Franco 1

Denisse Franco
ENG 123 BE
Professor Cordes
8 October 2016
Non-violent Crime Sentencing
Sharanda Jones inmate number 33177-077 was sentenced life in prison for committing
her first non-violent crime. She was sentenced to life without parole in a federal prison. In a
letter she wrote to her daughter, she explains her crime and sentencing as After a jury trial in
August of 1999, I was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (crackcocaine) and acquitted of six counts of possession of crack cocaine and aiding and abetting.
(iamsharandajones.org) Even though, selling drugs is wrong, but does she really deserve to die in
prison and never get to see her daughter for a minor offense? Non- violent crimes occur all over
the world. However, in America the number of people who are in jail for a non-violent crime is
much larger than the population of people who are in jail for crimes like murder and rape.
Prisoners like Sharanda Jones are given harsh sentences because of the new changes in
laws. In this research essay, the types of sources that will be used are scholarly journals,
periodical sources, and Congressional Quarterly Researcher. The scholarly journals that are
going to be used in the essay are from professors at high ranked universities that have years of
practice in the field of law. For instance, Michelle Alexander is a professor at Stanford Law
school, who wrote the book called The new Jim Crow Laws. In addition, the newspaper and

Franco 2

magazines articles that will be used to provide information on harsh sentencing for non-violent
crimes are written from well-known newspapers such as Frontline, Vice News and Bloomberg
View. Newspapers and magazine articles are a reliable source because within each of the articles
the writers have intergraded sources from scholarly journals to defend their claims. Similarly, CQ
articles are credible because they focus more on the background information of each topic using
statistics. These sources are trustworthy because they written by people who have worked in the
law field for years or writers that quote sources from people who have done research in the area
of prison reform.
In California, men and women prison facilities are currently at maximum capacity or
exceeded the total capacity of prisons. For instance, according to Californias department of
corrections and rehabilitation weekly report, as of October 5,2016 the Wasco SP facility has a
total of 4,893 prisoners which is more than double the design capacity of 2,984. The epidemic of
the overflow of number of people in prison in the United States can be linked to the sentencing
reformation of the federal government. Non-violence sentencing is an issue that should be
addressed because it affects the way the government spends its tax money and the families of the
people in jail. Using the history of non- violence sentencing, the problem can be solved by
getting rid of the 3-strike law that helped increase the number of people in prisons.
A historical analysis highlights the problem and confirms the source of the problem. One
of the ways to write an historical analysis is by creating a timeline. The purpose of creating a
timeline is to pin point when the problem occurred and identify how it evolved over the years.
By using the time period of the 1960s to present time, the cause of the epidemic can be
determined.

Franco 3

The problem of increased sentencing can be dated back to the 1960s when there was an
increase of crime on drugs. The 1960s era is culturally known as the hippie time era. Americans
usually identify the 1960s as the period of peace and freedom, but most people do not know that
teenagers living in this time period where addicted to drugs like LSD and marijuana. Teenagers
and young adults used drugs as a sign of rebellion form parents or people who wanted to control
them. When teenagers during the 1960s, where on drugs they committed the crimes because their
brain was not functioning properly. In 1969, Dr. Robert DuPont links drugs to crime by
conducting an experiment that represents the number of people in jail that do drugs. In the
experiment in which, Psychiatrist Dr. Robert DuPont conducts analysis of everyone entering the
D.C. jail system in August of 1969. He finds 44% test positive for heroin. DuPont convinces the
city's Mayor Walter Washington to allow him to provide methadone to heroin addicts.
(Frontline) Using the data conducted from Dr. Robert DuPont the government realized that the
usage of drugs contributes to peoples actions when committing crimes. Therefore, the 1960s was
the uprising of criminals on the street.
Next, during the 1970s, the governments first tactic to limit the number of people doing
drugs was to create laws that made it illegal to use them. On October 27, 1970 the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was created. According to Frontline,
this law consolidates previous drug laws and reduces penalties for marijuana possession. It also
strengthens law enforcement by allowing police to conduct "no-knock" searches. The noknock searches means that the police can search a person without their permission. Therefore,
more people are going to be going to jail because a police officer searched a person randomly.
The act also includes the Controlled Substances Act, which establishes five categories
("schedules") for regulating drugs based on their medicinal value and potential for addiction.

Franco 4

(Frontline) Since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, it has allowed the
police to search people without any evidence. According to Michelle Alexander who is a
professor at Stanford Law School wrote the book called The New Jim Crow Laws states that the
Supreme Court that grant law enforcement a pecuniary intrusion the drug war and make it
relatively easy for the police to seize people virtually anywhere on public streets sidewalks, on
busses and usher them behind bars The government is they are targeting random people on
the street and searching them without a search warrant or permission of the person to search
them. However, people have the right to say no, but the police uses fear to control the person into
thinking that they do not have the option to say yes or no. A year after the law was passed,
president Nixon proclaims a war on drugs. As the result of Nixon declaring a war on drugs, the
Rockefeller drugs laws was created in New York. In 1973 under then-Governor Nelson
Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandated extremely harsh prison terms for possession
or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Although intended to target kingpins, most people
incarcerated under the laws were convicted of low-level, nonviolent, first-time offenses. (We
are the Drug Policy Alliance) As the result of more people doing drugs, in the 1970s the
government realized that they need to become stricter in laws and punishment.
Then in the 1980s, the government made multiple changes to the laws, that made it
harder for prisoners to be released. The governments solution to the problem was to increase
sentencing, so Americans would be afraid to go to jail and think twice about committing a minor
offense. In1984 the government passed a law called the truth- in -sentencing which requires
prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. (Sentencing Reform) The truth in
sentencing act increased the prison population because prisoners had to complete a certain
number of days or years in their sentence before being released. Therefore, many of the prisoners

Franco 5

where not being released for behaving in prison. As the result of prisoners are getting out of jail,
the federal and state prisons to started to overflow with prisoners. In addition, they passed
mandatory sentencing in 1986. The law was passed by the Democratic party which caused
mandatory sentencing for crimes. Congress adopted mandatory minimum sentences in 1986,
engineered by a Democratic House eager to rebut the charge that the party was soft on crime.
Congress set the minimums at five, 10 and 20 years, depending on the quantity of drug being
trafficked, with mandatory life sentences for cases involving deaths or multiple felony drug
convictions. (Bloomberg View) Since the government wanted to be tough on crimes, it caused
people to be punished multiple years for a minor offence like stealing and doing drugs. Criminals
are not able to be released because they have to complete a number of requirements. Therefore, it
caused offenders to stay in prison longer.
In the 1990s, president Bill Clinton created more laws that helped fuel the problem of
increased sentencing for non-violent crimes. Clinton introduced a bill called Tough on crime. In
the bill highlights the 3-strike law in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act included three strike rule which states that
when a criminal commits the third crime they will receive a punishment of life in prison. As the
result of the three strike law, there was a significant gap between the number of people in prison
for a crime such as fraud, immigration and drugs trafficking when being compared to violent
crimes. According to the U.S Department of Justice, in 1994 approximately 77.5% of prisoners
where in jail for non-violent offences. Meanwhile, only 22.5% of the prison population was in
jail for committing a violent crime. Therefore, there is a direct link between the number of
people in jail and the new laws that where passed during the 1990s. The result of Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act, caused more people to be sent to prison for a minor offense.

Franco 6

Furthermore, the epidemic of sentencing non-violent people in prison for years is linked
to the past. The effects of harsher sentencing have caused the United States to have to most
people in prison. According to Vice News, for every 100,000 people in American 716 people are
incarcerated. However, when being compared to the rest of the world the average per 100,000
people is 155. America has six times more people in prison than the rest of the universe. In
addition, the United States has more people in prison than third world countries where there have
been disasters. For instance, Iraq has 31.9 million people and about 35,000 of them are prisoners.
However, the state of Maryland has a population of 5.9 million of people and 37,000 of its
population is in prison. (Vice News) Even the smallest states have a bigger population in prison
than other countries. For the reason of having increase incarceration rates, there needs to be a
change on the way the American government sentences criminals.
There are many solutions possible solutions to a problem. Similarly, the problem of
increased sentencing has a widely debated solution. The solution to the epidemic is to get rid of
the 3- strike law or change it so that it only applies to violent crimes. On the other hand, the
opposing argument is that the 3-strike law claim that it has helped keep society safe. The purpose
of analyzing a solution will give America a clear understand of who is providing the solutions
and their background and figure out which solution is better based on the amount of money it
will save because the government is spending more money on jails than helping students in their
education.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is one of the organizations who believe that
the American government need to get rid of the 3- strike law. According to the Winona Daily
News, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims to be non-partisan politically, and
that its only client is the Bill of Rights. Non- partisan means that they are not affiliated with

Franco 7

any of the political parties. ACLU tries to not favor anyone. The purpose of the union is to make
sure the Bill of Rights is always representing Americans. Some of the rights they fight for is the
right to practice religion, freedom of speech and pray in school. (Winona Daily News)
Since, ACLU wants to help Americans, the organizations approach is to find a way to
free people in prison. ACLUs approach to freeing prisoners is by getting rid of the 3-strike law.
The claims that are made by the organization are that the 3 strikes laws wont deter most violent
crimes and the cost of imprisoning 3-time loses for life will be prohibitively high. (ACLU)
The claim that ACLU tries to represent is that people who repeat crimes do not care about the
sentences that are given. Most criminals to not plan on being caught. ACLU justifies their claims
that the criminals that do not anticipate on being caught are right by quoting the American Bar
Association. Therefore, According to the American Bar Association, out of the approximately
34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests.
(ACLU) In addition ACLUs other claim was that getting rid of the 3-strike law it will save
America money. Statistics shows that the cost to keep a prisoner per year about $20,000 for a
juvenile. However, the estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is three times that
required for a younger prisoner -- about $60,000 per year. (ACLU) According the statics, if
America spends about $60,000 per year for each inmate, and there are approximately 4,893
inmates in the Wasco SP facility, the envision the total amount of money spent on that facility
alone.
On the other hand, the Republican party approves the 3- strike law because it claims that
it will go decrease the number of people in jail by using harsh sentences. John Allan Peschong
writer of Pro and Con: Three Stokes Law has been effective why change states that According
to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office, violent crime in California decreased by 51

Franco 8

percent from 1991 to 2003, compared with the national decline of 37 percent. In addition, the
harsh punishment for the people causes them to think the outcomes before they commit a crime.
Also, it keeps offenders who are keep violating the law longer in prison. Therefore, the 3- strike
law forces the judge to track the history of the criminal. However, the opposing argument is that
it keeps the prisoners who repetitively commit crimes in jail. They also claim that Critics blame
Three Strikes for prison overcrowding and the rising cost of corrections in California. However,
there are fewer than 9,000 third strikers in California prisons, fewer than 6 percent of the total
prison population. (John Allan Peschong) The article called California Prisons Cant Afford
Costly Three Strikes Law: View highlights that the state auditor, the cost of imprisoning
nonviolent three-strikes offenders for 25 years is $4.8 billion. The United states spends about
4.8 million of dollars to on prisoners who are in jail due to the 3-strike law.
Even though keeping the 3- strike law will keep criminals in jail. In terms of the amount
of money American tax payers would save in money, getting rid of the law will benefit society
more because it will save the government money from taxes. Once the government starts to save
money, they can invest money in education for young people. After the investment, people will
more likely be on track to become a well-rounded citizen by going to college and finding a stable
career. Therefore, this effect will cause the crime rate to go down and improve the economy with
working class citizens. After all, most of the people in jail have dropped out of high school or do
not have formal education.
Everyone is affected by the number of people in prison. Weather it is a member of ones
family or Americans tax money that is being spent on them. The epidemic of mass incarceration
can be connected to the sentencing reformation on non-violent crimes. The cause of the problem
can be found during 1960s when drug use was widely used by teenagers because more people

Franco 9

committed crimes when they were influenced by drugs and alcohol. In addition, the new policies
from the war on drugs created harsh sentences on criminals who committed a minor offense. The
result of the new policy called the truth in law and 3-strike law has been one of the main reasons
there is an over flow of prisoners in prison. The cost of getting rid of the 3-strike law will allow
the government to save the money from taxes and spend it where citizen actually need support.
As a Christian it is our duty to serve our brothers and sisters. Even if they are in jail, it is
a persons moral to still have to figure out a way to help them. The main reason that people keep
returning to jail is because they have nowhere else to go. Sometimes families of the prisoners
forget about them. In addition, once they are released it is hard for them to find a job which
causes them to live in poor living conditions and have no money to support themselves. Since,
prisoners do not have much contact with people outside of prison walls they become socially
awkward and do not know how to communicate with people in society. Therefore, prisoners
return to jail because it is the only place they know where they care conferrable and know how to
fit in. In the New Testament the book of Mathew 25:35-36 , 40 says For I was hungry and you
gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger
and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me,
I was in prison and you came to visit me [] Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the
least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me which means that as Christians we
need to help others in need, even if we do not know them. With prisoners, Christians can help
create private organizations that help them get established in society so that they do not end in
jail again. In the future, providing criminals with rehabs and more programs to help them
smoothly transition into society will benefit everyone in terms of the money that will be saved.

Franco 10

Work Cited
"10 Reasons to Oppose "3 Strikes, You're Out"" American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, n.d.
Web. 12 Oct. 2016. <https://www.aclu.org/other/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out>.
Alexander, Michelle. The Lockdown. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of
colorblindness. N.p.: New, 2012. 59-96. Print.

"Background on New York's Draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws." Background on New York's
Draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Drug Policy Alliance, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
<http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/background-new-yorks-draconian-rockefeller-druglaws>.
"Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact Sheet." Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting
State Prisons (2004): n. pag. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
<https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdfhttps://www.bjs.gov/content
/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf>.

"California Prisons Can't Afford Costly Three Strikes Law: View." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg,
20 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2016. <https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2011-1221/california-prisons-can-t-afford-costly-three-strikes-law-view>.
Challeen, Dennis. "Dennis Challeen: ACLU: Conservative, Liberal or Neither."
MinonaDailyNews.com. Minona Daily News, 21 July 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
<http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/opinion/columnists/local/dennis-challeen-acluconservative-liberal-or-neither/article_db56a0fc-f0ab-11e2-982d-001a4bcf887a.html>.
Jones, Sharanda. "THE WOMAN BEHIND INMATE #33177-077." Welcome to Sharanda
Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016. <http://iamsharandajones.org/>.

Franco 11

Peschong, John Allan. "Pro & Con: Three Strikes Law Has Been Effective - Why Change?"
Sanluisobispo. The Tribune, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
<http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article39199878.html>.
Population Reports. Rep. N.p.: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2015.
Web. 6 Oct. 2016.
Glazer, Sarah. "Sentencing Reform." Are Mandatory Sentences Too Harsh? 24.2 (2014): n.
pag. CQ Researcher Online [CQ Press]. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

"Thirty Years of America's Drug War: A Chronology." PBS. Frontline, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/>.
Wyler, Grace. "The Mass Incarceration Problem in America | VICE News." Crime and
Drugs. VICE News, 26 July 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.