Freedom, Punishment, and the Public Mind: Rethinking America’s Prison Ideals
- 11 minutes ago
- 7 min read
By Emilie Richardson '28
Another headline breaks with the news of a violent crime—a fatal shooting, a robbery, an assault. The story has become all too familiar. We know it by heart: an act of brutality, a grieving community, and the resounding call for justice. In the courts of public opinion, justice means punishment in the form of longer sentences, stricter laws, and fewer chances for redemption. In the courts of law, however, the people’s influence on incarceration rates in the United States has reached a critical tipping point. (1)
Outrage rarely leaves room for rehabilitation or reform. This reflexive demand has become a defining feature of the American criminal justice system. As public outcry continues to shape how our society measures retribution, understanding how these philosophies have become embedded in U.S. policy—and how recent reform might begin to unravel decades of punitive practice—remains essential to reimagining the American criminal justice system.
Mass Incarceration in the United States
A significant disparity in incarceration rates exists among countries worldwide. Whether it be by total population or by per capita measurements, the United States stands as an outlier. Nearly two million individuals are currently serving prison sentences in the United States, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. (2) The national incarceration rate averages around 600 people per 100,000 members of the population, far exceeding that of other countries. (3) For comparison, China, despite its far larger population and more restrictive political system, still imprisons fewer individuals per capita than the United States. (4) These figures emphasize not only the grand scale of the American penal system but also the distinct political and social philosophies that sustain it.
A common assumption is that the United States’ high incarceration rate reflects rising levels of crime. However, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that, following a peak in violent crime in the early 1990s, serious crime has been declining steadily for more than three decades. (5) Despite this dramatic and sustained decrease, incarceration rates have remained exceptionally high.
The economic burden of mass incarceration in the United States is also staggering, with the Prison Policy Initiative estimating that the criminal justice system costs roughly $182 billion annually. (6) These exceptionally high expenses strain public budgets, impose severe financial burdens on families, and contribute to long-term community instability. (7)
Overcrowding in prisons also intensifies these pressures by forcing facilities to operate beyond their intended capacity. This issue not only inflates operational costs but also creates unsafe and unsanitary conditions that undermine rehabilitative philosophies, increasing rates of violence and recidivism, which refers to the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend. (8) Current laws and policies exacerbate these inequalities by imposing persistent financial obligations on the convicted, while simultaneously diverting resources from effective interventions that promote public safety. (9)
Together, these economic, social, and structural consequences make the United States a global outlier whose punitive practices differ sharply from the rehabilitative models adopted in other countries.
The Rise of Punitive Sentencing in the United States
The exceptionally high incarceration rates we see today come in part from the “Tough on Crime” and “War on Drugs” movements of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Tough-on-crime policies that kick-started the movements began in the early 70s, particularly with New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws in 1973. This law, which would become a blueprint for later tough-on-crime legislation, had the purpose of imposing mandatory minimum sentences and enacting punitive drug control. (10)
This state-level model would evolve to national policy with the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. The prior introduced mandatory minimum sentences and penalties for drug-related offenses on a national level. (11) The latter further expanded this punitive practice and poured more funding into enforcement, notably creating a lasting legacy of harsh punishment and significant increases in incarceration. (12) By removing judicial discretion and tying sentences to the offense rather than the circumstance, these statutes shaped a legal framework in which punishment was prioritized and rehabilitation pushed aside.
During this same period, the political pressure to appear “tough on crime” fueled widespread adoption of Three Strikes laws at the state and federal levels. These statutes— originally passed in Washington in 1993, popularized by California law in 1994, and adopted by the federal government in the 1994 Crime Bill—mandated lengthy sentences after a third felony conviction, regardless of whether the triggering offense was violent or not. (13) By design, Three Strikes laws removed judicial and parole discretion by ensuring extensive incarceration even in cases where rehabilitative alternatives may have been more effective.
By upholding such punitive sentences despite their gross disproportionality, the decision epitomized the United States’ commitment to punishment and retribution as a guiding philosophy of justice. This framework—favoring lengthy, mandatory minimum sentences—has played a significant role in driving prison overcrowding, escalating operational costs, and prolonging incarceration despite unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Emphasizing retribution over reintegration has greatly contributed to the nation’s extraordinarily high incarceration and recidivism rates, and starkly contrasts with the rehabilitative approaches seen in many other countries.
Political Philosophies in a Global Context
One of the clearest indicators of how punitive sentencing philosophies translate into measurable harm is recidivism. This means of determining the effectiveness of incarceration reveals the stark differences between the United States and countries that prioritize rehabilitation.
Countries most recognized for their rehabilitative practices—Scandinavian nations, Germany, and the Netherlands—consistently report some of the world’s lowest rates of recidivism. (14) In contrast, countries that rely heavily on punitive, punishment-driven practices, including the United States, experience significantly higher rates of reoffending. (15)
High recidivism is a major driver of mass incarceration; international data support the correlational relationship between punitive correctional practices and elevated reoffending rates. (16) By failing to address underlying social and behavioral factors—such as substance abuse, prior trauma, and mental illness—and by disproportionately targeting marginalized groups, punitive systems release individuals without the skills or support needed to reintegrate successfully. As a result, many return to environments marked by stigma and limited opportunity, perpetuating a cycle of incarceration that keeps prisons overcrowded and individuals trapped within the system. (17)
Reentry efforts are further undermined by statutory restrictions that persist long after release. Legal barriers to housing, employment, and social services significantly reduce economic stability for formerly incarcerated individuals. (18) Examples include laws that permit landlords and employers to deny housing or employment based on an individual's criminal history, as well as statutes restricting access to public assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), all of which increase the likelihood of reincarceration and function as extensions of punitive control rather than pathways of reintegration. (19)
Whether the United States can adopt more rehabilitative practices within its criminal justice system ultimately depends on how public attitudes are translated into law through recent legislative decisions.
Enactment Under Public Authority
American criminal justice policy has historically reflected a public preference for punitive practice—calling for stricter laws, longer sentences, and zero-tolerance policies that often complicate the implementation of sustainable reform. Additional concerns surrounding cost, political resistance, lack of bipartisan support, and the persistence of “tough on crime” rhetoric have made the enactment of rehabilitative practices in the United States appear impossible. However, growing public awareness of systemic injustices, racial bias, financial inefficiency, and overcrowding has begun to shift attitudes toward reform.
This shift is reflected in several recent rehabilitation-centered approaches within the existing legal framework. Specialty drug courts, in operation across the United States, act as problem-solving courts that address the root causes of criminal activity and help break the cycle of addiction. (20) Similarly, California’s Proposition 47 downgraded drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, reducing prison populations and correlating to decreased rates of crime and recidivism. (21)
At the state level, states like North Dakota and Oregon have implemented prison policies that follow the Scandinavian model, emphasizing correction, education, and reentry. (22) Additionally, at the federal level, the First Step Act of 2018 placed prisoners in recidivism-reducing programs, expanded earned-time credits, and reduced mandatory minimum sentences for select offenses. (23) Together, these pathways to reform demonstrate that rehabilitative practices are not merely theoretical, but rather legally viable possibilities when supported by legislative action and public endorsement.
Shifting the United States from a system defined by punishment toward one grounded in rehabilitation will require patience and the favor of the public mind. Yet as recent reforms illustrate, such a transformation could have the power to redefine justice as a path to restoration rather than perpetual confinement.
Endnotes
“Mass Incarceration and Public Authority,” Law & Philosophy, October 2025, accessed via LexisNexis.
World Population Review, “Incarceration Rates by Country 2025,” World Population Review, 2025, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country.
Ibid.
Ibid.
John Gramlich, “Crime in the U.S.: Key Questions Answered,” Pew Research Center, April 24, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/.
Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, “Following the Money of Mass Incarceration,” Prison Policy Initiative, 2017, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html.
Ibid.
Penal Reform International, “Prison Overcrowding,” Penal Reform International, accessed December 6, 2025, https://www.penalreform.org/issues/prison-conditions/key-facts/overcrowding/.
Nazgol Ghandnoosh and Luke Trinka, “One in Five: How Mass Incarceration Deepens Inequality and Harms Public Safety,” The Sentencing Project, 2024, https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-how-mass-incarceration-deepens-inequality-and-harms-public-safety/.
New York State Assembly, “Assembly Standing Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,” 2009, https://nyassembly.gov/write/upload/comm/postings/2009/20091120_0034384/.
Congress.gov, H.R. 5484—Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 99th Cong. (1986), https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5484.
U.S. Department of Justice, “Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: Public Law 100–690,” Office of Justice Programs, 1988, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/anti-drug-abuse-act-1988-public-law-100-690-100th-congress-title-i.
David Loehr and The Sentencing Project, “How Habitual Offender Sentencing Laws Were Used as a Means of Sterilization,” The Eugenic Origins of Three Strikes Laws, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2025/03/The-Eugenic-Origins-of-Three-Strikes-Laws.pdf.
World Population Review, “Recidivism Rates by Country 2025,” World Population Review, 2025, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country.
Ibid.
Kumba H. Lebbie, “An Examination of the Relationship between Rehabilitation and Recidivism,” Culminating Projects in Criminal Justice 16 (August 2021): 2–48, https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cjs_etds/16.
Arvind Krishnamurthy, Curtis Bram, and Charles Nathan, “The Punitive Public? Exploring the Opinion–Election Connection in Criminal Justice Policy,” American Politics Research, May 2025, accessed via LexisNexis.
Danya Keene, “Stigma, Housing, and Identity after Prison,” Social Science & Medicine (2020), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7449251/.
Ibid.
Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts, “Specialty Court Program Overview,” Nevada Judiciary, accessed January 10, 2026, https://nvcourts.gov/aoc/programs_and_services/specialty_courts/overview.
National Institute of Justice, “Program Profile: The Impact of California’s Proposition 47 on Recidivism,” Crime Solutions, 2021, https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/impact-californias-proposition-47-reduced-penalties-some-crimes-initiative-recidivism.
Nancy La Vigne, “Transforming Correctional Culture and Climate,” National Institute of Justice, 2024, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/transforming-correctional-culture-and-climate.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, “First Step Act Overview,” Bureau of Prisons, 2018, https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp.