Literature Review probation vs incarceration cost

LITERATURE REVIEW PROBATION VS INCARCERATION COST
Name
Institution
Abstract
Currently, the American correctional facilities are overstretched due to the United States harboring the largest prison population in the world, with operating costs running into billions of dollars. Furthermore, the U.S penal system has one of the highest recidivism rates, with over half of released inmates finding themselves back in prison within five years of their first incarceration. Experts have noted that the U.S criminal justice system is more punishment oriented, compared with other developed nations, like Norway, who have a steadily declining prison population due to the alternative approaches that have been established. One of the more humane and profitable strategies that have been cited as more favorable is the probation of non-violent offenders, convicted of relatively small offenses such as marijuana possession and other victimless crimes. Other solutions that have been touted include fines, supervision programs, community service and drug addiction treatment among other solutions that have been hailed as cost effective, resulting in more money that can be utilized in crime prevention and other development projects. This study seeks to establish the benefits of probation concerning costs, offers reintegration into society and any other benefits compared to incarceration at a federal, state or county facility.
The United States, for a developed country, is faced with numerous hurdles in the attempt to curtail a rapidly growing crime rate, which has resulted in a prison population that is the largest globally.

For instance, in 2013, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) stated that 2,220,300 adults, who are roughly 0.91% of the national population, were held in various local and federal penitentiary facilities. In fact, data shows that, per capita, the United States is only second to the small island nation of Seychelles regarding prison population per every 100 thousand citizens. Furthermore, an additional 4, 751, 100 were under various forms of administrative supervision such as probation and parole. All in all, about 2.8% of the adult population was in some correctional institution or program. Besides, there are about 54, 148 minors who were held in juvenile detention centers.
According to various institutes and human rights watch groups such as the Vera Institute have claimed that jails have become storage facilities for the poor, mentally ill and drug users, many of whom are non-violent offenders. What is worse is that, more often than not, many non-violent offenders who are sent to prison will undergo experiences that may alter their behavior for the worse. With the advent of “tough on crime” policies in the 1980’s, the U.S criminal justice system has been accused of failing to utilize alternative correctional programs that do not adversely affect the offender. Instead, there is a need to grant them the chance to revive their career, life ambitions and help quicken their integration into society at the end of their sentence. With recidivism at an all-time high, the time is nigh for the United States’ criminal justice system to adopt probation as a cost saving and potentially lifesaving alternative to incarceration.
This research paper seeks to establish whether probation of small and non-violent offenders is a better option for both the state and the criminals. The study will conduct extensive research into the various costs involved in incarcerating an offender, versus costs that will be incurred in other less stringent correctional programs that do not require physical restraint. Furthermore, we will review successful examples of states that have prioritized alternative treatment, correctional programs and social reintegration to imprisonment.
Review of literature
The costs of imprisonment
In 2008, the cost of taking care of the over 2 million adults incarcerated in the U.S was about $75 billion annually (Mair & Burke 2011). Hartigan (1985) theorized that if alternative correctional programs were successfully implemented, these enormous costs could be drastically lowered, especially if many of the non-violent offenders who are currently the glut of the prison population were paroled and introduced into probation and other supervisory programs (Hartigan 1985). He goes further to state that minor crime ex-offenders should be properly integrated back to the society, with supervisory agencies ensuring that they adhere to various regulations. Furthermore, he advocates for sanctions, such as the use of electronic tagging for offenders who violate the less stringent rules of probation. By ensuring that the ex-offender is economically active, the government will drastically lower the costs of catering for a working class offender, who can be able to partly fund his supervision program if he is provided with the avenues.
Mair and Burke (2011) addressed the notion that probation was not an enough deterrent for crime, with many people wrongly believing that prison was good enough punishment for offenders. However, the two argue that probation not only helped offenders get their lives back, it also “saved numerous amounts of taxpayers money that would otherwise be spent on the welfare of prisoners, who essentially can care for themselves if allowed to and guided by relevant supervisory agencies.” They quote a research by Long Reach American Correction, which established that roughly $79.00 is spent daily on a prisoner’s welfare, dwarfing the $3.42 spent on an offender on probation (Mair & Burke 2011).
A study carried out by Rice et al. (1976) in 1975 proved that, by incarcerating an offender, rather than placing them on probation, the relevant state agency incurred eight to ten times the costs of the latter. For instance, the costs of ensuring prisoner security and welfare through supervision were billed to be roughly ten times the cost of a probation oversight of the same offender. Furthermore, Rice et al. theorized that since probation reduced recidivism, the costs of supervision and welfare gradually decreases as the offender reintegrated back into society. Finally, she also opined that supervisory duties could be carried out by non-governmental personnel such as volunteer clergy and neighborhood watchers; further reducing costs (Rice, Adam, & Duran 1976).
Alternative approaches
Frazier (2002) concluded that imprisonment was not only a costly venture; it accurately failed to address crime, with more than half of the offenders committing another crime in the three years following their release. Furthermore, he criticized the prison system, saying that not only did it not adequately address the root causes of criminal behavior; there is credible evidence to show that many non-violent offenders took a turn for the worse when imprisoned for relatively minor crimes such as possession of marijuana. On the other hand, he advocates for the use of less expensive programs such as day reporting centers, where paroled offenders are mandated to report for community reintegration and economic relevant activities (Frazier 2002).
In his research, Duffy (1985) posits that since many governments, both state and federal were facing budget cuts and shortfalls, alternative crime prevention solutions had to be sought. For instance, the state of Maryland developed a more cost effective rehabilitation program for individuals incarcerated due to drug-related charges. With research showing that over 53% percent of drug-related offenders were at the risk of committing similar offenses once freed. The state panel authority found out that by providing prisoners with alternative drug treatment, they drastically reduced the chances for recidivism. After a while, hard evidence pointed to the success of the program, with young offenders who were introduced into the program exhibiting high levels of recovery. In addition to saving costs, the program also enabled former offenders to live productive lives; going back to work, school and marriage (Duffy 1985).
McDonald et al. (1989) argue that by committing an offender to probation, the state metes out punishment, but at the same time offering a second chance at life. Many prisoners have been noted to prefer probation to imprisonment, which plenty agrees is a quite harsh punishment. With prisoner worldwide becoming storage facilities for societies unwanted, McDonald and others advocated for a reformatory approach to non-violent offenders who are often working class citizens who contribute to the nation’s economy. He argues that, by incarcerating these criminals, the government burdens the taxpayers, without actually assisting the offender in reforming (McDonald, Schuman & Riveland 1989).
In conclusion, we see that community-based supervision is way more cost effective as compared to imprisonment for less violent crimes. According to Kiessling (1985), there is an urgent need to address the ever growing prison population that is the result of recidivism. “In the United States, the criminal justice system needs to close the gap between incarceration and probation.” He also quotes a study by the Criminal Justice Organization that explicitly showed that prisons are expensive regarding costs and the toll on human life. With prisons failing to curtail a growing recidivism rate, alternative correctional approaches needed to be sought (Kiessling 1985). Also, as prison regulations and rules were developed with the young people in mind, it is recommended that there is a review of sentencing and release policies. So as to know which can be modified so as to reduce the growing population of the elderly in prisons “who have been convicted of less violent crimes” without risking the safety of the public. As they can be put in nursing homes under supervision as some are too old to cause any harm. This will reduce the costs used to take care of them in prisons. For example, some diseases brought about by old age might be avoided under good care compared to when they face hardships behind prison where nobody is concerned with their welfare. In the long run, the prison facilities are faced with using a lot of resources in offering them medical care. Hence, time in jail is seen as an expensive method to regulate crime for people who have served their time for “the less violent crimes committed” and are no longer a threat.
References
Duffy, B. P. (1985). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Maryland state restitution program.
Frazier, R. L. (2002). Incarceration and adult felony probation in Texas: A cost comparison. Huntsville, TX
Kiessling, J. J. (1985). The Ottawa Volunteer Program: An interim report on operations and preliminary cost-benefit analysis March 31, 1975. Kanata, Ont.: Micro-Can.
Hartigan, R. S. (1985) Cost-effectiveness of misdemeanant probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982. Ann Arbor, MI: “Inter-university Consortium for Political & Social Research.”
Mair, G., & Burke, L. (2011). Redemption, rehabilitation, and risk management: A history of probation. New York: Routledge.
McDonald, D., Schuman, A. M., & Riveland, C. (1989). The cost of corrections: In searchof the bottom line. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections
Rice, R. E., Adam, S., & Duran, M. (1976). “The correctional cost of serviced and unservicedjuvenile gangs and evaluation of a detached worker program.” Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming of America.