Prison Term Policy Recommendation

Introduction

The proposed bill introduces a measure to double the maximum incarceration term for individuals convicted of armed robbery. The goal of this bill would be to reduce the amount of armed robbery cases by assigning longer prison terms, and act as a deterrent to criminal offenders. This report is designed to cover the aspects involved in sentencing concerns, psychological aspects, and alternative measures that would enhance or improve the measure.

Prison Term Policy Recommendation: Armed Robbery in the State of Connecticut

According to the State of Connecticut General Assembly Website (2005), “ Crime and its punishment is a public policy concern in which the state legislature has a key role in defining.” (para 1). The judicial function of any state legislature is the ensure the justice system is effectively and fairly implemented in accordance with state law (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Considering sentencing within the legal system as a punishment for a particular crime committed, one must account for the traditional goals of incarceration like incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). With this consideration, it is noted that over time, both political and public views of how efficiently goals are balanced and which goals should be promoted have changed (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Sentencing Issues and Concerns

Many crimes prioritized in the criminal system are associated with minimum sentencing requirements, which has been the subject of strong reactions that both support and denounce the policy (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). It is noted that a legal loophole in the policy of great concern is the unilateral authority of prosecutors to use discretionary practices in regard to charging for a crime, and the use of plea bargaining, which serves to circumvent the minimum sentencing policies (Sate of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). As a result of this unilateral authority afforded to prosecutors, a general acceptance that mandatory sentencing laws have been rendered ineffective and have failed to meet the objectives, which has resulted in serious concerns in sentencing inequities, and unfair or unduly hash punishments (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Sentencing Pros and Cons

According the Sate fo Connecticut General Assemble website, (2005), “The issue of mandatory sentencing generates strong reactions for and against the policy.” (para 5). Proponents of mandatory minimum sentencing (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2002) suggest that the laws are effective deterring those who may commit serious offenses involving drug and weapons, and those involving sexual offenses (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). They also suggest that the laws protect those convicted of crimes from disparities in sentencing (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Another factor cited by proponents is that the law keeps convicted offenders incarcerated for longer sentencing times, which they justify as keeping offenders out of the general society and prevent new crimes from occurring (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Furthermore, proponents suggest these laws assist prosecutors and law enforcement agencies the ability to use the potential of lengthy incarceration to persuade convicted offenders of low-level crimes to testify agains offenders of higher level crimes (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Additionally,  proponents suggest that the law gives prosecutors and law enforcement the option to offer lower sentences as an incentive to the offender to submit a guilty plea willingly (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Opponents of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws suggest that there is empirical evidence that disproves the theory that tougher or longer sentences will deter individuals from committing serious crimes (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Opponents cite that the prison rates in Connecticut and other sates and federal prisons has increased as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which also places greater financial burden and overcrowding (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Opponents of the law argue that incarceration times are disproportionate between Caucasian and Minority offenders, sentencing disparities potentially produce unintended consequences for different offenses (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005). Furthermore, opponents argue that many non-violent offenders are improperly incarcerated because the law vaguely combines non-violent offenses with those of a more serious, violent nature (State of Connecticut General Assembly, 2005).

Psychological  Concerns

Most offenders of crimes like armed robbery suffer from symptoms associated with antisocial personality disorder. The criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes behaviors that disregard social norms and violate the rights of others (Long, 2011),  irritability, and aggressiveness indicated by physical fights or assaults (Long, 2011). The subject must also meet at minimum of one or more symptoms of deceitfulness associated with repeated lying, conning others for personal gain, or use of aliases (Long, 2011), or lack or remorse, indifference to or rationalizing injury or mistreatment, and theft (Long, 2012).

Antisocial behavior disorder is considered a core variable in behavior of individuals who commit violent crimes. This order is treatable using methods of psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, and pharmaceutical interventions (Black, 2013). Hospital care is not a common course of action, unless the individual; however, in the case of criminal offenders this qualification is applicable (Black, 2013). Regular psychotherapy sessions focused on helping the individual learn to control his behavior by understanding the nature of consequences of the disorder (Black, 2013). Cognitive therapy sessions include a program where the clinician sets guidelines of involvement including attendance, active participation, and satisfactory completion of assignments or responsibilities as outlined by the clinician (Black, 2013). Although there are no medications approved to treat antisocial personality disorder, there are medications approved for treatment of symptoms like aggression, depression, and anxiety (Black, 2013).

Recommendations for Modifying the Current Measure

The measure should take into account the factors of plea negotiations, prison overcrowding, and cases of repeat offenders. Simple prison terms have been suggested to harden inmates, and cause further psychological duress, degradation, and onset of behavioral  disorders. The opportunity to add a strong psychological program that inmates cannot voluntarily enter to avoid prison sentencing would provide the opportunity to promote and develop treatment designed to reduce the potential of the offender repeating his or her criminal behavior. The psychological program should be implemented at the time of release, and be made a requirement of parole.

Conclusion

The current measure as written increases the maximum prison terms for individuals convicted of armed robbery. There are several considerations that suggest this bill, as written, is not a viable solution. The first consideration is the overcrowding issues currently being experienced in the legal system, and the lack of funding to build new facilities. The second consideration is the lack of required psychological treatment for the individual’s behavioral deficiencies, and the elevated potential to repeat or escalate criminal behavior resulting from lack of treatment. Taking the annual cost of inmate housing and care, the additional costs of increased prison terms could be diverted to a proper mandatory treatment program.

References

 Black, D. (2013). Treatment of antisocial personality disorder. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/lib/treatment-for-antisocial-personality-disorder/000656

Long, P.W. (2011). Antisocial Personality Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe04.html

State of Connecticut General Assembly. (2005). Mandatory minimum sentences. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Senteces_Briefing.htm