The Shackles of Powder and Smoke

As Ted Conover said, “prisons should be for violent criminals, not mainly poor men from rough neighbourhoods who get caught selling or using drugs” (Conover, 2000, p. 318). The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, especially since the turn of the 20th century. At the end of the 20th century the country was consumed with getting tough on crime, specifically drug crime. The people were begging for criminals to get what was coming to them and rehabilitation of offenders was put on the back burner. However, the tougher the correctional system got on drug crime, the more people were sent to prison, the larger the prison population grew, and the more people reoffended. The cycle continues to this day. To combat this ever-growing problem, non-violent drug offenders should be diverted away from incarceration as a form of punishment, and instead be sentenced to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs. Because of this, states should spend more of their resources on rehabilitation.

“Addiction is a treatable disease of the brain”; however, the United States correctional system time and time again continues to treat addiction as a correctional problem, fixed by long bouts of incarceration, and not by rehabilitation and/or treatment programs (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). The majority of drug offenses committed in the United States are by non-violent drug offenders. These people could be sentenced to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs. While about “half of all prisoners in the United States do in fact meet the criteria to be diagnosed with drug abuse or dependence disorder, only about 13% of these inmates end up receiving treatment while they are incarcerated” (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). The end result of this is that once those inmates are released from incarceration they have a high probability of reoffending and ending up back in prison. The fact is that even though some inmates do end up receiving treatment for drug abuse while they are incarcerated, the environment within prisons is not suitable for the rehabilitation of inmates. Take the Stanford Prison experiment as an example. They took psychologically healthy individuals and placed them willingly into a controlled prison-like environment. What they discovered was that even “psychologically healthy individuals could become sadistic or depressed when placed” into that type of environment (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). Now imagine putting an already psychologically vulnerable individual into that setting. The cold hard truth is that prisons are not built to rehabilitate inmates, they are built for intimidation and punishment. There have been multiple studies over the years that have demonstrated that “individuals who participated in prison-based treatment followed by a community-based program post-incarceration were 7 times more likely to be drug free and 3 times less likely to be arrested for a criminal behaviour than those not receiving treatment” (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). The combination of both a prison-based treatment program and a community treatment post-incarceration were more effective in rehabilitating drug offenders than just incarceration. Because of these facts, the United States correctional system should sentence non-violent drug offenders to treatment programs that are proven to lower recidivism rates instead of just sentencing them to incarceration. So, the question is, why is the United States incarcerating drug offenders for incredibly long sentences when multiple studies have shown that prisons are not meant for rehabilitation and lead to drug offenders re-offending?

Money is what makes the world go round, or at least that’s how the saying goes. Well, it’s the same for the United States correctional system, money makes the prison system go round. Incarceration costs approximately $20,000-24,000 each year per person incarcerated. While the United States continuously pays this amount, there has been little to no evidence proving that incarceration reduces drug use and/or drug-related re-incarceration rates. In comparison, it only costs around $4,000-4,700 each year for methadone, a drug treatment commonly used for heroin-dependent inmates. Although methadone treatment has demonstrated to be successful in reducing drug use and criminal activity following release, inmates are still sentenced to incarceration over effective treatment programs (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). If the United States chose to sentence non-violent drug offenders to rehabilitation or other treatment programs, such as methadone, there would be at least a $20,000 difference in costs, ultimately saving money. Over time, that cost difference would add up as prior drug addicts contribute to their communities through prosocial behaviour, instead of their previous antisocial behaviour. Treatment of drug offenders improves both public health and safety in the long run and decreases the rates of reincarceration. Rehabilitation and treatment programs ultimately have better social value and a much lower societal financial burden than just incarceration.

One of the largest problems in the United States correctional system is high recidivism rates. As the correctional system gets tougher on drug crimes, the more people are sent to prison, resulting in a larger prison population. The result of this is that once these drug offenders are released, it is found that they have high rates of recidivism, especially if they have served a long sentence and had little to no addiction treatment. As a result, these offenders tend to spend years in and out of prison, ultimately costing the legal and penal systems thousands of dollars (Editorial Staff, 2019). In a review of recidivism in fifteen states, “¼ of individuals released returned to prison within 3 years for technical violations that included, among other things, testing positive for drug use” (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009). As discussed throughout class, whenever an offender is released, they are released back into the original environment they were picked up from. Because of this, they are re-exposed to the environment that led them to be incarcerated in the first place. For drug offenders, this means being exposed to an environment rich with drug stimuli. Typically, when drug offenders are released from incarceration they are not required to participate in treatment programs following incarceration. If drug rehabilitation and/or treatment programs within prisons are to be successful in reducing recidivism rates, the treatment has to be ongoing following the release back into the general population. If not, the re-exposure to a drug rich environment would lead to a relapse, most likely resulting in the offender landing right back in prison.

The implementation of sentencing drug offenders to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs would re-establish judicial discretion and eliminate the dictation of mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines for drug offenses. Originally, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was supposed to “encourage government to prosecute high level drug offenders; however, the majority of drug cases involve low level offenders” (Sterling, 2014). The creation of mandatory minimum sentencing in drug cases based on the amount of drugs involved typically targets the poor drug addicts, such as street junkies who grew up in this environment and that’s all they know, and low-level drug dealers, people who are in the drug business just trying to get by in life. An example of a mandatory minimum sentence would be: “minimum 5-year sentence (up to 40 years) must be imposed for distribution of 5 grams of methamphetamine” which is equivalent to only a 5-day supply for a heavy user (CJPF Staff, n.d.). Typically, heavy users of methamphetamine are people who need help to stop their addiction and learn positive prosocial behaviours. Instead, they could be sentenced to a life-time in prison without any chance of being properly treated for their addiction. There is, however, a way for drug offenders to get out of the mandatory minimum sentencing. If the offender can give “substantial assistance” to the government on the prosecution of another drug offender, that offender’s sentence can be reduced (Sterling, 2014). The only drawback to this is that typically only high-level drug offenders have “dirt” on other drug offenders. Therefore, the people who profit the most from drug crimes get the lesser sentences while the people who are addicted, poor, and desperate get the longer, harsher sentences. If rehabilitation and/or treatment programs were implanted for sentencing options for drug offenders, the judge would have more judicial discretion in drug cases, allowing the judge to actually take into account the all circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant. Therefore, prison time can be sentenced to high-level repeating drug offenders and rehabilitation can be sentenced to the people who need the help.

Overall, there are many positives to sentencing non-violent drug offenders to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs. While there are many positives, there are several arguments against the idea of alternative sentencing for drug offenders.

One argument against using alternative sentencing for drug offenders is that punishment is still the main purpose of the correctional system, not rehabilitation. While over the years the main purpose of the correctional system has wavered towards the direction of rehabilitation, the current punitive philosophy follows the just deserts model of retribution. If a judge were allowed to provide alternative sentences, such as rehabilitation or treatment programs, instead of only incarceration for drug offenders, then those offenders wouldn’t be getting their just deserts. Along with this argument goes the fact that some believe that rehabilitation treats criminals far too leniently. A portion of the population wants them to be punished for what they did, not sent to rehabilitation programs. They argue that rehab programs cost too much and don’t work, as well as the fact that they don’t actually punish the offenders (Fallin, Wexler, & Lipton, 1992). However, the main argument for keeping the just deserts model of punishment for non-violent drug offenders is based on the fact that the correctional system will not change drastically and the emotional aspect of crime victims wanting revenge against criminals. While this is a strong argument against alternative sentencing for drug offenders from a conservative perspective, there is strong evidence proving rehabilitation and treatment programs are more effective in deterring drug offenders from re-offending, due to the fact that it gives drug offenders a chance to be properly treated.

One of the most loudly spoken arguments against alternative sentencing for drug offenders is costs. There aren’t enough resources, people, money, space, or time to spend on all of the drug addicted offenders in prison. The taxpayers are already paying $80 billion each year for the ~2.3 million people incarcerated in prison and the correctional system is still severely underfunded (Lewis & Lockwood, 2019). In addition, drug offenders have a high risk for having other infectious diseases due to drug habits, and also have a high rate of co-morbidity with other psychiatric disorders. Currently in prisons, at least 15-20% of people are mentally ill (Benson, 2003). These cofactors increase the cost for keeping the inmates incarcerated, and the sad reality is that prisons aren’t built or prepared to deal with these issues, especially coupled with the fact that the majority of people in prison with a mental illness are also drug addicts. With prisons already having limited resources, including psychologists, to treat their inmates, why would the public be willing to pay for treating drug offenders to be treated outside of incarceration? Substance abuse by itself already costs the United States around $600 billion annually (NIDA, 2020). Initially, that number looks scary and makes it seem reasonable that drug offenders should be locked up behind bars to be punished for how much they cost the country, the reality is the opposite. If drug offenders actually got proper treatment, that cost would be greatly reduced, especially the associated health and social costs.

In the United States, there are already substance abuse programs inside of correctional facilities, eliminating the need for drug offenders to be sentenced to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs. Drug offenders can just get sentenced to incarceration and join a substance abuse program. However, these programs are drastically underfunded and tend to have long waiting lists. Correctional facilities would rather spend money on prison construction and maintenance instead of the prison-based drug treatment programs (Fallin, Wexler, & Lipton, 1992). Along with this, rehab is not always effective. You can’t treat a person if they themselves don’t want to get better. Ultimately though, rehabilitation is the most cost-effective way to address drug crime in the long run. Another reality is that rehab is not always effective in the sense that rehabilitation means restoring someone back to their own normal. Most times this means that people are being restored back to their anti-social habits they had before being brought into rehab and treatment programs. It also doesn’t help that once people are released from incarceration or rehab, they are generally put back into the old environment rich with drug cues, which can re-trigger addictive urges strong enough to combat any positive habits learned in rehab. Overall, it may appear not to be worth it to sentence drug offenders to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs when they can be sentenced to prison and get into substance abuse programs. But substance abuse programs are not always required, increasing the risk of drug offenders re-offending once they are released.

Overall, there are many pros and cons to diverting non-violent drug offenders away from incarceration as a form of punishment and instead sentencing them to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs. In my own personal opinion, non-violent drug offenders shouldn’t be incarcerated and should be sentenced to a treatment program that suits their own needs. As a country, we have failed them by not giving people the resources needed to overcome issues before they reach the point of imprisonment. We failed the poor man selling drugs on the street corner just trying to get enough money to pay rent this month and feed his daughter. We failed the meth addict who sits in the back of a classroom high because they believe that the world has given up on them and that they are a failure. Addiction is a disease, through and through. It shouldn’t be treated as a crime to be addicted to a substance that controls someone’s life. It should be viewed as a mental health issue that needs to be addressed and not repressed behind bars. There have been multiple studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of rehab over imprisonment on lowering recidivism rates. And the sad truth is, prisons are underfunded and not capable of treating addiction. If more drug offenders were sentenced to rehab, in the long run more money would be saved and can be used for other areas, such as poverty. Therefore, states should spend more of their resources on rehabilitation programs in order to lessen the growth of prison populations, treat drug offenders, and help the country.

In the United States, arguments have been made time and time again on how drug offenders should be sentenced. Some argue that drug offenders should be sentenced to rehabilitation and/or treatment programs because addiction is a mental health issue that is treatable; it’s more cost-effective in the long run; it would reduce recidivism rates; and it would reduce the prison populations that have grown due to mandatory minimums. Others argue that drug offenders should only be sentenced to prison because they need to be punished for their crime; it would be too costly to treat all of the drug addicted offenders; there are already substance abuse programs in prisons; and rehab isn’t always effective. Ultimately, I believe that non-violent drug offenders should be sentenced to rehab or treatment programs because I believe that the correctional system should be rehabilitative in nature and not just punitive. Sadly, the job of the correctional system is not rehabilitation. The cold hard truth “‘is that [correctional officers] are warehousers of human beings.’ And prison [is], above all, a storage unit” (Conover, 2000, p. 41).

Bibliography

APA. (2004, March 23). Inmate Drug Abuse Treatment Slows Prison's Revolving Door. Retrieved April 2021, from American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/research/action/aftercare

Benson, E. (2003, July/August). Rehabilitate or punish? Retrieved April 2021, from American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab

Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009, January). Treating Drug Abuse and Addiction in the Criminal Justice System: Improving Public Health and Safety. Retrieved April 2021, from US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681083/

CJPF Staff. (n.d.). Mandatory Minimums and Sentencing Reform. Retrieved April 2021, from Criminal Justice Policy Foundation: https://www.cjpf.org/mandatory-minimums

Conover, T. (2000). Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing. New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, Inc.

Editorial Staff. (2019, July 31). Prison Time vs. Rehab for Drug Offenders. Retrieved April 2021, from American Addiction Centers: https://recoveryfirst.org/blog/prison-time-vs-rehab-for-drug-offenders/

Fallin, G. P., Wexler, H. K., & Lipton, D. S. (1992). Treating Drug Problems: Volume 2: Commissioned Papers on Historical, Institutional, and Economic Contexts of Drug Treatment. Retrieved April 2021, from National Academy of Sciences: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234751/#ddd00038

Lewis, N., & Lockwood, B. (2019, December 17). The Hidden Cost of Incarceration. Retrieved April 2021, from The Marshall Project: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/12/17/the-hidden-cost-of-incarceration

NIDA. (2020, June 3). Is Drug Addiction Treatment Worth its Cost? Retrieved April 2021, from National Institute on Drug Abuse: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/drug-addiction-treatment-worth-its-cost

Sterling, E. E. (2014). Drug Laws and Snitching: A Primer. Retrieved April 2021, from PBS Frontline: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/

Stohr, M., Walsh, A., & Hemmens, C. (2012). Corrections: A Text/Reader (Vol. Second Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.

USSC Staff. (2017, October). Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Drug Offense in the Federal System. Retrieved April 2021, from United States Sentencing Commision: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties-drug-offenses-federal-system