A Counterargument to David Brook's The Prison Problem

 

David Brooks, in his The Prison Problem considers the way that the criminal justice reform is discussed. He essentially criticizes the way that this issue is addressed and he does so in a manner that while well intentioned, is not based on a realistic perspective of the problem. He makes the argument that individuals in society will often be too quick to blame the war on drugs as well as mandatory minimum sentences are the main reason behind mass incarceration. He notes that social problems are more complex than they might seem and that the obvious explanation for these problems tend to be wrong (Brooks). The latter stance is one that can be agreed upon, but despite the pertinence of his point, Brooks is an individual that does not follow his own advice. The arguments made by Brooks are not well considered because he misunderstands the diverse relationships between policy and practice.

One of the arguments that can be made against Brooks’ stance is that harsh laws are what give prosecutors the power to bring about the imprisonment of individuals in society. Brooks makes the conclusion that mass incarceration is not driven by the harsh laws in place. He bases his argument on the work of the Fordham scholar John Pfaff, who has written considerably about the way that prosecutors are the main drivers of mass incarcerations. Pfaff makes the argument that the increase in the filings of felonies per arrest, which is left to the discretion of the prosecutor involved, has been the major driver of the overall population in prison as well as new admissions to these institutions for over two decades. This is the study that Brooks bases his arguments on an suggests that rather than harsh laws being the cause of mass incarceration, it is the fault of prosecutors, who make the decision of whether or not to file any cases.

The arguments made by Pfaff in his research are importance and it is one that can be agreed upon. However, the point of disagreement is with Brooks, who draws conclusions from Pfaff’s findings that are completely wrong. This is because despite the assumption that Brooks makes, prosecutors do not exist or conduct their work in a vacuum, but are rather a part of the wider justice system. Their role in driving mass incarceration can therefore be considered to be based on the manner through which they implement the harsh laws that have been passed by state legislatures. These harsh laws tend to be aimed at not only sending individuals to prison, but also making sure that they remain there for longer periods. The mandatory minimums that are contained within these laws are the driving force behind mass incarceration because they provide prosecutors with the ability to ensure that they secure long sentences. Therefore, the removal of these tough laws and it is most likely that the charging practices of prosecutors will also be changed.

Another argument that Brooks makes is that the reduction in the number of individuals in prison for drugs crimes shows that the war on drugs did not make a contribution to the incarceration rates (Brooks). This is an argument that is quite wrong because when it comes to the problem of mass incarceration, there is the need to ensure that drug reforms are implemented. Brooks argues that drug reforms alone will not lead to a solution to the mass incarceration problem and that this problem can only be undertaken through a process involving a more diversified reform of the justice system. The stance taken by Brooks is one that fails to consider the way that the war on drugs has for the most part brought about a scenario where mass incarceration has become the norm, and that the reality of the situation is that it is far more complex. Therefore the reform of this area has the potential of bringing about real change to the mass incarceration issue.

The reality of the mass incarceration through rolling back the war on drugs would be an extremely difficult task. This is especially the case when one considers the more than four decades of practices and policies that have resulted in the mass incarceration of individuals. Rolling back these policies requires that there is a diverse range of reforms that target all types of offenses. Moreover, the impact of any reforms to drug policies will depend on the state where a prosecution is conducted. The case of the manner through which states have essentially undertaken to pass laws that are tough on sentencing has created an environment within which prosecutors leverage them in making charging decisions. Some of the states that have been rolling back the harsh laws have seen a decline in the number of new admissions in drug offenses; showing the Brooks is wrong concerning the lack of importance of the war on drugs on the problem of mass incarceration.

The impact of reforms on the war on drugs would be positive in relation to ending the problem of mass incarceration. This is especially the case when it comes to the manner through which some states, which have a prevalence of mass incarceration, could end up halving their prison populations. However, while this case is still being debated, it is important to note that a significant number of individuals would still remain in prison. In states such as New York, drug reforms would lead to only about one percent of the prison population being reduced. It is therefore important to make sure that there is the promotion of an environment within which reforms to the justice system, especially in those areas related to the war on drugs, are undertaken in order to ensure that there is the advancement of their interests of all the communities in the United States. Brooks is therefore wrong in his stance that the war on drugs has had little impact on mass incarceration. He fails to consider the way that the drug war has exacerbated the problem and led to the incarceration of individuals for felonies that would otherwise not have happened.

It is therefore critical to ensure that there is an understanding of the issue of mass incarceration from a local and state level rather than the federal one. This is because the national data that Brooks uses to make his argument are obscure at best and should be discarded. A state by state issue would greatly enhance the understanding of mass incarceration and the manner through which it has taken a toll in some communities.