person.the best solution for this problem is that there should not be any discrimination between wealthy and poor people. The law should work for every one.If a person is rich it should not mean that they can easily escae from the prison.
Siranush M. In response to Anahit G. I completely agree with Anahit's opinion as it is a huge social problem many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer.I've noticed that social inequality plays a role. The wealthy often gets to go to rehab while the middle class gets a year in prison for possession. It's not fair that the law selectively decides who gets to go to rehab for not, and everyone should get a fair shake. According to conflict perspective it would not agree with this subject at all as it has a social inequality. That is not fair for poor people to go to jail whereas wealthy people can be in freedom. The law should be equal for every one and it should work for every other person.the best solution for this problem is that there should not be any discrimination between wealthy and poor people. The law should work for every one.If a person is rich it should not mean that they can easily escae from the prison.
Davy P. I agree with Danielle L. in his response to Crime and Substance Abuse, that non-violent drug offenders are being sentence for too long. Instead of focusing on helping these people, they are being held with other criminals in prison that might influence their thoughts to be something more than drug addicts. I like how Danielle thought of a way to prevent more of these crimes, by stating that the society should investigate more on how they became drug abusers, rather than sentencing them. It’s hard to say, when these drug-offenders are released from prison, what are the chances that they might use drugs again or maybe get worse? Thus, I chose to comment on his response because he understood Obama’s administration’s goals, of giving an early release to non-violent drug offenders and focusing on what should be done. I think this is considered a social problem because there is a reason why they became drug offenders, there are too many minority defendants in prison, especially the ones that don’t pose a threat to public safety. It is really unfair for those people that have worse background with worse criminal activities in the past to deduct their sentencing just because they have power. How they determine their sentence should be fair and based on what they have done, not because of what they have. Conflict theorists would say that it would be very biased if these non-violent drug abusers are being sentence in prison longer than the violent drug abusers. Having more power doesn’t give the right to be treated better, it only shows inequality. Danielle’s solution to this issue is to focus on treating the non-violent drug abusers and investigate on what motivated them to use drugs to prevent them and others in the future. I believe that this solution is possible. However, they are still responsible for their own actions, they made the decision, and thus they have to face the consequence. I think the solution to this system is by providing equal treatment, despite their racial or ethnic group, socioeconomic status, or gender, the system should only view their crime activities. Also, by reducing their sentence, the tax money will discontinue on funding the prison, and this is where Danielle’s solution comes in, by funding them with professional treatment and investigating how it started. This solution can reduce discrimination towards minority defendants and perhaps bring down the percentage of drug abusers.
Alex M The discussed problem is our federal prison system being filled with individuals who are their for non violent drug offenses. This specific part being discussed is really a product of the lack of foresight our federal government had when they passed ridiculous prohibitions on drug possession. This proposal has been long overdue and really is just reactive thinking, the same type of thinking that got us to where we are at today. The issue that our drug laws have over crowded our prisons which has been a major expense, Not to mention the disservice we are doing to the victims of these laws by taking money that could treat their problem and make them into productive members of society and instead imprisoning them.
I will be conducting a functionalist analysis of this issue. The manifest function is really just giving the rest of the population an example to make them fearful and unwilling to break laws (even if they are unjust laws) There are many latent functions of this system, those being; The production of jobs in the corrections system and every supporting business such as toilet paper or tooth paste. ALL OF THESE COMPANY'S BENEFIT FROM THIS EXCESSIVE UNJUST AND WASTEFULL GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING. So now because of a Draconian set of laws passed we are "between a rock and a hard place" the last 50 years have been spent building these businesses and if we were to truly address the issue many of these companies would go out of business and unemployment is a whole nother basket of fun.
I chose this topic because its something that I am extremely against, and it may be ironic but I feel that President Obama's plans are WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE, But I am happy about the direction in which the government is moving. I was also annoyed by the whole Republican blame crap going on. Any Physically conservative American can see that this is a huge waste of tax dollars and it has. I honestly think if both sides stopped blaming each other or making it about each other we might actually get this moving faster. I will not be voting for either of the two parties this coming election unless they make some big changes, And that's why I chose this topic, because I have a lot to say about it.
Oh an physical conservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. So to reiterate OBAMA is being very socially conservative and very physically liberal, and that combination makes no one happy.
17 comments:
David N
As our speaker Bill Burks pointed out, nonviolent drug abuse offenders, especially those who belong to minorities or are impoverished, are being thrown into prison with over-the-top penalties. As each year passes, hundreds of individuals are either caught with drugs or arrested while intoxicated with them. However, rather than addressing the issue as to why the individuals began using drugs, the federal and state governments allow jail time to pass as treatment for individuals with already decaying self-image. Beyond the issue that potentially harmless citizens that have drug offenses are being hauled to jail, the arrests and penalties are typically decided by race or socioeconomic status, further separating the wealthy from the rest of society. Clearly, the law does not equally protect its citizens, and that is a major social problem.
Conflict theorists would have a field day using our justice system to portray the unequal treatment of the proletariats by the bourgeoisie-paid law enforcement and attorneys. In our pop culture society, the bourgeoisie, especially owners of entertainment corporations, help decide the flow of our culture, placing the control of the next generation's priorities in their own hands. Also, many bourgeoisie corporations profit from the privatization of mental health and drug rehabilitation facilities, disabling many individuals, even from the middle class, from acquiring treatment for their problems.
As a fellow citizen of the United States born from a white woman and a Filipino man who are both not "well off," I find ethnic and socioeconomic targeting to be an abomination to our justice system. The purpose of the court is to provide each individual with equal due process of the law. However, when the reasoning behind harsh sentences for nonviolent crimes and the inability to afford decent defense attorneys are factored in, justice in America is not equal. The most logical method of treating individuals with substance abuse is screening their mental health by a federally funded professionals, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, and determining the appropriate treatment, whether it be the psychiatric ward of a county hospital or penalizing an individual with court-mandated counseling. Regardless, properly identifying and addressing the offense of nonviolent substance abuse requires that all individuals be treated equally as stipulated by our justice system.
The problem discussed in this news story is about how there may be a new process for nonviolent drug offenders to be released from prison early. The clemency process is a way that non-violent drug addicts can be released early from prison because of good behavior and if they are not associated with any gangs. Many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer. This becomes a social problem when there are too many people in the prisons and the dangerous criminals are put into less secure facilities. There is limited space and when it becomes full the more dangerous criminals are overlooked and put into places like county jails instead of in a secure prison. It is a proven fact that the prisons are overcrowded and that there are many people who should be in prison who are released because of this overcrowding. Some of this problem could be solved if drug abusers were not put into prison but instead put into a rehabilitation program, however since this is not a popular option with the public, it will most likely not be put into place. Another option to take care of this problem is putting the drug abusers into the lower security prisons and have only the dangerous criminals in the high security prisons. Even though this clemency process is one step in the correct direction, it is not all that can be done to solve these problems.
Conflict theorists would not agree with this method of punishment because it is a perfect example of the differences in our society and shows how the some parts of it have power over the poor and the minorities and they abuse this power. To a conflict theorist the best way to solve this problem would be to put non-violent drug abusers in the same kind of programs that alcoholics are put in and not to put them in prison.
Danielle L.
It’s no secret that drug charges can be very serious and detrimental. Is the law going too far in their sentencing against drug offenders? This blog states yes, sentences are too harsh for non-violent, non-gang affiliated drug offenders, and I would agree. The news story explains non-violent drug offenders have a possibility of early release. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn’t have such harsh penalties and instead of just sentencing them to many years in prison we should be focused on why they are using drugs in the first place and what can we do as a society to help. Rather than forcing them into prison with murderers, rapists, and gang members we should compel drug offenders to receive treatments such as rehab, instead of just giving them a sentence to serve time. A functionalist would say inmates or prisoners can serve a function because it gives many people jobs such as prison guards, judges, police officers, and lawyers. I would argue that jails and prisons are already over-crowded and if we didn’t have such harsh penalties for non-violent drug offenders than there would be more space for people who actually deserve to be in prison which is a dysfunction. Also, as taxpayers the more people in federal or state prisons means more of our taxpayer dollars going to prisons. Instead of wasting so much of our tax dollars on non-violent drug offenders that don’t need to be in prison in the first place, we can be putting it towards their mental health and different ways to help them fix this drug problem instead of just covering it up with prison. I commented on this specific topic because I believe it is a serious problem this country is facing. Do these people really need to spend many years of their life in prisons with actual criminals? Also, if they have a drug problem its not like they cant get drugs inside prison walls so is the system really helping them or hurting them?
Peter P
The article discussed the possibility of a new policy that will give non-violent offenders in federal prison an early release from their harsh punishments if they have not had a previous violent history. There are too many non-violent drug abuse users that are given too long of a punishments for their low-level crimes. This is why the Obama administration is pushing for this policy, so that these offenders could possibly be given an early release if they haven't been convicted for violent crimes in the past or associated with gangs. Many minorities are convicted for drug-related crimes, and often enough they don't have the money to opt out to get treatment. This leads them being put into custody. From a conflict-theorist's point of a view, those in the upper class can easily pay to get treatment as their punishment, instead of serving hard time like the minorities and the poor that can't. This is a social problem because minorities face an inequality where those born upper-class(bourgeoisie) have more opportunities to avoid such problems. Also, due to racial-profiling, minorities are arrested more often, whereas white people aren't pulled over as much. Drug abuse is a serious problem, but there are too many individuals who are convicted for drug busts, when there are more serious issues to look out for. Should someone really be thrown into jail for making a mistake? In my opinion they shouldn't be punished, but rather getting help and possibly the treatment they need. Which brings back to the fact that they possibly may not have the resources to get better. Possibly the stress of everyday life and hardships they faced led them to their drug use in the first place. If someone's never had a history of committing serious crimes, they shouldn't be punished for making a mistake, but rather be helped. This is an issue I chose, because my sister used to be involved in the wrong crowd, and has abused drugs before. Thankfully she has never been arrested, but has had many friends who has been. Not wanting to live like that anymore, she decided to eat healthy and start exercising has been clean for 2 years now. If she had been convicted for her drug use in the past, she possibly would have never better herself and change for the better. I think people should be given a second chance depending on their circumstances. The jails are over packed with so many people who have been convicted for drugs, where they are dangerous and violent people out there that should be locked up.
Nairia A.
The social problem in this article is that nonviolent drug offenders are being held in federal custody for far too long. As the article states, the reason why this is a problem is because these individuals are harmless to others, so they should be released early. They should also be given other options to help them get off drugs. Keeping these inmates locked up is not necessary since they aren’t a threat to the public. Therefore, the Obama Administration is looking into having nonviolent offenders apply for early release. The people with clean records will be eligible to be released early, which I believe is a good idea. Those who are abusing drugs are in need of help; locking them up is not helping them. They have a problem that led to their addiction. As long as they are not harming the public, they should be released early to get the assistance they need to recover. An interactionist would agree that every nonviolent drug offender needs individual help to successfully eliminate drugs for his/her life. Each individual’s story needs to be heard and just because they are all drug offenders that does not mean that they should all be behind bars. Keeping them under federal custody is not going to solve this issue, but instead it’s going to keep innocent sufferers of drug abuse from getting the help they need. I also look at this social perspective through an interactionist’s perspective. I believe giving each nonviolent drug offender a chance to share his or her story and giving each individual a set of options to recover is going to be the best way to solve this problem. I have a person really close to me that is in a constant fight with drugs; therefore, I found this article interesting. I would never want him locked up because he is a good person stuck in a miserable situation. He is in a battle with his addiction and himself every single day and has no intention of harming others. I do not understand why a person like him would have to be held in federal custody. People like him need support from loved ones to win this battle against drugs.
Jonna H.
The social problem that's being discussed here is the fact that nonviolent drug offenders are doing massive amounts of time in prison because of laws that were passed in the crackdown on substance abuse in the 1980's. However, the Obama administration is pushing for these sentences to be reduced. This issue is a social problem because it has become a public issue--it affects over 200,000 incarcerated individuals in our society. While Democrats and Republicans have tried to come to an agreement and justifiable sentences for drug offenders, no real solution has yet been found. These lengthy sentences keep those individuals who have committed acts of deviance away from the rest of norm-conforming society, with the goal of (hopefully) preventing more people from committing criminalized deviant acts. In addition, Obama is pushing to speed up the clemency process (although he formerly had the worst pardoning track record of any president) because he realizes that these harsh sentences disproportionately affect the minority members of society, and that's unfair. Despite the fact that government officials are beginning to talk about implementing change to the criminal justice system doesn't mean that any changes will actually be implemented. The article pointed out that if the pardon attorney's office is already swamped as it is, it won't be able to handle the impending flood of appeals about to head its way in a timely manner.
A conflict theorist would look at this issue in terms of leaders attempting to maintain their power and social status. For example, they would probably agree with the idea that Obama is pushing this issue in order to make the Democrats seem more appealing to voters in the next election. And since the pardon attorney's office is incapable of handling appeals as it is, it is altogether likely that it will take years for pardons to be granted--so politicians look like they're making positive change without actually having to do so. A conflict theorist would also criticize the laws passed in the 1980's as alienating the minority ethnicities in society. A conflict theorist would argue that the only way to actually make substantial change to the criminal justice system would be to have offenders and advocates group up and protest (which will almost definitely never happen on a large enough scale to force leaders to act). I chose to comment on this topic because I think this is an unfair system.
Jonna H. (part 2!! For some reason it wouldn't let me post the whole thing, sorry!)
In my opinion, I think that people whose crimes hurt other people (like murderers, sex offenders, and so on) should do MUCH longer sentences than people whose only crime is substance abuse (which really hurts themselves mostly, rather than other people). I also think that the criminal justice system doesn't see addiction as it really is: a disease. They are understanding about other diseases like mental health problems, but a drug addict is treated as a normal person, without regard for the impact his disease has on his mind, body, and judgment. I think that's very unfair. I also think that many drug addicts are unable to hire their own lawyers, and public defenders don't always make the strongest case for them since they've got so many cases on their plate. I think the way to solve this problem is to continue supporting policies like Prop 36, which allow drug offenders to go to rehab programs instead of being incarcerated. That way, they can get the help they need while still living a normal, healthy life. Too many times, people who are incarcerated for years for drug use get out, and since they've lost so much time in the world, their only connections are to other drug users and dealers, making it almost impossible for them to get a new lifestyle. I also think that legislation should be passed that makes the system more sympathetic to individuals who relapse. How many of us have tried to quit a bad habit and couldn't? I think that by having a more compassionate justice system with fairer laws and sentence times, our society will save both taxpayer's dollars and inmates' time.
Vazgen M.
In response to Danielle L:
I agree completely with Danielle. Locking up nonviolent drug offenders does not benefit anyone. This only forces them to be in a environment where their habit is wide spread and the chances of recovery or rehabilitation is minimum at best. These nonviolent offenders are also grouped with some of societies worst criminals and are forced to become one of them to survive. For the tax payer this creates a nightmare where substantial amounts of their tax dollars go to keep people in prison who don't belong there. I chose to comment on Danielle's post because it was a very candid post. I also support the early release program for nonviolent drug offenders. Keeping them in prison does nothing for society. It only hurts us on the long run. Like Danielle said we need to look at the foundation of the problem instead of punishing those affected by it.
A conflict theorist would look to the inequalities brought on by the capitalist system as the root of this problem. The proportion of whites and minorities involved with drugs is the same however minorities are overrepresented in prisons for drug related charges. This shows that nonviolent drug offenders aren't in prison only because their involvement with drugs but also because of their race and socioeconomic status. The reason for so many nonviolent drug offenders who are in prison today is because of the war on drugs. A failed policy in the eyes of conflict theorists that was created to oppress minorities rather than combat the rise of drugs. These people who are in prison right now were put their because their habit threatened the social structure created by the white majority not because they are dangerous or harmful to anyone.
I think Danielle's solution is fantastic and completely plausible. Instead of dumping our money in a pit that is the prison system we should instead use that towards their mental health. We should be looking at permanent fixes instead of temporary solutions. Putting these nonviolent drug offenders in prison is just that a band aid on a gunshot wound. Another solution would be to instead of forcing theses people into prisons we force them into rehabilitation programs. If the problem is so wide spread why not create another agency who focuses on just the nonviolent drug offenders. This agency would be a rehabilitation center with a bit more restrictions. We can even use the money that was going towards keeping them in prison to fun this. I am aware that this might cost a bit more but if the problem is so wide reaching and dire then we must do all we can.
After reading some of the responses on the topic of punishing drug abusers, I have to agree with Anahit’s opinion. As she explains, the length and extent of incarcerations are excessive for some of the offenders, whose crimes may not be half as dangerous or disruptive to society as those who commit more violent crimes. This is what I thought was interesting and consistent with my own opinion. These people are treated as harshly as they should be if they were to commit assaults and murders; yet, those who actually do perpetrate such crimes are either offered plea bargains, released on probation and parole, or sent to county jails due to overcrowding in prisons. In addition, I also agree with Anahit on the fact that some disadvantaged defendants are underrepresented and don’t have the resources to free themselves; even president Barack Obama in accordance with the news article believes that this is a matter of civil rights and public safety, considering many of these so-called criminals are not a danger to society. It is a fact that the issue of substance abuse is problematic because of its detrimental consequences such as mental illnesses, suicides, and yes even violence; on the contrary, the biggest mistake society makes is putting all drug users under a single category, labeling them “abusers”. Still, regardless of the fact that their cases should be approached individually, their unjust incarceration is not a personal issue but a social one. It promotes racial and ethnic discrimination, creates loopholes in the justice system, and threatens the family institution by tearing apart loved ones and causing distress, leading to further societal disruptions.
While I do agree with Anahit and many of my classmates as they apply the conflict perspective to this issue, highlighting the power struggles between the minorities and affluent people, I personally believe that the interactionist standpoint best describes the problem. These theorists would argue that substance users should be assisted individually, and practitioners both in the fields of law and social services should design solutions that best fit each client’s needs. Interactionists are the proponents of the labeling theory, which as discussed earlier states that our society basically brands individuals. This means that despite the functionalists’ belief that deviant behaviors set a standard for distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable behavior, interactionists state that it sets a standard for individuals to act the label they are given, which becomes their identity. Therefore, attaching names such as “abusers” and “offenders” to nonviolent drug users and sentencing them to decades in prison will not only fail to solve the issue of substance abuse, it will amplify it.
Continued...
The news article is mainly about proposing a solution to the issue of harsh punishments imposed on drug users, and the process mentioned offers a way out to the incarcerated offenders who have clean criminal records, meaning they don’t have a history of violence or associations with gangs. The clemency process suggests applying for pardons to be released from prisons. As Anahit mentioned, this process is only the first step toward resolving this issue. It is true that it would terminate unnecessary confinements; still, it won’t provide them with the help they need to end the problem they were arrested for in the first place. To solve this issue, Anahit proposed that what these individuals need is rehabilitation programs and not imprisonment. I completely agree with her suggestion, but while this is a practical solution and will likely create more jobs for our economy, there will always be the issue of these drug users refusing to be helped. Some most likely ended up in prison because of this same reason, and especially after being labeled criminals, even though their charges may be dismissed, they are more likely to continue their “deviant” behavior, and we can’t stop them. Thus, I think that we need to alter our justice system by repealing the legislations that classify certain drugs such as marijuana as schedule I and apply harsh penalties for their use. These laws only result in overcrowded prisons and fail to solve the real problem. Instead, we can use the money and resources to create those rehabilitation programs and with them a few educational courses.
Daniel J
In response to Nairia A,
I agree with Nairia. The sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders should be shortened. People who are non violent shouldn’t be locked up away from society for long periods of time. This wastes tax dollars that could be spent on more pressing matters. It also groups them with violent offenders and makes the m adapt to their environment, potentially making the problem worse. I agree that the early release program is a great solution for people with nonviolent offenses. Leaving these people in prison benefits no one.
An Interactionist would look at how democrats and republicans are trying to resolve this problem. They have trouble agreeing and passing these laws. They need better communication if we wish to be able to change our laws so as to fix these problems. The solution to this problem wont be by punishing people who abuse drugs, but by finding a better solution for helping them. Personally I think if someone does drugs and doesn’t hurt anyone because of it, I see no problem. If people can abuse alcohol and tobacco and destroy their body because of it, why shouldn’t they be able to with other substances. The point is, if a criminal is non violent and is convicted because of drug possession, the sentence they should face should be minimal. These sentences have been proven to be harsher for minorities and is contributing to the inequality among our society today. We need to fine tune our justice system in the hopes to create a more equal and democratic place to live.
Tayler B.
In response I agree with what my fellow student Nairia A. We agree that people charged with drug offenses should have a shorter sentencing. The part about how all drug cases are different and shouldn't be sentenced the same way stood out to me. I chose to respond to this post because I felt that it is unfair for those who get a sentence of years and years for just having possession of drugs or under the influence.
My colleague wrote about this issue with the perspective of the interactionalists. In the perspective of the conflict theorists they would say that the reason that the sentencing is unfair is because of the correctional system. they would argue that the people arent the one's who are the problem. they would say that because those people arent causing problems in the society other than drugs they arent threats. I believe that her solution is good because then people would be able to have their cases re-evaluated and possibly get released early.
Kristina S.
In response to Peter P., I definitely agree with him about how socioeconomic factors define the justice system and how racial profiling is a problem in our society. This social problem sheds light on how many non-violent individuals are convicted and the them having to face the harsh burden of unfair sentences. This is a major problem because it ultimately creates a chain reaction of negative effects on our society. While more low socioeconomic citizens are incarcerated, more of our tax money is spent on these individuals being under custody when in fact they should be getting the proper guidance in the form of rehab and education. If they got the proper education and medical assistance, they would more likely be able to get clean and in turn contribute to the society. I chose Peter's entry because it stood out to me when he shared with us a personal experience about his sister. She was a prime example of a non-violent individual with a drug problem that just needed some guidance to the right path.
A functionalist would point out that incarcerating these citizens provides an overall function to society by creating jobs for prison guards, judges, and cops. I agree with Peter that these individuals in prison convicted for drugs should be treated in a rehab facility to give them a second chance to get better. It is a realistic solution if there are ways to pay for this service and have some way of guarantee that these individuals will not resort to violent crimes or continue their drug use. I believe a solution is to gear our taxes towards education programs and rehab facilities that provide mental and physical guidance to recovery. Our taxes could be utilized for that cause rather than for the incarceration of convicts because paying for a inmates are quite expensive.
In response to Anahit G.
I completely agree with Anahit's opinion as it is a huge social problem many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer.I've noticed that social inequality plays a role. The wealthy often gets to go to rehab while the middle class gets a year in prison for possession. It's not fair that the law selectively decides who gets to go to rehab for not, and everyone should get a fair shake.
According to conflict perspective it would not agree with this subject at all as it has a social inequality. That is not fair for poor people to go to jail whereas wealthy people can be in freedom. The law should be equal for every one and it should work for every other person.the best solution for this problem is that there should not be any discrimination between wealthy and poor people. The law should work for every one.If a person is rich it should not mean that they can easily escae from the prison.
Siranush M. In response to Anahit G.
I completely agree with Anahit's opinion as it is a huge social problem many non-violent criminals such as drug addicts have been put in prison to serve a sentence that is too long for the crime that they have committed. The majority of the people who are given these sentences and thrown in jail for unfair amounts of time are the people who are minorities and the poor who are unable to pay their way out or afford a good lawyer.I've noticed that social inequality plays a role. The wealthy often gets to go to rehab while the middle class gets a year in prison for possession. It's not fair that the law selectively decides who gets to go to rehab for not, and everyone should get a fair shake.
According to conflict perspective it would not agree with this subject at all as it has a social inequality. That is not fair for poor people to go to jail whereas wealthy people can be in freedom. The law should be equal for every one and it should work for every other person.the best solution for this problem is that there should not be any discrimination between wealthy and poor people. The law should work for every one.If a person is rich it should not mean that they can easily escae from the prison.
Davy P.
I agree with Danielle L. in his response to Crime and Substance Abuse, that non-violent drug offenders are being sentence for too long. Instead of focusing on helping these people, they are being held with other criminals in prison that might influence their thoughts to be something more than drug addicts. I like how Danielle thought of a way to prevent more of these crimes, by stating that the society should investigate more on how they became drug abusers, rather than sentencing them. It’s hard to say, when these drug-offenders are released from prison, what are the chances that they might use drugs again or maybe get worse? Thus, I chose to comment on his response because he understood Obama’s administration’s goals, of giving an early release to non-violent drug offenders and focusing on what should be done. I think this is considered a social problem because there is a reason why they became drug offenders, there are too many minority defendants in prison, especially the ones that don’t pose a threat to public safety. It is really unfair for those people that have worse background with worse criminal activities in the past to deduct their sentencing just because they have power. How they determine their sentence should be fair and based on what they have done, not because of what they have.
Conflict theorists would say that it would be very biased if these non-violent drug abusers are being sentence in prison longer than the violent drug abusers. Having more power doesn’t give the right to be treated better, it only shows inequality.
Danielle’s solution to this issue is to focus on treating the non-violent drug abusers and investigate on what motivated them to use drugs to prevent them and others in the future. I believe that this solution is possible. However, they are still responsible for their own actions, they made the decision, and thus they have to face the consequence. I think the solution to this system is by providing equal treatment, despite their racial or ethnic group, socioeconomic status, or gender, the system should only view their crime activities. Also, by reducing their sentence, the tax money will discontinue on funding the prison, and this is where Danielle’s solution comes in, by funding them with professional treatment and investigating how it started. This solution can reduce discrimination towards minority defendants and perhaps bring down the percentage of drug abusers.
Alex M
The discussed problem is our federal prison system being filled with individuals who are their for non violent drug offenses. This specific part being discussed is really a product of the lack of foresight our federal government had when they passed ridiculous prohibitions on drug possession. This proposal has been long overdue and really is just reactive thinking, the same type of thinking that got us to where we are at today. The issue that our drug laws have over crowded our prisons which has been a major expense, Not to mention the disservice we are doing to the victims of these laws by taking money that could treat their problem and make them into productive members of society and instead imprisoning them.
I will be conducting a functionalist analysis of this issue. The manifest function is really just giving the rest of the population an example to make them fearful and unwilling to break laws (even if they are unjust laws) There are many latent functions of this system, those being; The production of jobs in the corrections system and every supporting business such as toilet paper or tooth paste. ALL OF THESE COMPANY'S BENEFIT FROM THIS EXCESSIVE UNJUST AND WASTEFULL GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING. So now because of a Draconian set of laws passed we are "between a rock and a hard place" the last 50 years have been spent building these businesses and if we were to truly address the issue many of these companies would go out of business and unemployment is a whole nother basket of fun.
I chose this topic because its something that I am extremely against, and it may be ironic but I feel that President Obama's plans are WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE, But I am happy about the direction in which the government is moving. I was also annoyed by the whole Republican blame crap going on. Any Physically conservative American can see that this is a huge waste of tax dollars and it has. I honestly think if both sides stopped blaming each other or making it about each other we might actually get this moving faster. I will not be voting for either of the two parties this coming election unless they make some big changes, And that's why I chose this topic, because I have a lot to say about it.
Oh an physical conservatism has nothing to do with social conservatism. So to reiterate OBAMA is being very socially conservative and very physically liberal, and that combination makes no one happy.
Post a Comment