This document summarizes several sources related to alternatives to incarceration and criminal justice systems:
1) A 2011 government brief from the Office of National Drug Control Policy discusses alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders, such as probation programs and drug courts, and highlights the HOPE program in Hawaii which reduced recidivism.
2) A 1992 Justice Department report by Attorney General William Barr argues for more incarceration by advocating for stricter probation and parole policies and building more prisons.
3) A 1996 report from the Colorado Legislative Council provides an overview of Colorado's criminal justice system with statistical data and analysis up to 1995.
4) A 2007 congressional hearing examines oversight of the federal death
1. Note: THIS IS A SAMPLE of my Data Base
Primary Sources
Tutt Library Online Data Base
Title: Alternatives to incarceration [electronic resource] : a smart approach to
breaking the cycle of drug use and crime
Pub info: [Washington, D.C.] : Office of national Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President, [2011]
Location: WWW Gov Docs Call 3: PREX 26.2:IN 2
Author: United States. Office of National Drug Control Policy
Criminal Justice Brief: Office of National Drug Control Policy: Executive Office of
the President” www.WhiteHouseDrugPolicy.gov
“Alternatives to Incarceration: A smart approach to breaking the cycle of drug use
and crime” à August 2011
This is a significant source of the government’s recognition of and solutions to re-
incarceration. This brief focuses primarily on the relationship between drug use and re-
incarceration or recidivism and how the government can change the ‘loop’ of recidivism
that many substance abusers are put in. This source is thorough as the brief first
recognizes the strong relationship between drug use and recidivism by providing
statistical evidence. The brief then goes into government solutions. Indeed, the brief
covers a number of new probation strategies already in action in various states and
hypotheticals. The brief highlights one prominent and effective new criminal justice
“smart” system in Hawaii called HOPE and provides statistical evidence and graphs to
support the “smart” system’s success. It is significant to note, however, the date of this
brief, for ‘new’ systems may no longer be ‘new’. The brief also goes over the benefits of
a drug court, serving as a reminder to the government itself that although they have been
around for the last 20 years, the government should continue to use drug courts as an
alternative to incarcerating users of illegal drugs and re-incarceration. This brief is
helpful for it recognizes and covers the economic statuses of the new alternatives,
existing alternatives like drug courts, and incarceration.
Title: The Case for More Incarceration
Pub Info: [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Policy and
Communications, Office of Policy Development, 1992
Location: WWW Gov Docs Call #: J 1.2:IN 2x
Author: United States. Department of Justice. Office of Policy Development, issuing
body.
The Department of Justice’s “The Case for More Incarceration”
This government document, written by the Attorney General William P. Barr, is a
case for more incarceration in the United States. Barr’s case is significant for
2. contemporaries because Barr is essentially arguing for what most contemporaries
consider to be the problem with prisons and incarceration in the United States today, the
year 2015. Barr presents solutions that are argued against in 2015 such as creating stricter
and longer probation periods, if they must be on probating and not in prison, keeping
prisoners in prison for their original allotted time and therefore creating stricter
regulations around prisoners getting parole, and locking more criminals up in new prisons
that will not have over crowding issues. Although Barr’s arguments are outdated, his case
is organized, thorough, and presents statistical evidence for inquiries into fluctuating
yearly incarceration rates. Amongst his persuasion, he presents in his case examples of
states decreasing the amount of incarceration and their outcomes. His case allows the
researcher to get insight into past motivations for the government to build more prisons
and incarcerate more ‘criminals’. Barr does not explore solutions to crime and drug abuse
other than more prisons, and he uses presumptuous language like, “the simple fact is that
the best way to stop crime is to put criminals in prison” and presumptuous ultimatums
like “more prisons or more crime”. Indeed, his main argument is that prisons work and
that “prisons don’t commit crimes; criminals do”.
Title: An Overview of the Colorado Adult Criminal Justice System
Location: Special Collections
Author: Colorado Legislative Council
Date: February 1996
This report consists of 16 chapters reviewing the Colorado Adult Criminal Justice
System, beginning with the Adult Offender System Overview moving to Sentencing
Placement of Convicted Felons and ending with Analysis of Truth in Sentencing
Alternatives. Each chapter provides statistical evidence followed with graphs and
analysis. All data is taken up to the year 1995.
Title: Oversight of the federal death penalty [electronic resource] : hearing before
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, June 27, 2007
Author: Unites States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Pub info: Washington : U.S. G.P.P., 2009
Location: WWW GOv Docs , Call # Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.110-743
Status: On-Line
This document is an oversight hearing on the Federal Death Penalty. This hearing
took place in 2007; the last oversight hearing on the federal death penalty before this
hearing was in 2001. Since this hearing, the most recent revisions to the federal death
penalty protocols were in 2011 (fact check!). The Chairman of this hearing, Hon. Russell
D. Feingold and Senator from the state of Wisconsin, questions the secrecy of the
Department of Justice’s newly released federal death penalty. This hearing and Chairman
Feingold strive for transparency in the protocols and review process of the federal death
penalty. Chairman Feingold believes that the “trust has been shaken” between Congress
and the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and he is therefore coming from
3. a position of skepticism towards the moral weight of the federal death penalty review
process. Chairman Feingold has a witness panel consisting of 8 men that are related to the
criminal justice system. Chairman Feingold asks questions to these 8 men and they
answer and give their appeal in detail. This hearing also includes pre-hearing questions
that Chairman Feingold asked to the Department of Justice.
![Note: THIS IS A SAMPLE of my Data Base
Primary Sources
Tutt Library Online Data Base
Title: Alternatives to incarceration [electronic resource] : a smart approach to
breaking the cycle of drug use and crime
Pub info: [Washington, D.C.] : Office of national Drug Control Policy, Executive
Office of the President, [2011]
Location: WWW Gov Docs Call 3: PREX 26.2:IN 2
Author: United States. Office of National Drug Control Policy
Criminal Justice Brief: Office of National Drug Control Policy: Executive Office of
the President” www.WhiteHouseDrugPolicy.gov
“Alternatives to Incarceration: A smart approach to breaking the cycle of drug use
and crime” à August 2011
This is a significant source of the government’s recognition of and solutions to re-
incarceration. This brief focuses primarily on the relationship between drug use and re-
incarceration or recidivism and how the government can change the ‘loop’ of recidivism
that many substance abusers are put in. This source is thorough as the brief first
recognizes the strong relationship between drug use and recidivism by providing
statistical evidence. The brief then goes into government solutions. Indeed, the brief
covers a number of new probation strategies already in action in various states and
hypotheticals. The brief highlights one prominent and effective new criminal justice
“smart” system in Hawaii called HOPE and provides statistical evidence and graphs to
support the “smart” system’s success. It is significant to note, however, the date of this
brief, for ‘new’ systems may no longer be ‘new’. The brief also goes over the benefits of
a drug court, serving as a reminder to the government itself that although they have been
around for the last 20 years, the government should continue to use drug courts as an
alternative to incarcerating users of illegal drugs and re-incarceration. This brief is
helpful for it recognizes and covers the economic statuses of the new alternatives,
existing alternatives like drug courts, and incarceration.
Title: The Case for More Incarceration
Pub Info: [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Policy and
Communications, Office of Policy Development, 1992
Location: WWW Gov Docs Call #: J 1.2:IN 2x
Author: United States. Department of Justice. Office of Policy Development, issuing
body.
The Department of Justice’s “The Case for More Incarceration”
This government document, written by the Attorney General William P. Barr, is a
case for more incarceration in the United States. Barr’s case is significant for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5e1ab5c9-54d8-48a1-8244-4b055c70b754-170114220900/85/SAMPLEbibliography-1-320.jpg)
![contemporaries because Barr is essentially arguing for what most contemporaries
consider to be the problem with prisons and incarceration in the United States today, the
year 2015. Barr presents solutions that are argued against in 2015 such as creating stricter
and longer probation periods, if they must be on probating and not in prison, keeping
prisoners in prison for their original allotted time and therefore creating stricter
regulations around prisoners getting parole, and locking more criminals up in new prisons
that will not have over crowding issues. Although Barr’s arguments are outdated, his case
is organized, thorough, and presents statistical evidence for inquiries into fluctuating
yearly incarceration rates. Amongst his persuasion, he presents in his case examples of
states decreasing the amount of incarceration and their outcomes. His case allows the
researcher to get insight into past motivations for the government to build more prisons
and incarcerate more ‘criminals’. Barr does not explore solutions to crime and drug abuse
other than more prisons, and he uses presumptuous language like, “the simple fact is that
the best way to stop crime is to put criminals in prison” and presumptuous ultimatums
like “more prisons or more crime”. Indeed, his main argument is that prisons work and
that “prisons don’t commit crimes; criminals do”.
Title: An Overview of the Colorado Adult Criminal Justice System
Location: Special Collections
Author: Colorado Legislative Council
Date: February 1996
This report consists of 16 chapters reviewing the Colorado Adult Criminal Justice
System, beginning with the Adult Offender System Overview moving to Sentencing
Placement of Convicted Felons and ending with Analysis of Truth in Sentencing
Alternatives. Each chapter provides statistical evidence followed with graphs and
analysis. All data is taken up to the year 1995.
Title: Oversight of the federal death penalty [electronic resource] : hearing before
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, June 27, 2007
Author: Unites States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Pub info: Washington : U.S. G.P.P., 2009
Location: WWW GOv Docs , Call # Y 4.J 89/2:S.HRG.110-743
Status: On-Line
This document is an oversight hearing on the Federal Death Penalty. This hearing
took place in 2007; the last oversight hearing on the federal death penalty before this
hearing was in 2001. Since this hearing, the most recent revisions to the federal death
penalty protocols were in 2011 (fact check!). The Chairman of this hearing, Hon. Russell
D. Feingold and Senator from the state of Wisconsin, questions the secrecy of the
Department of Justice’s newly released federal death penalty. This hearing and Chairman
Feingold strive for transparency in the protocols and review process of the federal death
penalty. Chairman Feingold believes that the “trust has been shaken” between Congress
and the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and he is therefore coming from]()