The Language Of Criminal Justice: An Essay In Clarification

The Language Of Criminal Justice An Essay In Clarification

When it comes to crime, both the discourse about criminals and the ensuing policy are confused. This essay attempts to show what is happening and to clarify some of the issues. I shall show that there is an inconsistency between the words people use ("rehabilitation" and "incapacitation") and public policy. The language of criminal justice thinking typically focuses on one of two areas: (a) rehabilitation of criminals or, (b) incapacitation. Rehabilitation of criminals is a noble goal, and at times, it may also be practical. How many more new prisons can we afford to build? Opposed to rehabilitation is the view that criminals are not likely to be reformed, and therefore they should be kept in prison for as long as possible to incapacitate them from hurting others. Problems of course, incapacitation exists only until convicts are released from prison. Then, if they have been brutalized in prison, they are probably more likely to hurt citizens.

This is the fallacy in what many people say to me: make life miserable for prisoners, give them bad food, no television, etc. These people seem not to have thought through the issue to realize that these prisoners are almost all getting out and will be back in society. There is also a fallacy in putting all our eggs in the rehabilitation basket. "Rehabilitation" is a noble word, but from my experience working in a prison treatment program, many youths seem already beyond rehabilitation by the time they reach age 16. By then, many have a long history of criminal behavior and commitment to a career of crime.

In fact, I learned many have no idea how to be anything else but a criminal. Thus, people who use discourse reflecting incapacitation seem not to realize that incapacitation only works while the person is imprisoned and that most get out, some fairly soon. On the other hand, the discourse about rehabilitation is also confused at times, because advocates may not appreciate how difficult or impossible it is to rehabilitate a person who has become committed to a criminal lifestyle. Reality in practice, what really happens, is somewhere between the goals of rehabilitation and incapacitation. Thus, policy is confused, since it does not effectively rehabilitate or incapacitate.

Typically, people verbally endorse either rehabilitation or incapacitation, but what happens most often is neither. The reality reflects, at least in part, practical considerations such as prison overcrowding, the high cost of sending someone to prison, and the overwhelming caseload of probation and parole agents. It may also reflect other values too, perhaps unknown or unspecified values that influence judges to give lenient sentences to convicted felons. Although critics sometimes condemn what they call "lenient" judges, most judges are probably political conservatives, but they may give lenient sentences due to factors like prison overcrowding ("no room at the inn"), legal constraints that restrict what sentences may be imposed, and plea bargains, which are often needed to deal with an overloaded court system.

Many people believe that when a person is convicted in a state court of a felony, he or she is likely to be sentenced to the state penitentiary. This notion is examined in the present report, using data from the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, to see how true the assumption is. While the idea that a convicted felon could only receive probation may be shocking to some, it is one of the options available to courts. The data reported here do not involve people convicted in federal courts. The whole issue of sentencing is an important one, since different jurisdictions may handle the same crime differently (Benekos, 1992; Blumstein, Cohen, Martin, & Tonry, 1983; Eisenman, 1991b), which has led some to call for sentencing reforms so that similar offenses will receive similar sentences.

The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps data on many important issues and allows scholars to use of the data. However, many are unaware of this, and the data may need interpreting for it to have relevance. The present report is based on Bureau of Justice Statistics data about nationwide use of sentencing by state courts for convicted felons, and is based on state court convictions of adults in 1986. In that year, a total of approximately 583,000 adult felons were convicted in state courts. The data reported here comes primarily from two surveys of 100 counties across the United States and a follow-up study of probation in 32 of the counties. Court records were used to obtain a sample of 12,370 cases representing 79,043 felons placed on probation in 32 counties in 17 states. Additional data on adult felons sentenced to incarceration come from several surveys of court records by the Bureau of Justice Statistics for the year 1986.

Five kinds of outcomes were obtained: probation with no incarceration, probation with some jail time, probation with some prison time, jail only, or prison only. The distinction between jail and prison is that jails are usually run by city or county authorities and typically house people awaiting trial or people serving sentences, which are usually for lesser offenses and shorter periods of time than for those sent to state prisons. Prisons are typically run by the state authorities, and house the most serious offenders. More than half of the convicted felons received sentences which were, essentially, probation. However, many of these felons were required to serve brief jail or prison sentences as well as be on probation. The sentences were typically of five months or less.

More precisely, 52% of convicted felons received probation, but this was probation only for 31%. For 15%, some jail time was included, while for 6%, some prison time was included, for a total of 21%. Convicted felons sentenced to jail only comprised 6%, while the disposition which many assume is received by all convicted felons, prison only, occurred for 40%. If one watches television or movies about crime, the convicted felon is typically sentenced to a long prison sentence. However, in real life, more than half (52%) receive probation, although 21% receive some brief incarceration along with their probation. But, 31% simply receive probation, with no sentence of incarceration at all. This is quite different from what the average citizen might expect as a result of watching television or from hearing about our wars on crime. Prison overpopulation may account, in part, for the findings. It is easier to sentence people to prisons when there is a lot of space, but when some prisons or jails are under court order to release inmates due to overcrowding, then the hands of the court may be tied. Another reason could be that those in responsible positions may believe that not all offenders should be incarcerated.

People who are first time offenders (as far as the court knows; see Eisenman 1991a and 1991c for a suggestion that many crimes are undetected) may receive sympathy from the courts, especially given prison overcrowding. And, people convicted of the less serious felonies, such as burglary as opposed to rape or murder, might be seen as not needing to be in prison. There is some justification for this view, in that prisons are often schools for crime, teaching offenders how to be better criminals and encouraging their acceptance of anti-social beliefs. Thus, sentencing someone to prison (or jail) is not necessarily more likely to result in that person living a crime-free life than would sentencing that person to probation. On the other hand, there are some individuals who will remain criminals and will continue to hurt innocent citizens. Society would best be protected, at least while that person is locked up if incarceration was imposed. Also, just because the person is convicted of one of the lesser felonies does not mean that the person has not committed other more serious crimes for which they have not been caught or that they will not commit more serious crimes at a later date. Burglars do not always remain burglars. What is being done is to show that both discourse and policy-making regarding what should be done with criminals are somewhat confused. That policy reflects neither an adequate incapacitation nor an adequate rehabilitation.

Paper For Above instruction

The discourse surrounding criminal justice policies in the United States is often polarized between two primary approaches: rehabilitation and incapacitation. While these strategies aim to address criminal behavior, their application and underlying philosophies reveal significant inconsistencies with actual policy implementation. This essay explores these contradictions, analyzing how language and practice diverge and what implications this has for society’s approach to criminal justice.

Rehabilitation emphasizes reforming offenders through various programs designed to alter their behavior and reintegrate them into society. This approach has noble roots and remains appealing in principle because it seeks to cure the root causes of criminality. However, in practice, many youth offenders are considered beyond rehabilitation by the age of 16, given their extensive criminal histories and entrenched lifestyles. From the perspective of offenders who have dedicated their lives to crime, rehabilitation efforts often seem futile, as they have no concept of alternative, law-abiding pathways. Furthermore, advocates of rehabilitation may overestimate its feasibility, neglecting the tremendous difficulties posed by deeply ingrained criminal identities.

Conversely, incapacitation aims to isolate offenders from society to prevent further harm, often through lengthy prison sentences. While incapacitation is theoretically straightforward, it is limited by practical issues, such as prison overcrowding, high costs, and legal restrictions that influence sentencing. Many offenders, especially first-time or less serious offenders, do not fit into the incapacitation model, as they are often released after brief incarcerations or under probation. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1986) illustrates that over half of convicted felons (52%) are simply placed on probation, with 31% receiving only probation without incarceration, and only 40% being sentenced to prison. These figures challenge popular misconceptions fueled by media portrayals of long-term imprisonment as the typical punishment for serious crimes.

The discrepancy between rhetoric and reality in criminal justice policy stems from multiple factors. Overcrowding in prisons, budget constraints, and the desire for leniency influence judicial decisions. Judges, often constrained by legal frameworks and political pressures, may opt for plea bargains or lighter sentences, especially for first-time or less serious offenders. Additionally, societal beliefs about prisoners—viewing them as products of the system rather than individuals capable of change—also shape policy outcomes. The perception that prisons are educational institutions for crime persists because prisons are frequently overcrowded and underfunded, reducing opportunities for meaningful rehabilitation programs.

Effective policy requires an honest appraisal of both the limitations of rehabilitation and the constraints of incapacitation. While rehabilitation aims at transforming offenders, its success rate is often overstated, especially with juveniles who have long criminal histories. Incapacitation, on the other hand, is effective primarily while the individual remains incarcerated but offers little long-term solution once they are released. The current system, with its emphasis on short-term confinement coupled with probation, reflects an uneasy compromise driven by practical concerns rather than ideological commitments to either strategy.

Data from 1986 on sentencing patterns highlight this dissonance. Despite the popular image of long prison sentences for felonies, the majority of offenders received shorter sentences or probation. Specifically, 52% of convicted felons were placed on probation, with only 40% receiving prison sentences. Many felons serve only brief periods in jail or prison—often just a few months—before their release. This suggests that imprisonment in the United States is frequently used as a mechanism for supervision rather than as a means of severe punishment. Such practices underscore the complex, often contradictory, reality of criminal justice policies.

Prisons can inadvertently serve as schools for crime, as they often fail to incapacitate or rehabilitate effectively. Some offenders continue to commit crimes after release, implying that short-term incarcerations or probation do little to alter their criminal trajectories. Society’s primary concern should be safeguarding citizens from repeat offenders, particularly those involved in serious crimes. While some argue for stricter sentencing to protect the public, the reality is that managerial and systemic constraints shape sentencing outcomes more than ideological commitments. Prison overcrowding, legal restrictions, and plea bargaining mechanisms limit the capacity for both effective rehabilitation and incapacitation.

In conclusion, the discourse on criminal justice is marked by an idealized dichotomy—either rehabilitative or incapacitative—it fails to reflect the nuanced pragmatism that characterizes actual practice. The current approach relies heavily on probation and short-term detention, driven by logistical and political realities rather than a cohesive strategy to deal effectively with offenders. To move toward a more rational system, policymakers must acknowledge these limitations and design reforms that balance the goals of public safety with realistic assessments of offenders’ needs and potential for change. Only through honest, evidence-based policy-making can the criminal justice system truly serve society’s dual objectives of rehabilitation and protection.

References

• Benekos, P. J. (1992). Public Policy and Sentencing Reform: The Politics of Corrections. Federal Probation, 56(1), 4-10.
• Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Martin, S., & Tonry, M. (Eds.). (1983). Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Eisenman, R. (1991a). From Crime to Creativity: Psychological and Social Factors in Deviance. Kendall/Hunt.
• Eisenman, R. (1991b). Is Justice Equal?: A Look at Restitution, Probation, or Incarceration in Six States. Louisiana Journal of Counseling and Development, 11(2), 47-50.
• Eisenman, R. (1991c). Monitoring and Postconfinement Treatment of Sex Offenders: An Urgent Need. Psychological Reports.
• Eisenman, R. (1994). Contemporary Social Issues: Drugs, Crime, Creativity, and Education. BookMasters.
• Goodstein, L., & Hepburn, J. (1985). Determinate Sentencing and Imprisonment: A Failure of Reform. Cincinnati: Anderson.
• U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1986). Data on sentencing and incarceration.
• Additional scholarly sources analyzing sentencing disparities, prison overpopulation, and criminal justice reforms.
• Recent reviews of effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and long-term incapacitation strategies based on empirical data.