Balancing Offender Needs and Public Safety (From American Correctional Association - Proceedings, P 243-246, 1981, Barbara Hadley Olsson and Ann Dargis, ed. - See NCJ-76771)

• NCJ Number: 76797
• Author(s): W G Nagel
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 4 pages
• Sale Source: American Correctional Association
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Reviewing sentencing practices and crime rates in Holland, Japan, Pennsylvania, and Texas this paper argues for less harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent offenders.

Abstract

The argument that severe criminal penalties tend to desensitize society and result in more violent criminal activity was first raised by philosophers such as Locke, Voltaire, Franklin, and Beccaria during the 18th century. The average time served by offenders in Dutch prisons during 1975 was 35 days. The Netherlands sentenced only 2 offenders to life imprisonment and none to death between 1964 and 1973, while Florida, with half the population of Holland, currently has 140 persons on death row and over 2,000 individuals serving life sentences. Pennsylvania and Texas present an interesting contrast in the effects of sentencing practices on the incidence of crime. Pennsylvania, which has been strongly influenced by the rehabilitative philosophy of the Quakers, has been a leader in developing incarceration alternatives, whereas Texas, under the influence of the frontier concept of justice, has led the Nation in expanding its prison system. Texans are 15 percent more likely to be mugged, twice as likely to be raped, and twice as likely to be murdered than Pennsylvanians. Japan has experienced a considerable reduction in crime which has paralleled its reduction in the use of incarceration. In addition to reductions caused by less harsh sentencing, the decrease in Japanese crime can be attributed to a ban on private ownership of handguns, to state support for the family and the community, and to a public policy which emphasizes full employment and job security. The paper recommends that corrections professionals should promote public policies which reduce sentencing harshness, promote job security for all Americans, but especially the poor and ex-offenders, punish nonpredatory offenders by nonconfinement methods; reduce the opportunity for and incidence of gun violence; and stimulate safe, therapeutic environments within correctional facilities.