Please read my essay below and provide feeback for improvement.
3 identified areas for improvement by student: "The student recognizes that improvement in the following three sections is essential for a stronger revised essay: using active tense more in writing, improving the quality of the introduction to effectively lead into the essay, and highlighting the importance of advocacy to solve the problems addressed sooner."
America houses just under a quarter of all prisoners in the world, but the safety level is only average. The American prison system fails to address many shortcomings of mental health treatment, re-entry into the prison system, and unethical exploitation of inmates for labor. The Swedish criminal justice system tackles crime efficiently by ensuring a successful post-release life. The American prison system can improve by learning from Sweden's vastly successful prison model by lowering sentence terms, improving working conditions, and encouraging educational growth.
It is critical to understand why the prison system is ineffective and the motivations for why it is unchanging. Evidence shows that mass incarceration in the U.S. criminal justice system does not effectively reduce the crime rate. America's population is less than five percent of the world population, yet the country holds a significant population of all prisoners (Liptack). This considerable rate of imprisonment is counterproductive, with little effect on the crime rate and little focus on preventing crime. Though the United States imprisons the most people, the country has an average ranking on the global peace index. According to Randall Shelden, a professor in criminal justice, "Our criminal justice system is designed to fail to reduce crime, because, although citizens would greatly benefit from less crime..., the crime control industry would not benefit" (Shelden). This focus on profits leaves prisoners prone to failure due to multiple factors. One prominent example is the parole system. The parole system ensures prisoners return due to small violations and being unprepared for re-entry into society. Failure in parole is especially high in "Communities plagued by high rates of poverty, unemployment, broken families, poor housing and schools" (Shelden). These conditions make it exceptionally difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to stay out of prison. These factors contribute to a staggering 65% recidivism rate (Beck). The American prison system is more focused on the benefits of profiting off inmates than on prioritizing prevention, and this poor focus on resources leads to little to no effect on the crime rate.
This approach is especially problematic when dealing with low-level drug offenders. The rate of imprisonment in the United States is exacerbated by laws stemming from America's War on Drugs and the private prison industry. The War on Drugs, with origins from the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, is renowned for its 'tough on crime' policies. This anti-drug effort fails to consider a major flaw in the assumed grouping of drug addicts with other criminals: drug addiction is a mental illness, and simply placing people with drug problems in prison is ineffective. The initiative's ripple effects are still present, with many laws in place that lead to longer sentences. For example, "The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of "mandatory minimum" prison sentences for various drug offenses" (Britannica). These minimum term limits and other policies fail to address the underlying mental health problems, making inmates more vulnerable to ending up in a cycle of imprisonment.
It is imperative to talk about laws that increase incarceration and simultaneously consider the disproportionate effects these laws have on different races. The imprisoned populations of minorities in the U.S. seriously overstate their respective portions of the total population. For example, African Americans comprise fourteen percent of the general population and a third of all people in prison. This is due to the effects of laws from the War on Drugs. The previously mentioned Anti-Drug Abuse Act imposes a mandatory minimum of five years for five grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of cocaine (Nellis). Though these drugs have very similar chemical makeups, the difference in treatment stems from the race of the drug user. Crack cocaine is a cheaper derivative of cocaine and is used more frequently by African Americans compared to cocaine powder, used more by white Americans (Goulian et. al.). Though the effects of the drugs are the same, and both minorities and whites use these drugs at similar rates, minorities are much more heavily affected by this law.
In addition to legislation, the private prison industry plays a large role in mass incarceration. Private prisons impact sentence lengths and prioritize profit, which leads to less focus on the prisoners' well-being. There is a large misconception that private prisons save money due to the "lower per-day per-bed fiscal cost of incarceration in their [judges'] sentencing decisions" (Dippel, Poyker). This is a troublesome premise to work with when deciding if a prisoner should serve longer sentences at a private prison because of the general lack of transparency, leading to financial shortcuts for maximizing revenue. Namely, these prisons earn more revenue by detaining as many people as possible and paying below-average wages to undertrained staff (Brickner, Diaz). States redistribute the money 'saved' by the cheaper cost of imprisonment back to the industry for not meeting the quota requirement, evidencing the prioritization of monetary gain over the ethical treatment of inmates.
Due to quota minimums and prolonged sentence terms, overcrowding is a devastating issue many private prisons face. According to Morag MacDonald, a director of social research, congested prisons lead to, "insanitary, violent conditions that are harmful to the physical and mental well-being of prisoners" (MacDonald). This is due to a poor distribution of resources with too many inmates needing care. The solution to overcrowding, increasing the number of prison beds, simply further aggravates the real problem (Toussaint). This issue is becoming severe, making it increasingly difficult to maintain prison protocol. Another proposed solution to overcrowding is increasing the number of prison staff. However, this is not a viable solution. With these conditions, the staff turnover rate at private prisons is over fifty percent(Brickner, Diaz). Staff often undergo psychological trauma, and this leads to short terms of working in prisons. Therefore, the ratio of prisoners to staff increases, and the effects of overcrowding worsen.
These institutions are also tied to multiple scandals involving companies strategically lobbying to ensure maximizing profits at the expense of prisoners' livelihoods and taxpayers' money. For example, Judge Mark Ciavarella is currently in prison due to racketeering in a jail scheme in exchange for pay, falsely imprisoning thousands of juveniles (Brickner, Diaz). The American prison system allows for private prisons to operate with general opacity. Judges consider these establishments under the seemingly lower costs or company lobbying, leading more inmates into environments that cut corners to save costs and maximize sentences disproportionate to the severity of crimes.
Unlike the American prison system, Sweden's approach to incarceration avoids the use of minimum sentences and obliges inmates to attend rehabilitation. Fixed terms of imprisonment have a maximum of ten years, excluding cases involving recidivism (Pettit, Kroth). The system of maximum term of imprisonment is practical considering the average lengths of even violent criminal careers. According to Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., "...continued incarceration beyond this point produces diminishing returns on public safety, wasting limited resources that could be put toward effective crime prevention strategies" (Nellis). Moreover, Swedish prisons treat detainees as people who need a guide before re-entering society, and this approach has led to the closing down of multiple prisons due to disuse (Akhtar; Orange). In prison, inmates are also allowed to plan budgets, vote, and participate in many standard citizen activities. Furthermore, the living conditions for lower-level criminals and prisoners transferring to these establishments to finish sentences greatly help with reintegration. This effective use of resources paired with mandatory rehabilitation vastly reduces the risk of former inmates re-entering the prison system.
The Swedish correctional officer requirements and training are much stricter than those in the U.S. Compared to a minimum of thirty college credits in some states, Swedish prisons often require a college degree in a "social work, criminal justice, or any other relevant majors" (Hedstrom). In addition, the training programs last much longer and include continuous testing of candidates. The training prioritizes the need for good communication with inmates (Hedstrom). These conditions result in a low staff turnover rate of only ten percent (Zhao et. al.). This lower turnover rate allows for a more stable staff system that does not require re-training in new environments and helps maintain protocol. Both inmates and staff benefit from more focused officer training, leading to a healthier environment for prisoners to develop.
In addition to unnecessarily long sentences, the prisons in America exploit prisoners for unethical labor. While American prisons, particularly private ones, often prioritize cheap labor at the expense of inmates' well-being, Swedish prisons focus on more rehabilitative methods paired with educational opportunities. The U.S. private prison industry utilizes mass incarceration and overcrowded prisoners as resources for labor. Vicky Peláez, a member of the Global Reach organization, notes, "And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month" (Peláez). The pay in privately-owned prisons is far less than public prisons, and prisoners cannot miss work without risking penalization. These punishments often add time to a prisoner's sentence, increasing the company's profits.
In contrast, the Swedish prison system focuses less on earnings and more on providing the prisoners with the tools necessary for re-entry into society. These institutions assist prisoners with attaining post-incarceration success and include up to university-level coursework available for inmates. The education system involves devoted prison teachers and even internet-based courses for the availability of education (Pettit, Kroth). The Swedish prison system prioritizes education as a tool for empowerment and an opportunity for alternatives to crime. Due to the focus on prisoners as citizens, the Swedish criminal justice system is highly successful in preparing inmates for re-entry using education as a tool for growth.
The disparity in the treatment of prisoners between the two countries contributes to a significant gap in mental health care for inmates in Sweden compared to their counterparts in America. Seth Prins, Ph.D., emphasizes the large percentage of inmates suffering from mental illnesses and the effect of re-entering the prison system due to not being provided with appropriate care (Prins). This generally unaddressed need for mental health treatment. Additionally, incarcerated individuals are at risk for STDs and are part of an aging population. Even formerly imprisoned people suffer, lacking access to housing, employment, education, or many forms of government assistance (Prins). The appearance of the American prison model is bleak, with prisons distinguished by "armed guards, concrete walls, cells with bars, vandal-resistant metal furniture, and little to no personal privacy" (Hedstrom). Overcrowding, forced labor, lengthy sentences, environment, and a general lack of mental health treatment contribute to the despondency of incarcerated individuals.
On the contrary, the Swedish criminal justice system combats mental illness much better than the American prison system, though it has flaws. Sweden's prisons have a focus on inmates' well-being rather than any profit-motivation, making the mental well-being of prisoners a priority. These prisons extensively focus on creating a rehabilitative environment to ensure prisoners can thrive after their sentences expire. Some key factors in these environments include living in spaces that almost mirror conditions for Swedish citizens. Under the Normalization principle, "offenders are recognized as citizens who function in most areas of life no differently than the rest of the population" (Pettit, Kroth). This policy allows for inmates to develop in conditions like that of regular citizens, which is reflected in their living environments.
Though the Swedish prison system provides inmates with rehabilitative care, there are still flaws in how the system treats prisoners. Sweden has been found to have disparities in sentencing based on ethnicity, gender, and age. The Swedish judiciary reflects that Swedish offenders received better sentences than non-Swedish counterparts, the system employs gender stereotypes such as male aggression in determining sentencing, and older offenders are given more lenient sentences (Svensson). Though the extent of unfairness in legal policies that affect differently is far less in Sweden, the system still should work towards a more objectively based sentencing process. The disparity in sentencing also extends to mental health treatment in the prison system. Though more developed than the American prison system in this nature, Sweden's institutions also have an incomplete approach to correctly treating mental illness. According to Lars Lidberg, MD, and Henrik Belfrage, Ph.D., psychiatric care is not allowed in prisons, but only in psychiatric hospitals outside. Only approximately half of 'dangerous' criminals are granted treatment in these facilities, though studies have generally proven psychiatric treatment is an effective crime-prevention tool (Lidberg, Belfrage). The Swedish criminal justice system incorporates rehabilitation well but needs to improve the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.
American and Swedish prisons take vastly different approaches to incarceration, but Sweden's prison model is far more successful due to its focus on the prisoners with the potential for change. Allowing prisoners to live with relative freedoms, have access to extensive and flexible education, and build better relationships with correctional officers are all key factors Sweden's prisons incorporate to ensure the post-incarceration success of inmates. In order to be more successful in dealing with criminals and reduce recidivism rates, American prisons should follow Swedish prisons' example by shortening sentences, providing more educational resources, and using prisoners for ethical labor with reasonable compensation. It is important to consider that both prison models need to improve the approach to treating prisoners with mental illness. In conclusion, the U.S. can draw inspiration from Sweden's prison model. The modifications in policy would represent a fundamental transition to a more humane and effective criminal justice system.
3 identified areas for improvement by student: "The student recognizes that improvement in the following three sections is essential for a stronger revised essay: using active tense more in writing, improving the quality of the introduction to effectively lead into the essay, and highlighting the importance of advocacy to solve the problems addressed sooner."
America houses just under a quarter of all prisoners in the world, but the safety level is only average. The American prison system fails to address many shortcomings of mental health treatment, re-entry into the prison system, and unethical exploitation of inmates for labor. The Swedish criminal justice system tackles crime efficiently by ensuring a successful post-release life. The American prison system can improve by learning from Sweden's vastly successful prison model by lowering sentence terms, improving working conditions, and encouraging educational growth.
It is critical to understand why the prison system is ineffective and the motivations for why it is unchanging. Evidence shows that mass incarceration in the U.S. criminal justice system does not effectively reduce the crime rate. America's population is less than five percent of the world population, yet the country holds a significant population of all prisoners (Liptack). This considerable rate of imprisonment is counterproductive, with little effect on the crime rate and little focus on preventing crime. Though the United States imprisons the most people, the country has an average ranking on the global peace index. According to Randall Shelden, a professor in criminal justice, "Our criminal justice system is designed to fail to reduce crime, because, although citizens would greatly benefit from less crime..., the crime control industry would not benefit" (Shelden). This focus on profits leaves prisoners prone to failure due to multiple factors. One prominent example is the parole system. The parole system ensures prisoners return due to small violations and being unprepared for re-entry into society. Failure in parole is especially high in "Communities plagued by high rates of poverty, unemployment, broken families, poor housing and schools" (Shelden). These conditions make it exceptionally difficult for people of lower socioeconomic status to stay out of prison. These factors contribute to a staggering 65% recidivism rate (Beck). The American prison system is more focused on the benefits of profiting off inmates than on prioritizing prevention, and this poor focus on resources leads to little to no effect on the crime rate.
This approach is especially problematic when dealing with low-level drug offenders. The rate of imprisonment in the United States is exacerbated by laws stemming from America's War on Drugs and the private prison industry. The War on Drugs, with origins from the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, is renowned for its 'tough on crime' policies. This anti-drug effort fails to consider a major flaw in the assumed grouping of drug addicts with other criminals: drug addiction is a mental illness, and simply placing people with drug problems in prison is ineffective. The initiative's ripple effects are still present, with many laws in place that lead to longer sentences. For example, "The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of "mandatory minimum" prison sentences for various drug offenses" (Britannica). These minimum term limits and other policies fail to address the underlying mental health problems, making inmates more vulnerable to ending up in a cycle of imprisonment.
It is imperative to talk about laws that increase incarceration and simultaneously consider the disproportionate effects these laws have on different races. The imprisoned populations of minorities in the U.S. seriously overstate their respective portions of the total population. For example, African Americans comprise fourteen percent of the general population and a third of all people in prison. This is due to the effects of laws from the War on Drugs. The previously mentioned Anti-Drug Abuse Act imposes a mandatory minimum of five years for five grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of cocaine (Nellis). Though these drugs have very similar chemical makeups, the difference in treatment stems from the race of the drug user. Crack cocaine is a cheaper derivative of cocaine and is used more frequently by African Americans compared to cocaine powder, used more by white Americans (Goulian et. al.). Though the effects of the drugs are the same, and both minorities and whites use these drugs at similar rates, minorities are much more heavily affected by this law.
In addition to legislation, the private prison industry plays a large role in mass incarceration. Private prisons impact sentence lengths and prioritize profit, which leads to less focus on the prisoners' well-being. There is a large misconception that private prisons save money due to the "lower per-day per-bed fiscal cost of incarceration in their [judges'] sentencing decisions" (Dippel, Poyker). This is a troublesome premise to work with when deciding if a prisoner should serve longer sentences at a private prison because of the general lack of transparency, leading to financial shortcuts for maximizing revenue. Namely, these prisons earn more revenue by detaining as many people as possible and paying below-average wages to undertrained staff (Brickner, Diaz). States redistribute the money 'saved' by the cheaper cost of imprisonment back to the industry for not meeting the quota requirement, evidencing the prioritization of monetary gain over the ethical treatment of inmates.
Due to quota minimums and prolonged sentence terms, overcrowding is a devastating issue many private prisons face. According to Morag MacDonald, a director of social research, congested prisons lead to, "insanitary, violent conditions that are harmful to the physical and mental well-being of prisoners" (MacDonald). This is due to a poor distribution of resources with too many inmates needing care. The solution to overcrowding, increasing the number of prison beds, simply further aggravates the real problem (Toussaint). This issue is becoming severe, making it increasingly difficult to maintain prison protocol. Another proposed solution to overcrowding is increasing the number of prison staff. However, this is not a viable solution. With these conditions, the staff turnover rate at private prisons is over fifty percent(Brickner, Diaz). Staff often undergo psychological trauma, and this leads to short terms of working in prisons. Therefore, the ratio of prisoners to staff increases, and the effects of overcrowding worsen.
These institutions are also tied to multiple scandals involving companies strategically lobbying to ensure maximizing profits at the expense of prisoners' livelihoods and taxpayers' money. For example, Judge Mark Ciavarella is currently in prison due to racketeering in a jail scheme in exchange for pay, falsely imprisoning thousands of juveniles (Brickner, Diaz). The American prison system allows for private prisons to operate with general opacity. Judges consider these establishments under the seemingly lower costs or company lobbying, leading more inmates into environments that cut corners to save costs and maximize sentences disproportionate to the severity of crimes.
Unlike the American prison system, Sweden's approach to incarceration avoids the use of minimum sentences and obliges inmates to attend rehabilitation. Fixed terms of imprisonment have a maximum of ten years, excluding cases involving recidivism (Pettit, Kroth). The system of maximum term of imprisonment is practical considering the average lengths of even violent criminal careers. According to Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., "...continued incarceration beyond this point produces diminishing returns on public safety, wasting limited resources that could be put toward effective crime prevention strategies" (Nellis). Moreover, Swedish prisons treat detainees as people who need a guide before re-entering society, and this approach has led to the closing down of multiple prisons due to disuse (Akhtar; Orange). In prison, inmates are also allowed to plan budgets, vote, and participate in many standard citizen activities. Furthermore, the living conditions for lower-level criminals and prisoners transferring to these establishments to finish sentences greatly help with reintegration. This effective use of resources paired with mandatory rehabilitation vastly reduces the risk of former inmates re-entering the prison system.
The Swedish correctional officer requirements and training are much stricter than those in the U.S. Compared to a minimum of thirty college credits in some states, Swedish prisons often require a college degree in a "social work, criminal justice, or any other relevant majors" (Hedstrom). In addition, the training programs last much longer and include continuous testing of candidates. The training prioritizes the need for good communication with inmates (Hedstrom). These conditions result in a low staff turnover rate of only ten percent (Zhao et. al.). This lower turnover rate allows for a more stable staff system that does not require re-training in new environments and helps maintain protocol. Both inmates and staff benefit from more focused officer training, leading to a healthier environment for prisoners to develop.
In addition to unnecessarily long sentences, the prisons in America exploit prisoners for unethical labor. While American prisons, particularly private ones, often prioritize cheap labor at the expense of inmates' well-being, Swedish prisons focus on more rehabilitative methods paired with educational opportunities. The U.S. private prison industry utilizes mass incarceration and overcrowded prisoners as resources for labor. Vicky Peláez, a member of the Global Reach organization, notes, "And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month" (Peláez). The pay in privately-owned prisons is far less than public prisons, and prisoners cannot miss work without risking penalization. These punishments often add time to a prisoner's sentence, increasing the company's profits.
In contrast, the Swedish prison system focuses less on earnings and more on providing the prisoners with the tools necessary for re-entry into society. These institutions assist prisoners with attaining post-incarceration success and include up to university-level coursework available for inmates. The education system involves devoted prison teachers and even internet-based courses for the availability of education (Pettit, Kroth). The Swedish prison system prioritizes education as a tool for empowerment and an opportunity for alternatives to crime. Due to the focus on prisoners as citizens, the Swedish criminal justice system is highly successful in preparing inmates for re-entry using education as a tool for growth.
The disparity in the treatment of prisoners between the two countries contributes to a significant gap in mental health care for inmates in Sweden compared to their counterparts in America. Seth Prins, Ph.D., emphasizes the large percentage of inmates suffering from mental illnesses and the effect of re-entering the prison system due to not being provided with appropriate care (Prins). This generally unaddressed need for mental health treatment. Additionally, incarcerated individuals are at risk for STDs and are part of an aging population. Even formerly imprisoned people suffer, lacking access to housing, employment, education, or many forms of government assistance (Prins). The appearance of the American prison model is bleak, with prisons distinguished by "armed guards, concrete walls, cells with bars, vandal-resistant metal furniture, and little to no personal privacy" (Hedstrom). Overcrowding, forced labor, lengthy sentences, environment, and a general lack of mental health treatment contribute to the despondency of incarcerated individuals.
On the contrary, the Swedish criminal justice system combats mental illness much better than the American prison system, though it has flaws. Sweden's prisons have a focus on inmates' well-being rather than any profit-motivation, making the mental well-being of prisoners a priority. These prisons extensively focus on creating a rehabilitative environment to ensure prisoners can thrive after their sentences expire. Some key factors in these environments include living in spaces that almost mirror conditions for Swedish citizens. Under the Normalization principle, "offenders are recognized as citizens who function in most areas of life no differently than the rest of the population" (Pettit, Kroth). This policy allows for inmates to develop in conditions like that of regular citizens, which is reflected in their living environments.
Though the Swedish prison system provides inmates with rehabilitative care, there are still flaws in how the system treats prisoners. Sweden has been found to have disparities in sentencing based on ethnicity, gender, and age. The Swedish judiciary reflects that Swedish offenders received better sentences than non-Swedish counterparts, the system employs gender stereotypes such as male aggression in determining sentencing, and older offenders are given more lenient sentences (Svensson). Though the extent of unfairness in legal policies that affect differently is far less in Sweden, the system still should work towards a more objectively based sentencing process. The disparity in sentencing also extends to mental health treatment in the prison system. Though more developed than the American prison system in this nature, Sweden's institutions also have an incomplete approach to correctly treating mental illness. According to Lars Lidberg, MD, and Henrik Belfrage, Ph.D., psychiatric care is not allowed in prisons, but only in psychiatric hospitals outside. Only approximately half of 'dangerous' criminals are granted treatment in these facilities, though studies have generally proven psychiatric treatment is an effective crime-prevention tool (Lidberg, Belfrage). The Swedish criminal justice system incorporates rehabilitation well but needs to improve the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.
American and Swedish prisons take vastly different approaches to incarceration, but Sweden's prison model is far more successful due to its focus on the prisoners with the potential for change. Allowing prisoners to live with relative freedoms, have access to extensive and flexible education, and build better relationships with correctional officers are all key factors Sweden's prisons incorporate to ensure the post-incarceration success of inmates. In order to be more successful in dealing with criminals and reduce recidivism rates, American prisons should follow Swedish prisons' example by shortening sentences, providing more educational resources, and using prisoners for ethical labor with reasonable compensation. It is important to consider that both prison models need to improve the approach to treating prisoners with mental illness. In conclusion, the U.S. can draw inspiration from Sweden's prison model. The modifications in policy would represent a fundamental transition to a more humane and effective criminal justice system.
