Effectiveness of Incapacitation

The judicial system is tasked with the responsibility to maintain law and order and settle disputes. One of the core functions of the judiciary is incapacitation. It does not only involve mechanisms of deterring the wrong behavior in the future but also the actual prevention of such actions. Hence, incapacitation reduces chances of recidivism referring to reformed individual’s relapse into criminal conduct. Numerous arguments arise on whether it works in helping people to avoid such recurrence. Some critics argue that more prisons will help to curb illegal activities by incapacitating criminals (Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009). On the contrary, others claim that there are alternative measures that are cheaper and more efficient that can be undertaken to address recidivism (Warren, 2009). Therefore, the study seeks to discuss the effectiveness of incapacitation in America.

Current policies on behavior correction and incapacitation seem to be less paying. For instance, there are growing cases of recidivism. Besides, the number of inmates incarcerated in prisons is also on the rise. Three quarters of those charged with a state felony have prior records of offenses and arrests. Furthermore, a third of individuals who are on pretrial release, parole, or probation are arrested. This high number of repeat offenders indicates that the current behavior correction system does not mainly deter criminals (Trotter, 2015). Notably, according to Trotter (2015) several pieces of research have shown that the judiciary records numerous cases of offenders that were in prison and incapacitated at one time in their lives. In line with this, incapacitation involves separating an individual from society. It is done through incarceration instead of rehabilitation or prevention of future offenses. Therefore, the rising number of cases of repeat offenders has seen a change in the view on incapacitation.

There have been concerns that some criminals usually commit non-violent crimes. However, most of them often perpetrate highly violent offences, and incapacitation is the only remedy (Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, 2009). In this regard, sentencing them to prison is more helpful to the public, since in most cases other corrective measures fail to help them. Hence, incapacitation through incarceration is seen as a harsh way of maintaining the law. Its necessity depends on the “evidence-based practice” in the treatment of offenders, which is built on the risk principle, needs consideration, as well as treatment and response methods (Trotter, 2015). The evidence of the risk approach identifies the magnitude of a threat that is posed by an offender. The latter is treated depending on the level of risk to society based on crimes committed and possible future offenses. On the other hand, the needs principle relates to the evidence of chances of recidivism and needs that may lead to such incidences. If the latter are likely to occur, incapacitation is effective in this case. As for the treatment and response principle, the main concern is about the effectiveness of different interventions. Other methods include motivation and trust of offenders, which involve an understanding of intrinsic motivating factors steering the criminal to commit a felony. Evidence-based practice is also concerned with the treatment of the perpetrator and the integration of community-based sanctions (Trotter, 2015).

However, one of the drawbacks associated with felonies is that they make the biggest portion of the judicial workload. Most of such cases are related to repeat offenders. The determination of the latter is a costly and time-consuming process for judges and the judicial staff. Some of the repeat offenses are committed by those individuals who have finished serving a jail term. It brings more questions on the long-term effectiveness of incapacitation since it does not seem to stop future crimes. Once the offender has rejoined society, there is a high chance that he or she will commit a felony again (Warren, 2009).

From the readings, investing in the construction of more prisons is not a solution. The government should rather try to find other means of addressing recidivism (Warren, 2009). As it has been noted earlier, most prisoners have been in jail before. For this reason, it is undeniable that prisons in most cases fail to stop recurrence. Secondly, harsher and longer prison sentences do not deter crime and in most instances increase reoffending. Several pieces of research have proven that incarceration has a negative and insignificant effect on crime rates (Warren, 2009). It supports the fact that increasing the severity of punishment to a criminal has no impact on correcting and combating recidivism. Most critics suggest that longer prison terms expose inmates to strict penalties, and they will not commit felonies again. However, incarceration has no effect upon reoffending. On the contrary, a term in prison may intensify the criminal behavior. Furthermore, harsher prison conditions may lead to more violent activities, and such places are not advisable to be built more (MacKenzie, 2006).

Thirdly, prisons fail to deter offenders from recidivism since most of them create a criminal learning environment. Additionally, incarceration may stigmatize criminals being ineffective way of addressing the underlying root causes of crime. Besides, there are better and cheaper ways of reducing the number of offences as compared to prisons. Notably, incarceration that stops someone from committing crimes for the period in prison is expensive. The government should strive to address issues that lead people to committing crimes. First and foremost, child neglect should be dealt with since it substantially increases chances of involvement in a crime. Furthermore, unemployment, poverty, and drug abuse are risk factors that need early intervention. Another measure that should be taken is the introduction of sentencing that seeks to address causes of crimes. Some actions such as community-based orders and suspended sentences are useful in treatment and rehabilitation as compared to prisons (Warren, 2009).

Fourthly, in cases related to drugs, putting peddlers in jail does not help in stopping crimes. The judicial system should rather come with ways of enlightening these people on the evils of selling or using drugs. In addition, it should try to incorporate these offenders in community-based campaigns against drug use to help in addressing recidivism. Lastly, the government should seek to improve the judicial system by developing smart legal solutions. These include promoting alternatives to prisons, as well as suspended and community-based sentences. In addition, it should expand programs to support prisoners and to reduce the risk of recidivism. Finally, smart judicial solutions should aim at tackling most factors that contribute to criminal behavior increasing the amount of investment in child protection, employment, mental health, and education, housing and family support. They can substantially assist in correcting wrongdoers without necessarily investing in building more prisons (MacKenzie, 2006).

It is evident from the discussion above that the current judicial system has numerous shortcomings since cases of recidivism are on the rise. More emphasis has been put to encourage incapacitation by building more prisons. However, the results are far from the desired ones since most people do not change even after being incarcerated for long. Due to this, investing in constructing more prisons is not a remedy for reducing criminal activities in America. Some of the measures that should be put in place include sentencing offenders by addressing the cause of crimes, not results. Additionally, smart justice solutions are cheaper and more efficient as compared to prisons, and the federal government should strive to address most socio-economic factors that promote crime.