When the public starts to demand harsher punishment for criminals, the sector of the criminal justice system that will experience the greatest change is the correctional system. If we look at the sequence in which the criminal justice system operates, law enforcement is at the start of the line.
This part of the system is responsible for the investigation of crimes and the arrest of suspects. In the middle sits the judicial system, which is responsible for bringing cases to court and judging suspects. The correctional system is at the end of the line, and is responsible for punishing and reforming criminals.
When society takes a hardline attitude toward crime, police are still restricted by their capacity to handle criminals. There will not be a major change in the number of arrests, but rather a more focused effort on the specific crimes that the public is most concerned about. During such a time, the judicial system will also mete out harsher punishments, sending more people to jail. This puts a strain on the correctional system as it has to process this sudden rise in criminals and do so with a limited capacity.
In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that locking convicted criminals up in overly crowded prisons is a violation of their rights. In times when society demands harsher punishments for crimes, prisons often become overcrowded. Faced with such a situation, the correctional system has three options: Reduce the number of people sentenced to jail; increase the number of prisons; or release people before their prison term is over.
The first option is concerned with the verdicts, which the correctional system has no say in. For the second option, the correctional system can make plans and draft a budget for more prisons, but in times when budgets are shrinking, it is difficult to find the money to build new facilities. Even if the money is available, there is still the question of whether building more prisons is the best solution to reducing crime.
Society wants to punish bad people, but it does not want criminals to be locked up in their own backyard. And even if a location is found, building a prison is not something that can be done overnight. The process is too slow to solve an immediate problem.
Oftentimes, the only option for the correctional system is to release criminals before their terms are over, thus inviting criticism that the public is at a greater risk. Many people in the US are unwilling to face this truth about sentence reductions.
The first reason criminals are sent to jail is for punishment. The second reason is to protect society. The third reason is for rehabilitation. The standard measure of success of a correctional system is the level of recidivism.
The murder of a National Taiwan University associate professor -- allegedly by a amnestied convict -- does not live up to the standard of successful correctional work. The government, responsible for the consequences of the amnesties, should immediately launch an investigation to determine if safety measures accompanying the measure were sufficient.
It should also invite, six months after the commutation, independent academics to evaluate the consequences of the amnesty. Their findings could serve as a reference for similar decisions in future.
But people should not only reproach the government. They should also ask themselves whether they, like many Americans, don't want to face the truth about amnesties.
Wang Hsiao-ming is an assistant professor at the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Houston-Downtown.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs