Harsh drug sentences filled prisons without reducing drug offending or recidivism.

Evidence

This in turn led to increased demands on state and federal prisons. By 2004, 25 percent of state prisoners were drug offenders. But harsh sentences did not stem the tide of drug offenses, and the high recidivism rate among drug offenders led many officials to con- As Judge Diane riled = Virginia stated: <a Basically, we have had a revolving door phenomenon where we take an offender, lock him up for whatever appropriate period of time, and have him back out in the community without addressing the underlying source of his criminal behavior… — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1945

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to critiques of sentencing guidelines and the broader deterrence-vs-incapacitation debate in the course. — connects to: Drug courts fuse individualized addiction treatment directly into the judicial process. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1958; Prison sentences for drug offenses do not deter future drug offending; Incarceration without treating addiction fails to deter repeat drug offending. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1947 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Prison sentences for drug offenses do not deter future drug offending #corroborates (1.00)
• Incarceration without treating addiction fails to deter repeat drug offending. #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1947
• Certainty of apprehension deters drug crime but severity of punishment does not #corroborates (1.00) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1075
• Imprisonment fails to deter future drug offending across all racial groups #corroborates (1.00)
• Punishment severity does not affect crime rates #corroborates (0.90)