full research section and include comprehensive review of the literature in the field and include documentation to make sure you are fully knowledgeable about the alternatives under consideration.
Topic Criminal Justice Reform in NY
Current Criminal Justice Reform in NY. etc
Student Response Current Policy for illegal substances sentencing For half a century, America has maintained the stance of being tough on crime which has been expressed with the sentencing regulations. When it comes to the federal standards the true turn of the tide occurred when Ronald Regan assumed his presidency. According to the history on the drug war, “The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997 (Drug Policy Alliance, 2021).” In the early 90’s there was an opportunity for a politician to address the harsh punishments of imprisonment at a federal level but this was not done. For example, “Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences (Drug Policy Alliance, 2021).” This now brings us to the early 2000’s in which no federal drug reform was created but George W. Bush still maintained the position in opposition of drugs and continued the harsh sentencing guidelines that were already in place. In the article it states that, “The era of George W. Bush also witnessed the rapid escalation of the militarization of domestic drug law enforcement. By the end of Bush’s term, there were about 40,000 paramilitary-style SWAT raids on Americans every year – mostly for nonviolent drug law offenses, often misdemeanors. While federal reform mostly stalled under Bush, state-level reforms finally began to slow the growth of the drug war (Drug Policy Alliance, 2021).” If you look at the political influence of federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses sentencing you can see a slight shift within the Obama administration but it was still not enough to make any significant changes. Unfortunately, as recent as just 4 years ago, the Trump Administration wasted no time at all in staying stringent on federal drug policies that were established back in the 1980’s. It is said that, “President Trump started building a wall to keep drugs out of the country, and called for harsher sentences for drug law violations and the death penalty for people who sell drugs. He also resurrected disproven “just say no” messaging aimed at youth (Drug Policy Alliance, 2021).” With the assault from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, it was shown quickly just how much the drug epidemic and the mass population of prisons due to drug sentencing had permeated the United States. Despite these obstacles, “We at the Drug Policy Alliance pushed forward with monumental drug policy reforms in the 2020 elections. In a historic, paradigm-shifting win and arguably the biggest blow to the war on drugs to date, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, the nation’s first all-drug decriminalization measure. This confirms a substantial shift in public support in favor of treating drug use with health services rather than with criminalization. Marijuana reform also won big. Voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota passed measures to legalize marijuana for adult use. It was also a historic year for medical marijuana, with victories in Mississippi and South Dakota (Drug Policy Alliance, 2021).” This is a huge turning point in the possibilities of federal drug policies changes to come and it is up to the recent Joe Biden Administration to affect the trajectory and change history. By legal definition the term federal sentencing guidelines is, “are non-binding rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for defendants convicted in the United States federal court system that became effective in 1987. The Guidelines provide for “very precise calibration of sentences, depending upon a number of factors (law.cornell.edu).” The federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses still remain the same and the only progressive change that has been made as stated before has been done at the state level. 2. Legalizing/Decriminalizing Schedule I and II drugs The efforts towards the legalization or decriminalization of schedule I and II drugs have become a recent endeavor. As we have displayed the history of drugs and what it has done to our country, individuals are starting to wake up and realize that what has been occurring for the past 50 years or so isn’t yielding a positive response. According to the DEA, “Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote (U.S. Department of Justice).” The schedule II drugs according to the DEA, “Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin (U.S. Department of Justice).” As it stands, both schedule I and II drug categories hold lengthy and harsh federal sentencing guidelines (all dependent on certain factors of course). These factors can include; the amount within the individual’s possession, was a person(s) injured in the process of obtaining or maintaining these substances, and of course if any profit is being made by selling them to other individuals (i.e., trafficking). After reviewing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of the 117th Congress, the most significant change in the decriminalization of schedule I and II drugs at the state level is within the policy of marijuana. It has been shown that, “the increasing divergence between federal and state law in the area of marijuana regulation. As of December 2020, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws removing state prohibitions on medical and recreational marijuana use by adults age 21 or older. An additional 33 states have passed laws permitting medical use of marijuana or the marijuana-derived compound cannabidiol (CBD). However, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, and state legislation decriminalizing marijuana has no effect on that status (Congressional Research Service, 2021).” In other words, despite the legalization within many states, the federal government still views it as a Schedule I substance that can still be punishable under the same current policy. Despite the federal and state levels of government being on the same page, this is hope for the future in that eventually the voices of the people will be heard and marijuana will be decriminalized. As for the other substances listed as Schedule I and II drugs, no significant changes have been made and the policies still stand. 3. Accessibility to rehabilitative resources Throughout the journey that the United States has undertaken with the “war on drugs” and being “tough on crime” there have been rehabilitative resources offered along the way. The need for rehabilitation versus retribution has been especially obvious within the last couple of years. In order to change the trajectory of where drug offenses and abuse has taken us concerning the overpopulation of prisoners and recidivism, the accessibility to rehabilitative resources are essential. The resources that the government has currently employed for individuals charged with drug offenses include drug courts, prison-based treatment programs, and federal funding for recovery houses. According to a study conducted by it was expressed through public opinion that, “current policies suggest that the preferred treatment of drug criminals is incarceration, but this study found that this is not the case. When surveyed, the vast majority of people preferred that people convicted of drug crimes received drug treatment and therapy instead of incarceration. In other words, the majority of people favored rehabilitation over retribution 89.25% of those surveyed. This is a direct disagreement with the current “tough-on-crime” policies in place (Bernard, J., 2017).” It has been established that generally speaking the public, individuals who work in the criminal justice field, and those that are currently going through the system all feel as though rehabilitation would serve a better purpose than retribution. When it comes to the accessibility of these resources several factors can come into play to prevent the success of any of these programs. For example, “First, despite widespread referral to drug treatment within the criminal justice system, there is a shortage of available slots and those in need often do not get drug treatment services. Second, and relatedly, some have argued that drug treatment programs and the criminal justice-involved people enrolled in them are not properly matched, resulting in ill-fitting treatment modalities and treatment for those who do not need it. Finally, the uptake of evidence-based treatment options that recognize addiction as a chronic, relapsing disease has been slow within the network of service providers accessed through the criminal justice system, exemplified by the limited provision of medication-assisted treatment (Rosenberg, A., 2019).” It has been recognized that there is an issue solely based on the high majority of those incarcerated for such an offense, but I think now the question becomes how can we effectively administer these resources and properly. When individuals are properly vetted, are receiving individualized care, and also have a program where there is follow through (after release) the likelihood of success would increase. 4. Elimination of Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for non-violent drug offendersThe implementation of federal mandatory minimum sentencing has been established since 1986 and 1988 by Congress. When these bills were originally established, “The most commonly prosecuted drug offenses that carry mandatory minimum penalties are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 960. Section 841which prohibits the knowing or intentional manufacture, distribution, dispensation, or possession with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance. Section 960 prohibits the knowing and intentional importation or exportation of a controlled substance (Pryor, W., 2017).” With these guidelines, it was the beginning of a slippery slope with mass incarceration. The intention of Congress was to focus on kingpins, individuals trafficking huge amounts of drugs, and also individuals who were also manufacturing large amounts of these illegal substances but that is not all who were convicted under these federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. There are many caveats to the bill which state that, “Under both provisions, mandatory minimum penalties are tied to the quantity and type of controlled substance involved in the offense. When certain quantity thresholds are met, a five-year mandatory minimum penalty and a maximum term of 40 years applies, while larger amounts increase the mandatory minimum to ten years, with a maximum of life imprisonment. These penalties may be enhanced further based on an offender’s record of previous drug offenses (Pryor, W., 2017).” This is why the vicious cycle of mass incarceration and recidivism occur in our correctional facilities today.Despite the fact that these federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines in the 1980’s to get “tough on crime” with those at the highest criminal level of drug offenses, it has become so much more than that. These guidelines are also being utilized to this day for lower-level drug offenders and even those of a nonviolent nature. For example, “Nearly one-third (32.2%) of Couriers and more than one-quarter of Mules (25.4%) were convicted of such offenses (Pryor, W., 2017).” When the government does a “one size fits all” rhetoric, this can attribute to the overall issue of recidivism. If we look at the population of the federal prison system as a whole, “As of September 30, 2016, almost three-quarters (72.3%) were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, and more than half (50.4%) remained subject to that penalty at sentencing (Pryor, W., 2017).” These sentencing mandates need to be reevaluated in order to reduce the overall unnecessary drug offense population within the criminal justice system. This is a continuing work in progress and with this knowledge the intention should be rehabilitation versus retribution.5. Take political stance of assistance and not harsh punishment: The Future Legalization of Marijuana We have seen the historical events and consequences when the United States and its government chooses to take a politically harsh punishment stance when it comes to drugs. The question now becomes how do we reverse the over 50 years of mass incarceration and recidivism in America. When it comes to the federal government no significant changes have been made yet but as far as the legalization of any substances that are labeled as Schedule I and II but as far as the state level governments there has been some changes. The legalization of marijuana has been a topic of conversation since 2012, weather it is for medicinal purposes or recreational this process has been slow moving. To show how the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana would have on the criminal justice system, a study was conducted in 2019 to research the impact that it may have weather it be positive or negative. In the article it states that, “The analysis was focused on drug possession, which represented the largest portion of arrests. Of the 16 other types of drugs tracked in the Washington arrest data file, heroin and amphetamine/ methamphetamine were the two most common drugs, after marijuana, for which arrests were reported. These were utilized for comparisons with marijuana arrests (Farley, E., 2019).” The 11 states that legalized marijuana showed lower arrest levels than other drugs and it remained at its lowest in over 3 years. Based on what we can see from this research and the trends that legalization of marijuana creates, it is shown that a steady decrease in arrests that remains low will have a positive affect on the criminal justice system and the lives of many Americans. This will create more space within the correctional facilities and also save the government millions of dollars being that they will not have to support all of these additional inmates. If we can keep individuals from being incarcerated then recidivism will also not be an issue due to the fact that they have not been institutionalized or labeled for the rest of their lives. The research is relatively new and slim but what is being shown is promising for the future of the criminal justice system. ReferencesAlana R, Robert H, Danya K, Allison G, & Kim B. Drug Treatment Accessed through the Criminal Justice System: Participants’ Perspectives and Uses. J Urban Health. 2019 Jun; 96(3): 390–399. Published online 2018 Sep 6. DOI: 10.1007/s11524-018-0308-9Congressional Research Service. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 117th Congress. (2021). Retrieved from: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45948.pdf (Links to an external site.)Cornell Law School. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_sentencing_guidelines (Links to an external site.)Drug Policy Alliance. A Brief History of the Drug Wat. (2021). Retrieved from: https://drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-w…Erin F., Stan O. Measuring the Criminal Justice System Impacts of Marijuana Legalization and Decriminalization Using State Data. (2019). Justice Research and Statistics Association. James B, Katie H, Brian S, Georgie A W. Perceptions of Rehabilitation and Retribution in the Criminal Justice System: A Comparison of Public Opinion and Previous Literature. J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2017; 5(3): 555669. DOI:10.19080/JFSCI.2017.05.555669.U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Scheduling. Retrieved from: https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduli…William P, Rachel B, Charles B, Danny R, Patricia S, Zachary B. Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Drug Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System. (2017). United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/resea…
0 comments