Across the U.S., an average of 614 people per year are convicted to spend time in a state or federal prison. In Georgia however, the average is 881 people, 267 more than the national average.
Georgia’s ideology surrounding prisons is solely focused on punishment, as the government chooses to prosecute people for crimes instead of putting forth an effort to combat the root of the crimes. Georgia’s policies, such as mandatory minimum sentences and parole restrictions, are intended to discourage crime through harsh punishment, which is proven to be ineffective, as these policies don’t aim for the societal and economic factors that often drive crime. Georgia would be far better off with a more productive solution, in which a convict can be reintroduced to society after a reform process.
Part of Georgia’s punishment philosophy is its harsh sentencing, the root of which can be traced back to the movement of “being tough on crime.” This issue was a large aspect of sitting president Bill Clinton’s policies, and it was heavily campaigned upon by politicians like Governor Zell Miller during the 1994 gubernatorial elections. A key example of this lasting ideology in Georgia is how the state still convicts nonviolent drug offenders to life without parole, something only eight other states still do.
The Georgia government has passed numerous laws mandating minimum sentences with a focus on targeting repeat offenders, both of which are used as ways to keep a convict in prison for longer. Minimum sentences are especially impactful, as they attach mandatory minimum amounts of time to be served for specific crimes, including drug charges and certain violent crimes. These sentences, such as a minimum of one year in prison for carrying over one ounce of a controlled substance, require a prisoner to spend a certain amount of time in a federal or state prison before they are even eligible for parole.
The intent of the minimum sentences was to ensure that harsh punishment was dished out for violent crimes, which is a good idea in theory. However, when you consider how crimes can vary on a case-by-case basis, attempting to apply a system where one crime equals one punishment is not effective or fair.
These sentences also mean that reduced sentences aren’t an option, even if the circumstances of a crime might justify one. Even if a judge recognizes a situation where a convict might deserve a reduced sentence, they are bound by law to dish out full punishment. This all culminates into a prison system where someone who commits a crime in Georgia could see themselves spending a lot more time in prison than a person who commits the exact same crime in a different state.
Georgia’s harsh sentencing policies are clearly aimed at punishing people who commit crimes by keeping them in prison, isolated from society for an extended period of time. Instead of working to help these offenders and have them return to society, Georgia’s government chooses to spend thousands of dollars every year, just to keep a prisoner in the system. This raises questions of if this ideology behind harsh sentencing is one that really benefits both parties, and if it’s really the best way to address the problem of crime.
Georgia also boasts some of the harshest sentencing for minors, as 11% of prisoners on a life sentence were charged under the age of 18. Some convicts are as young as 14 years old when they were charged with a life sentence. Georgia also has no minimum age for a juvenile to be eligible for transfer to adult court, meaning even younger perpetrators can be subject to even harsher punishments. When you consider that the brain doesn’t fully develop until around the age of 25, in some cases it becomes hard to rationalize sending a minor to spend the majority of their life in prison. Especially when they are scientifically less capable of making mature decisions.
Harsher prison sentences in Georgia also disproportionately affect the African American population. Black prisoners account for over 60% of all inmates in Georgia prisons, which is substantially more than all other racial groups combined. Harsh prison sentences are often unfairly imposed upon minority offenders, as racism in the system, caused by prejudiced decision making, makes prosecution rates rise. Georgia’s harsh sentencing policies mean that when a minority is unfairly convicted, the consequences can be worse by multiple years.
Furthermore, 56% of state prisoners have mental health issues before they even commit a crime. These issues affect them in prison, as well as out of prison, and getting sufficient help to deal with their disorders is often difficult. Additionally, minimum sentences mean that mental health conditions are not taken into account during prosecution because the law won’t allow it.
In addition to mental health issues, many prisoners face issues with substance abuse. In fact, 65% of prisoners have substance addictions and 20% of prisoners were under the influence of a drug when they committed the crime they were convicted of. Nevertheless, in Georgia, convicts with substance abuse are subjugated to long periods of time in prison, but their substance abuse problem isn’t addressed. Instead, they are punished more for substance abuse than they are helped, resulting in drug abuse deaths still being extremely prevalent.
If Georgia’s sentencing policies were proven to reduce crime, violence and drug use, then maybe harsh sentences could be justified. However, they simply don’t. There’s no evidence to suggest that harsher sentences reduce crime in any way. The most notable example is the “war on drugs,” and how harsh sentences in Georgia have only made the drug epidemic worse. Punitive punishment cannot cure drug addicts, and instead it only leads to more dangerous habits and less legitimate sources.
Georgia’s sentencing policies are too harsh, and accomplish no positive results. Instead of mindless punishment, Georgia should focus more on rehabilitation and helping fix the problems that lead to crime.
