CASE STUDY 1

Case Study
 CASE STUDY 2

Case Study: The Parole Board

There has been a drastic increase in the quantity of prisoners in the United States (US)

since the 1980s as a product of initiatives adopted to incarcerate drug offenders (Samuels, 2013).

In 1980, US prisons housed 319,598 inmates (The Sentencing Project, 2017). This figure

increased to a sum total of 1,526,800 inmates in US prisons by 2015. The US is known as the

incarceration nation given the fact that 2.2 million individuals occupy the prison and jails in this

nation, which is representative of an increase of 500 percent since 1980. “At the federal level,

people incarcerated on a drug conviction make up just under half the prison population. At the

same level, the number of people in prison for drug offenses has increased ten-fold since 1980”

(The Sentencing Project, 2017, p. 3). Given the ramifications of issues related to overcrowding,

it is critical to examine methods by which the current conditions may be responsibly mitigated

for the beneficence of all stakeholders.

Political War on Drugs

It is imperative to note that state leaders were largely unconcerned with issues of

overcrowding as society became increasingly apprehensive due to the increase in crime during

the mid-1970s (Guetzkow & Schoon, 2015). The resultant war on drugs and initiatives to get

‘tough on crime’ were not comprehensively addressed, as politicians were unilaterally focused

on increasing sentence lengths and rates of incarceration to provide evidence that they were

working for the public. “Prison diversion and early releases ran counter to these trends, as did

the idea of easing crowding to improve living conditions and rehabilitative prospects for

criminals behind bars” (Guetzhow & Schoon, 2015, p. 407). In fact, a number of case studies

conducted on litigation related to prison overcrowding reveal the fact that politicians stated that
 CASE STUDY 3

they were in favor of prison reform, yet they declined funding to implement the changes that

they purportedly supported in terms of positive reform.

When politicians did finally respond to the plethora of litigation years following

judgments issued, they chose to allocate funds to increasing the prison capacity instead of

reducing recidivism. The focus was not changed, as the salient goal was to continue in the trend

of increased incarceration. “Thus, we can expect that the overcrowding litigation did not lead to

reduced crowding because, as we saw, correction officials have an interest in keeping prisons

crowded” (Guetzhow & Schoon, 2015, p. 407). A unified effort to reduce overcrowding by

means of fair sentencing as discussed is the only method by which this issue may be resolved.

Retaining Control

It is essential for the parole board to retain control of the conditions that govern release of

inmates; therefore, it is certainly prudent for Robert, as chair of the parole board, to inform the

Governor of methods by which issues of overcrowding may be addressed in a safe manner.

“The single biggest way to make a dent in the prison population is to lower mandatory

minimums for drug offenses” (Samuels, 2013, n.p.). The ‘War on Drugs’ has not effectively

reduced drug-related offenses; instead, the policies that have been adopted have resulted in

lengthy sentences for non-violent offenders. As such, state and federal prisons house a

staggering quantity of these drug offenders, thereby significantly contributing to the unsafe

conditions that are coupled with overcrowding. Inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentences

as per mandatory minimum regulations. If the mandatory minimum sentence is decreased to

allow inmates to serve 75 percent of their sentences based on good behavior and compliance, the

population of inmates would significantly decrease. While Robert is concerned that early release

would result in increased recidivism, this concern is not substantiated by empirical evidence.
 CASE STUDY 4

“Early release has not significantly affected their likelihood of committing crimes once they’re

out of prison” (Samuels, 2013, n.p.). Given the objective data indicating that a relaxation of the

mandatory minimum sentence does not affect recidivism in a statistically significant manner,

Robert is certainly commissioned to respond to the Governor’s request in accordance in an

objective manner.

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

It is also critical to discuss the Fair Sentencing act of 2010. This act was adopted to

increase the total quantity of crack cocaine necessary to target the offender for a mandatory

minimum sentence (Samuels, 2013). As such, new non-violent drug offenders are not faced with

the severity of harsh penalties endured by prior offenders. This act does not apply to offenders

incarcerated prior to the enactment of the act; therefore, it is essential to revisit the conditions of

this act to reduce issues of overcrowding. A retroactive implementation of the Fair Sentencing

Act of 2010 would result in the immediate release of approximately 3,000 prisoners. It is also

critical to ensure that, in the future, policies and acts adopted affect inmates retroactively to

ensure continued relief for conditions of overcrowding in prisons.

Safety Valve

It is also crucial to adopt a Safety Valve for all non-violent drug offenders facing

mandatory minimum sentences (Samuels, 2013). At the current time, judges may use discretion

in terms of sentencing when drug offenders have very minor or no criminal history. However,

judges are compelled to adhere to mandatory minimum sentences for all other non-violent drug

offenders. By extending the Safety Valve to all drug offenders, judges may use discretion when

determining the appropriate length of a prison sentence. As sentences are reduced for non-

violent offenders, prisons will not house the current quantity of inmates, and the cost of housing
 CASE STUDY 5

prisoners will also decrease significantly. The decreased expense would afford stakeholders with

increased financial opportunities to invest in reducing recidivism by allocating more funds

towards rehabilitative efforts to include substance abuse programs. Moreover, programs focused

on promoting success upon release by means of educational opportunities and follow-up

counseling upon release have proven to reduce recidivism.

The Warden

As the warden, William is commissioned to respond to the increased quantity of inmates

in a proactive manner to ensure the safety of inmates and employees. It is entirely plausible to

conclude that employees’ well being is compromised when they are overwhelmed by a drastic

increase in the population of inmates. It is essential to adopt a risk assessment to determine

whether inmates may successfully integrate into society with the appropriate level of support

services and supervision to decrease the inmate population and protect all stakeholders in the

system in addition to securing public safety (Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006). The

risk principle indicates that specific programs must be implemented in direct alignment with the

offender’s risk levels. “Programs that adhere to the risk principle reduced recidivism by 19

percent but programs that violated the risk principle increased recidivism by 4 percent”

(Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006, p. 3).

Need Principle

The need principle is equally important, as this principle promotes the goal of reducing

recidivism by targeting specific correctional interventions to the differentiated needs of inmates

in order to alleviate issues of overcrowding (Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006).

Dynamic risk factors related to criminogenic needs, such as poor family relationships, antisocial

attitudes or personalities, and low education or vocational achievement levels, play an integral
 CASE STUDY 6

role in identifying the needs of offenders when focused on determining the most appropriate

community-based program for offenders as the reintegrate with society. The notion of

determining community-based work release based on unsupported security guess work is

dangerous, at best. William can only promote safety and security by implementing a risk and

needs assessment to identify the specificity of the program appropriate for each inmate released.

It is also essential for William to gain a comprehensive awareness of the effects of low- versus

high-intensity programs on recidivism rates of inmates that present with varying levels of risk

factors.

Program Effectiveness

Program effectiveness is significantly increased when four to six crimonogenic needs are

targeted when directly compared with programs that only address one to three criminogenic

needs (Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006). Moreover, intensive programs effectively

decreased recidivism among high-risk offenders; however, these same programs increased

recidivism among low-risk offenders. It is crucial to understand and effectively communicate

the specific effects of risk and needs assessments when speaking with the union representatives

to ensure that they realize the importance of adopting these assessments and screenings. While

many studies have been conducted to support the efficacy of residential and traditional programs,

community non-residential programs have also proven to reduce recidivism. “Implementing

such strategies is no simple task and would require the adoption and use of a sound risk and need

assessment, training of staff, and the availability of relevant and validated treatment programs”

(Lowenkamp, Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006, p. 7).

William can assure the union representatives that the safety of his members will be

effectively promoted by adopting the aforementioned risk and need assessments. There is
 CASE STUDY 7

certainly no substitute for knowledge and proactive implementation of validated measures.

William’s operating budget was cut, thereby disabling efforts to adopt the necessary initiatives to

respond to the skyrocketed inmate population. As such, William is commissioned to inform the

union representatives of the responsible alternatives to prison overcrowding that must be adopted

to secure the safety of his employees and inmates. Budgetary allocations must be provided to

appropriately train staff members and invest in the assessments needed to decrease the inmate

population.

The District Attorney

The campaign pledge that Martha supported cannot be equated with supporting arrests

wherein a lack of probable cause and weak evidentiary information serve as the basis for

increased convictions for drug-related crimes. Given the fact that the sample cases indicate that

the arrests are representative of losing cases, Martha is certainly commissioned to adhere to

principles of justice as part of the campaign pledges made. While it has been clearly stated that

the offenders were highly involved in the drug culture, the necessity of providing probable cause

and evidence of criminal activity is foundation to the securement of individual’s constitutional

rights. Martha must communicate the most responsible, just manner by which these cases may

be handled to preserve justice, as this action is not in contradiction to her conservative platform

wherein drug offenders are appropriately convicted and sentenced within the true confines of the

law.

Probable Cause Factors

A number of factors related to probable cause play integral roles in determining whether

the conviction is substantiated. As such, it is critical for Martha to examine the ramifications of

supporting the prosecutions related to the aforementioned cases. Martha must communicate
 CASE STUDY 8

alternatives to trial by weighing the following information. “I define probable cause as having

four components: one quantitative (How certain must the police be?), one qualitative (How

strong must the supporting data sources be?), one temporal (When must police and courts make

their judgments?), and one moral (Do the police have ‘individualized suspicion’?)” (Taslitz,

2010, p. 145). When discussing individualized suspicion, it is imperative to note that this

particular factor plays a significant role in determining how US citizens are judged based on their

uniqueness in terms of character, actions, situational factors, and thoughts. As such, the state is

compelled to suspend biased judgments based on assumptions, stereotypes, and potential guilt-

by-association factors. Individuals highly involved in the drug culture are subject to increased

incarceration rates based on issues of profiling based on stereotypes, and this crisis has been

widely popularized as a product of mass incarceration. When controlling for the variable of

population, individual members of minority races and ethnicities are significantly more likely to

be convicted and sentenced when compared to white peer counterparts involved in similar

criminal activities. While the mayor and police may stand in opposition to Martha’s endeavors

to support justice due to their commitment to ensure that no criminals escape the criminal justice

system, it is essential to communicate that this commitment cannot justify convictions in the

absence of probable cause and evidence.

Plea Bargains and Diversion Programs

It is recommended that Martha advise her prosecutors to offer plea bargains for the cases

that have been discussed in order to remain diligent while compromising appropriately in order

to avoid the extremes of a trial or dismissal. In fact, most criminal cases that are filed are

resolved by means of plea bargaining (American Bar Association, 2017). In this scenario, the

defendant will typically plead guilty to an offer of a lesser charge; therefore, sentences can be
 CASE STUDY 9

reduced and issues of overcrowding are effectively mitigated as well. Another appropriate

alternative is focused on the diversion program wherein criminal matters that are less serious in

nature are resolved by offering the defendant the option of probation with no trial. “If he or she

completes the probation – e.g., undergoes rehabilitation or makes restitution for the crime – the

matter will be expunged (removed) from the records” (American Bar Association, 2017, n.p.).

This particular program is rehabilitation-oriented, as offenders are afforded the chance to receive

the appropriate treatments necessary to change their lifestyles and become more productive

members of society while mitigating issues that prevent them from succeeding in securing

gainful employment due to a criminal record.

The Officer

As a law enforcement officer, Linda was clearly acting within the realm of her

professional capacity in questioning the individual who appeared to be a lookout at 3:00am;

therefore, her actions were justified. Moreover, her suspicion was substantiated when the

individual produced vials of what appeared to be crack-cocaine in addition to $400 cash from his

pockets. While the department is overwhelmed with issues of overcrowding, it is highly

irresponsible to refrain from arresting an individual who has clearly presented with probable

cause and evidentiary support based on his actions and the contents of his pockets.

Overcrowding cannot be mitigated by marginalizing the laws; instead, it must be addressed by

reducing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and applying the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively.

Professional Obligations

Linda would fail to actualize her professional obligations if she chose to ignore the

factual evidence that she possessed. As such, she must arrest the individual based on her
CASE STUDY 10

findings in order that he may be held accountable for his alleged criminal activity. It is also

critical to obtain an identification on this person; therefore, he must be arrested in order to ensure

that he is finger-printed to learn of his identity. When Linda receives the call wherein she is

asked if she is available to serve as back-up for a ‘burglary in progress’, she is compelled to tell

the dispatcher that she is in the process of making an arrest; therefore, she is not currently

available. While she may be subject to chastising from her sergeant for burdening the system

and docket with an additional case, she is concurrently safe-guarding the public by obtaining a

valid identification on the individual and promoting justice by conveying the fact that all

individuals are fully responsible for their actions. The arrest may be time-consuming and

considered a minor offense, but that does not negate the law.

“Recent years have seen changes in what was once a monolithic drive to incarcerate drug

users. States have increasingly accepted drug courts as a more humane answer to drug problems”

(Moore & Elkavich, 2008, p. 785). Once Linda has appropriately arrested the individual, and his

identity is revealed, the court is responsible for imposing justice based on the severity of the

crime, and outstanding warrants for arrest will certainly play a significant role in the subsequent

sentence. “Possession of drugs is illegal without valid authorization. While penalties for

possession are not generally as great as for manufacture and distribution of drugs, possession of a

relatively large quantity may be considered distribution” (Boston University, 2017, n.p.). The

salient fact is, law enforcement officers are quite clearly required to respond to criminal activity

by enforcing laws uniformly and fairly.

Due Diligence

It is also essential to note that Linda has no method by which she may determine whether

the individual who must be arrested has distributed illegal drugs to minors, thereby contributing
CASE STUDY 11

to the drug culture that has continually plagued society and fostered conditions wherein issues of

dependency have become increasingly pervasive. Although the absence of identification is

clearly not the foundational reason for the necessary arrest given that evidence has been

presented, a lack of adherence and due diligence to enforcing the law could easily result in

releasing an offender who may continue to detract from efforts to mitigate substance abuse. The

individual may certainly benefit from rehabilitation and treatment, and given that this option is

available based on the offense and prior criminal history, the diversion program could effectively

change the landscape of this individual’s life by providing the support services needed to succeed

in actualizing his potential while possibly expunging the arrest.

CASE STUDY 12

References

American Bar Association. (2017). How Courts Work | Public Education. Retrieved from

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_n

etwork/how_courts_work/pleabargaining.html

Boston University. (2017). State and Federal Laws and Sanctions Concerning Drugs and Alcohol

» Safety on Campus | Boston University. Retrieved from

https://www.bu.edu/safety/alcohol-drugs/laws/

Guetzkow, J., & Schoon, E. (2015). If you build it, they will fill it: The consequences of

prison overcrowding litigation. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 401-432.

doi:10.1111/lasr.12140

Lowenkamp, C. T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need

principles: Does it matter for supervision-based pPrograms?. Federal Probation, 70(3),

3-8.

Moore, L. D., & Elkavich, A. (2008). Who’s using and who’s doing time: Incarceration, the

war on drugs, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 98(5), 782–786.

http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126284

Samuels, J. (2013, November 5). How to reduce the size of the federal prison population | Urban

Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-reduce-size-federal-

prison-population

Taslitz, A. E. (2010). What is probable cause, and why should we care?: The costs, benefits, and

meaning of individualized suspicion. Law & Contemporary Problems, 73(3), 145-210.

The Sentencing Project. (2017, March). Trends in US corrections. Retrieved from

http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf