Will Crime Rise if More People Are Kept Out of Prison?
Even many of the nation’s police chiefs have called for reducing the number of people, particularly minorities, sent to prison. But the news that a man suspected of murdering a New York City police officer had been given break after break, and was free because he had been allowed to enter a diversion program rather than be jailed on drug charges, have led even supporters of such programs to raise questions about them. With some already saying that crime may be rising, are we moving too fast to embrace limits on incarceration, such as diversion programs and drug courts? Could such measures actually increase the risk of crime?
* call for ~ = ~을 요구하다, ~을 필요로 하다/ minority(minorities) = 소수(소수집단)/ be suspected of ~ = ~의 혐의를 받다/ diversion program = 전환 프로그램/ raise a question = 의문을[문제점을] 제기하다/ embrace = 받아들이다[수용하다]/ limit (on ~) = (~에 대한 허용 한도) 제한, 허용치/ incarceration = 투옥, 감금
전환 프로그램과 같은 감금의 제한을 받아들이기에 우리는 너무 빠르게 조치를 취하고 있나요?
그와 같은 조치가 범죄의 위험성을 증가시킬 수 있나요?
1. Safety and Justice Complement Each Other
Programs to divert defendants from jail reduce crime by getting people into treatment, rather than prison.
2. Prison Alternatives Have Been Tried and Found Wanting
Besides, most state prisoners are serving time for violent crimes, and very few are in for simple drug possession.
3. Don’t Let a Hero’s Death End a Vital Program
Tragedy may spur “tough” laws to undermine diversion. This should be resisted. Jail diversion has been proven to work.
4. Incarceration Helped Bring Crime Down
There is no question that crime rates will increase if sentencing reform is expanded.
5. Mass Incarceration Is a Horrible Failure
We need to keep more, not fewer, people out of prison, which fuels cycles of crime and violence.
Sample Essay
Don’t Let a Hero’s Death End a Vital Program to Cut Incarceration
The death of Officer Randolph Holder reminds us of the dangers that officers face every day. Through the lens of our outrage, every event that precipitated his encounter with his killer is being analyzed. We've learned that the suspect, Tyrone Howard had a long criminal record and was on the streets after being diverted into drug treatment. It remains to be seen whether this violent act will bring an end to diversion programs.
Let me be clear: Tyrone Howard was an unlikely candidate for diversion. Besides Howard's long criminal history, police believe he was involved in a 2009 shooting. But while his arrest in the slaying of Holder presents an opportunity to reassess who should qualify for diversion, it should not invite debate about its relevance.
Diversion works. As we grapple with mass incarceration, diversion programs have proven to be effective. Drug courts have provided opportunities to thousands who historically would have been imprisoned because of addiction and mental health issues. Diversion programs have taken root in many communities, and together with progressive policing strategies, are reducing jail populations while improving public safety.
Of course tragedy spurs action and there is no shortage of politicians ready to respond with “tough” legislation that undermines diversion. We must resist this urge. While these “tough” measures may bring immediate comfort, they would yield unintended consequences in the long term.
New York’s commitment to incarceration alternatives has moved us away from the shackles of Rockefeller Drug Laws, which destroyed the lives of thousands of minority men and women, and their communities, for decades. And while one violent act may have wrecked the future of a hero, it must not erode our commitment to diversion. One senseless act of violence, no matter how tragic, should not revive the irrational policies of our past.
We must not allow Holder's legacy to be the death of diversion. Instead let his valor live on through adequate funding of incarceration alternatives so mistakes like this never happen again and all those who need help can access treatment. We — both law enforcement officers and the communities we serve — must do better. We must continue to raise our expectations of each other and our leaders.
