Read an essay that has no replies (unless otherwise authorized by me) and choose the most appropriate feedback. Write the feedback you provided in the comments box of your partner including 1. The full name of the person you provided feedback to 2. Your name. 3. The feedback. (Remember feedback can be corrective, directive, and/or facilitating. (Reply by Sunday at 11:59 PM)
Full Marks: All 3 types of feedback used. Positive and challenging feedback is provided. At least 5 points are made about the writing. Everything is done on time. (20-25 points)
Partial Marks: All 3 types of feedback used. Challenging feedback is provided. At least 4-5 points are made about the writing. Everything is done on time. (15-20 points)
Little to No Marks: All less than 3 types of feedback used. Positive or challenging feedback is provided. At least 1-3 points are made about the writing. Everything is done on time. (Fewer than 15 points)
Prisoners in America make up the highest population of prisons in the world compared to other countries. According to organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 20% of the US population are held in prison, and that the rates of incarceration has continued to increase since the 1970s. In a country where people live with millions of others, these percentages bring up an idea of the actual number of people that are unbelievably incarcerated. In more ways than one, mass incarceration rates could be decreased by allowing prisoners to participate in society.
Mass incarceration is a common term that is often used when discussing the mass population of prisoners in America. In conjunction with this term, it also calls for a reform in the criminal justice system among our society to reduce incarceration. There are many different factors and effects that come because of these reforms. Some of these factors can include the technical arguments of mass incarceration, and with that, according to Santora Sara, who says “The point made in these presentations was that these special needs of the individuals being incarcerated were not being met within the prison system, and that unless they are addressed and the individuals are helped, the incarceration rates cannot be lowered” (Santora 2016) and an editorial by New York Times company that says “In 2003, the state passed a law requiring all state financed correctional treatment programs to use methods that have been shown to improve client compliance and to reduce recidivism.” (“Recidivism’s High Cost and a Way to Cut It,” 2011). There are also those that argue reform due to the cause or effects of mass incarceration, like Stuhldreher Tim, who says “80 percent of the change has to come from within our own community” (Stuhldreher 2015) and Boccia Kate who says, “Our business leaders and owners need to understand my son’s incarceration and that the collateral consequences it had on my family directly hit them in their wallets . . . The families of the incarcerated are joining forces, becoming one voice” (Boccia 2015).
SUPPORTING PARAGRAPH 1
Recidivism is one of the most contributing factors of mass incarceration. It is said in a study by Pew Charitable Trusts Center on the States, 43 percent of prisoners nationally return to the lockup within three years. However, according to Oregon, who had the lowest percentage of return of prisoners within three years, “the Oregon Legislature created a rating system that allows parole officers to employ a range of sanctions – short of a return to prison – for offenders whose infractions were minor and did not present a danger. A parolee who fails a drug test can be sent to residential drug treatment or sentenced to house arrest or community service” (“Recidivism’s High Cost and a Way to Cut It” 2011). In this example, Oregon has created a system in which offenders are given the chance to participate in society or treated, so as to not be detrimental to themselves in society, instead of serving time in prison again. This evidence shows that serving time in prison isn’t always the answer for people who have committed crimes. Instead of increasing mass incarceration by sending them back in prison, Oregon shows that criminals can be punished by being forced to participate in society as a reminder or being treated of their problems so they could cope better in society. While recidivism is one of the contributing factors of incarceration, this can be worked around by offering different punishments to those who commit a crime, reducing mass incarceration. However, offering different punishments or treatment for the result to lessen mass incarceration doesn’t always fix the problem.
SUPPORTING PARAGRAPH 2
Mental illnesses are one of the many things that make a person detrimental to themselves and in society, which could lead to incarceration. According to Dr. Epperson and the researchers, who were part of a research team to solve mass incarceration, “Fourteen percent of adults in the criminal justice system have a serious mental illness, and by serious mental illness I’m talking about schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar spectrum, and major depression . . . . The point made in these presentations was that these special needs of individuals being incarcerated were not being met within the prison system, and that unless they are addressed and the individuals are helped, the incarceration rates cannot be lowered.” (Santora, 2016). In this example, researchers are saying that 14% of these adults that have mental illnesses and make up a portion of the entire prison population, can inhibit them from participating or being a part of society correctly. This example is explaining that these mental illnesses, that aren’t being treated, could end up being the same one that puts them back in prison. It can stop them from being able to maintain a job or could lead to a drug addiction due to depression which ends up putting them back in prison. By addressing and offering solutions to these mental illnesses, they are helping them function better in society and reduces the chance of committing a crime, partially reducing mass incarceration. While mental illnesses could potentially lead to incarceration again, if treated, could help them stay proper in society, leading to a normal life away of crimes and in turn, reducing mass incarceration. However, direct causes aren’t the only things that could cause and lessen incarceration.
SUPPORTING PARAGRAPH 3
Bias treatment in society is one of the factors that can lead to incarceration. According to Boccia Kate, who suffered financial problems due to her incarcerated son, “I don’t have the same losses forced on me as my son will when he returns, but I have collateral consequences nonetheless” (Boccia, 2015). In this quote, it explains how relationships between people are unfairly treated by people in society for something they didn’t do. This is important because it can lead to overall problems, like loss of money and relationships. A person could lose their job, their character changed by others’ views, and the way they live their lives, as well as who they are acquainted with, are changed as a result of this. In contrast to this, by treating returnees and their relationships with others equally as citizens, the person incarcerated, could get the help needed by the people he or she is acquainted with to get settled in society, reducing the chances of committing a crime and getting incarcerated. While bias treatment in society could drastically change a person’s life in a negative way, equal treatment can make another returnee’s life better.
It is true that prisoners make up America’s high mass incarceration rates. That this rate is continuously increasing due to things like bias arrests and neglection of recidivism rates. However, everyone is equally dependent on their own life. If someone were to commit a crime, it would be dealt with just according to the law. The aftermath of the sentence is to just give the person their own freedom back. Stephen says that prisoners should be given priority to reduce mass incarceration, but people and society should not have to adhere to convicts or former convicts because everyone is equally treated the same and are responsible for their own decision. Therefore, there is no need to take responsibility for convicts.
The scholarly article that I have read is called, The Innocence Myth, and it explains the position of criminal trials in society. It is to determine the level of offense the person has depending on the crime, not to determine factual innocence or guilt. In this process, it is said that that the national plea-bargaining rate is 95% and that all criminals plead guilty. In conjunction with this, people have taken responsibility regardless of the actual truth. In the end, all problems that arise with sentencing has to be dealt with the person who was sentenced to a crime. Be it, financial or relationship problems with people.
There is no need for a reform in the criminal justice system because everyone is treated the same and are responsible for their decisions. All people who take responsibility of a crime is also responsible for the problems that arise with them. Society shouldn’t have to carry another’s responsibility in this way. By trying to adjust the system, new problems could potentially arise with it. In the end, it should be left at its current fair state as it is.
Mass incarceration rates has continued to increase in the recent years, but this can be lowered by treating and changing a few of the things we do to prisoners that contribute to this. We can prevent this increase by offering different punishments, reduce the recidivism that comes with mass incarceration by treating the prisoners with mental illness so they’re not a harm to themselves or society, and treating returnees as equal citizens of society so that they could adapt to society life. Just by taking in some of these factors, we reduce a potential increase and the chances of being in prison. These are few the things in which contribute to mass incarceration. Nonetheless, every factor we take out will reduce mass incarceration.
Hoffman, M. (2007, April 26). The ‘Innocence’ Myth. Retrieved 2007, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/398985337/abstract/861n.d.D06CCC4351PQ/1?accountid=35840.
Boccia, K. (2015, December 31). GUEST COLUMN: We All Suffer Consequences of Mass Incarceration. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1752550706/abstract/1E934B68827E4D6FPQ/3?accountid=35840.
Santora, Sara. Research Offers Solutions to Mass Incarceration Issue, 19 May 2016, www.proquest.com/docview/1789769829/fulltext/813AEED9B86C4380PQ/3?accountid=35840.
New York Times. Recidivism’s High Cost and a Way to Cut It: [Editorial], 28 Apr. 2011, www.proquest.com/docview/863740245/fulltext/40DB8569849F4168PQ/8?accountid=35840.
Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019, August 13). Examining the relationship between U.S. incarceration rates and population health at the county level. SSM – population health. Retrieved March 12, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715952/
Macfarlane, Katherine. “THE NEW JIM CROW’S EQUAL PROTECTION POTENTIAL.” 2018, www.proquest.com/docview/2200702427/abstract/B57419CDE4C34539PQ/4?accountid=35840.
Wildeman, Schnittker, Turney, Christoper, Jason, Kristin. “Despair by Association? The Mental Health of Mothers with Children by Recently Incarcerated Fathers.” Apr. 2012, www.proquest.com/docview/1008250001/abstract/184F03A398274F14PQ/1?accountid=35840.
Paretta, Lawrence T. “The Impact of Public Policy Decisions on Juvenile Recidivism in the United States: A Retrospective Examination.” June 2018, www.proquest.com/docview/2162721212/abstract/352E739C26724D57PQ/1?accountid=35840.