Winston Salem State University Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy PPT


 Use a PowerPoint and create slides for the presentation of the policy attached. You will also include the INFOGRAPH in the presentation that i have attached below. The name of the policy is Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy.
Be sure to include the following in the presentation:

Review of the infograph information (discuss what is on  the infographic as if you were presenting this poster at a conference- this includes what the Criminal justice problem is, some stats to show the issue, etc) (attached below). PLEASE INCLUDE THE INFOGRAPHIC IN THE PRESENTATION. YOU CAN COPY AND PASTE OR JUST SIMPLY ATTACH IT TO THE POWERPOINT. 
Identify a theory that aligns to the criminal justice problem
Identify your criminal justice policy that addresses the criminal justice problem and explain the policy
Discuss the impact of the policy on the criminal justice system overall (the police, the courts, and corrections- how does your policy impact the three components of our justice system) – what are the policy’s consequences? 
Discuss any recommendations you have to improve the criminal justice policy matter you selected.Violent Crimes and the Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy
Violent Crimes and the Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy
According to Neubauer and Fradella (2018), combatting crime is a fundamental societal
undertaking. The society collaborates with the criminal justice system to reduce the permeation
of crime. Over the decades, however, violent crimes have persisted, becoming a drawback in the
criminal justice framework’s war against crime. Violent crimes entail criminal violations
involving physical force, for instance, robbery, rape, homicide, and assault (Lurigio & Staton,
2020). One cannot downplay the severity of violent crimes since they impact victims, their
families, and society.
Statistics from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program showcased that the
United States received approximately 1,208,308 reports of violent crimes in 2019 (FBI 2019).
The statistics illustrated a 0.5 decrease in the reported violent crimes compared to 2018.
However, given a five-year trend, the estimated violent crime total in 2019 was 0.4 percent
above 2015. The statistics are not a light matter considering the consequences of violent crimes.
Many United States cities, for example, New York and Chicago, have witnessed a worrying
trend of increment in the rate of violent crimes illustrating the need to curb the problem (Cassell
According to Gaines and Miller (2021), the primary aim of criminological theories is to
identify why individuals engage in criminal behavior. Social learning theory comes in handy in
violent crimes. The theory entails a learning process whereby an individual witnesses, emulates,
and models other people’s behavior (Powers et al., 2020). Regarding violent crimes, the social
learning theory explains that people can learn violent behaviors when they witness a violent
action through exposure or firsthand observation and emulate the people who conduct violent
The social learning theory aligns with the criminal justice problem of violent crimes
because it explains why they are more rampant in specific social groups or neighborhoods. For
instance, one understands why individuals growing up in high violent crime neighborhoods may
commit violent crimes. They may do so because they are more likely to learn violent behavior by
observing it in their neighborhoods and emulating it.
The prevalence of violent crimes calls for a policy to curb the problem. One such policy
is the Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy (Clear & Frost 2020). It entails new sentencing
frameworks, for instance, three-strikes laws, mandatory-minimum laws, sentencing
enhancements, and prolonged delays until release under truth -in-sentencing-laws. The policy’s
primary objective is crime deterrence through enforcing harsh penalties, for example, lengthy
prison sentences, for criminal violations.
It assists in reducing the issue of violent crimes in several ways. The first way is through
retribution, ensuring that individuals that violate the law should undergo punishment. The second
way is deterrence, which emphasizes deterring offenders from engaging in crimes as it ensures
that the punishment is so repulsive that the punished offender and potential offenders will shun
crime in the future. The third way is incapacitation, whose primacy is depriving individuals of
the ability to engage in crimes because they are under physical detention in prison. The fourth
way is rehabilitation, whose primary emphasis is reforming offenders’ thinking and behavior so
they do not involve themselves in crimes (Mendez 2020).
The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy significantly impacts the criminal justice
system. One benefit has been getting rid of potentially dangerous individuals from the
community. Doing so has reduced the threat such individuals pose to society because they cannot
engage in crime while incapacitated. Another benefit is that the policy has enhanced the criminal
justice framework’s maintenance of law and order. The assurance has made the public trust the
system’s safeguarding abilities more (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020).
There have been negative impacts, however. One such impact is overcrowding in prisons
(Schoenfeld 2018). Alterations in the sentencing framework have restricted legal professionals’
ability to utilize early release techniques to curb the issue. Before, early release from prison
through earned-time incentives, good-time reductions, and parole allowed officials to customize
the leniency or punishment they gave an offender. It also acted as a way of managing the prison
The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy has brought about some unintended
consequences. One is putting a strain on the criminal justice framework, particularly corrections.
The increment in the prison population strains the correctional department’s resources, limiting
its capabilities of providing effective rehabilitation and reentry programs (Cunnington 2020).
Another unintended consequence is how incarceration affects ex-offenders’ subsequent
potential for employment and income. Regarding employment, various state and federal laws
deny an ex-offender the right to engage in specific occupations, vie for certain public offices, and
vote. Other non-legal impacts are reduced marriage prospects due to prison stigma, broken
families and relationships, and reduced parental engagement with children.
Although the policy has unintended consequences, various measures can address them.
The first measure is, instead of focusing primarily on punishment alone, it is essential is integrate
it with offender rehabilitation. Offender rehabilitation will be possible by introducing treatment
programs to help offenders recover from their criminal lifestyle (Peak & Madensen-Herold
2019). The second measure is enacting community-based programs to address the root cause of
crimes, for instance, lacking education, unemployment, and poverty.
The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy underwent various policy-making stages.
The first stage was agenda setting (Burke 2019). Mass incarceration and punishment gained
prominence and political attention in the 1990s due to the soaring crime rates in the US. The
policy’s advocates opined that stricter laws, prolonged prison sentences, and more prisons would
curb the escalating crime rates.
The second stage was formulation which involved coming up with particular policy
proposals. The proposals included building more prisons, mandatory minimum sentences, truthin-sentencing laws, and three-strikes laws. They then went under the policymakers’ scrutiny at
the state and federal levels and received eventual incorporation into legislation.
The third stage was the adoption stage, which involved enacting the policy proposals into
law. The enactment of the laws took place at the state and federal levels. One prominent example
was the enactment of the 1994 Crime Bill at the federal level.
The fourth stage was the implementation stage. It involved putting the policy proposals to
work. The most prominent implementations were enforcing stricter sentencing laws, recruiting
more correction officers, and building more prisons.
The fifth stage was the evaluation stage. It involves a continued analysis of the policy’s
impact on individuals, communities, and the criminal justice system. It also entails assessing data
on the crime rates, incarceration, recidivism, and any costs that came about because of the policy
(Burke 2019).
The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy has profoundly affected the local
community and the nation. The incarceration rate increment affects social institutions such as
families, schools, or communities, escalating social disruption. The effects are notably higher
among African-American neighborhoods (Gonzalez 2018). Incarceration affects the
communities by removing men, leading to the breakdown of the family units and, consequently,
the community breakdown. It also leads to more single-mother households.
Additionally, incarceration drains the community of able-bodied men crucial in
developing the community and nation. The release of those individuals does not guarantee
mending the social ties since some of them are beyond repair, leading to more disorganization in
the minority community (Fernandes & Crutchfield 2018). The disorganization further
perpetuates inequality and poverty cycles, profoundly affecting the nation’s economic and social
development agendas.
The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy has profoundly impacted various
positions and roles in the criminal justice system. In the future, I would like to work as a law
enforcement officer, one position that the policy influences. Law enforcement officers’ primary
responsibility is enforcing the laws of the land. The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy
has tasked the police force with executing stricter laws, increasing their workload, and placing
more demand on their jobs (Zimring 2020).
Another role that the policy has impacted is that of correctional officers. The correctional
officers’ primary responsibility is supervising prison facilities’ daily activities. The policy has led
to an increment in the prison population. An increased number of inmates calls for more
supervision and an increment in the correctional officers’ workload. The officers must also
contend with violence, aging, sick, mentally ill, and inmates who abuse drugs.
Burke, A. S. (2019). 4.5. Re-Evaluating Policy. SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American
Criminal Justice System.
Cassell, P. G. (2020). Explaining the recent homicide spikes in US cities: The “Minneapolis
Effect” and the decline in proactive policing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 33(1-2), 83127.
Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2020). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass
incarceration in America. New York University Press.
Cunnington, K. L. (2020). Impact of an intensive therapeutic, reentry program during
incarceration on offender recidivism rates in males convicted of a violent crime.
Fernandes, A. D., & Crutchfield, R. D. (2018). Race, crime, and criminal justice: Fifty years
since The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2),
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2021). Criminal justice in action. Cengage Learning.
Gonzalez, C. (2018). Mass Incarceration in the United States. The Sociological Eye 2018, 5.
Lurigio, A. J., & Staton, M. D. (2020). The measurement and prevalence of violent crime in the
United States: persons, places, and times. Journal of crime and justice, 43(3), 282-306.
Mendez, D. E. (2020). Does Imprisonment Have an Effect on Crime Rates?.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system.
Cengage Learning.
Peak, K. J., & Madensen-Herold, T. D. (2019). Introduction to criminal justice: Practice and
process. Sage Publications.
Powers, R. A., Cochran, J. K., Maskaly, J., & Sellers, C. S. (2020). Social learning theory,
gender, and intimate partner violent victimization: A structural equations approach.
Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(17-18), 3554-3580.
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2020). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020 (Vol. 24).
Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative.
Schoenfeld, H. (2018). Building the prison state: Race and the politics of mass incarceration.
University of Chicago Press.
Zimring, F. E. (2020). The insidious momentum of American mass incarceration. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Brianna Harper
Mrs. Wiley
Spring Senior SEC 0L1
Infographic on the Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy:
Introduction: The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy was developed by the federal
government to address the issue of prison overcrowding, which had become a major problem in
the United States(Chavez,1996).
[Image of a graph showing the increase in US prison population over time]
Issue: Over the past few decades, the number of people incarcerated in the US has grown
dramatically. This has led to overcrowding in prisons and jails, which can have serious negative
consequences for both inmates and staff.
[Image of a prison cell with a silhouette lying on a bed, indicating poor living conditions]
Consequences: Overcrowding can lead to poor living conditions, including lack of access to
basic necessities such as food, water, and medical care. It can also increase the risk of violence
and exacerbate mental health issues(Chavez,1996).
[Image of a silhouette holding a diploma, indicating education as a potential solution]
Solution: The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy aims to reduce overcrowding by
implementing alternative sentencing options, such as diversion programs and community
supervision. It also seeks to improve access to education and job training for inmates, which can
reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
[Image of a silhouette leaving prison and re-entering society, indicating successful re-entry]
Impact: By reducing overcrowding and providing inmates with more opportunities for education
and job training, the Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy can help reduce the likelihood of
recidivism and increase successful re-entry into society(Garland,2001).
[Image of a silhouette with a thumbs up, indicating success]
Conclusion: The Mass Incarceration and Punishment Policy is an important step towards
addressing the issue of prison overcrowding and improving the criminal justice system in the
United States. By implementing alternative sentencing options and improving access to
education and job training, we can help reduce the number of people incarcerated and promote
successful re-entry into society(Garland,2001).
[Image of a silhouette in front of a US flag, indicating patriotism and the importance of the
1. Nawaz. (2023, January 30). World Health Organization (WHO). World Health
Organization (WHO). Retrieved January 31, 2023.
2. Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Sage.

Purchase answer to see full

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.