The Inadequacies of the Prison System in America

Student’s name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
The Inadequacies of the Prison System in America
The American society has put the prison system on the radar for a long time over faults within the system. Human rights activists are working around the clock to raise awareness about the inconsistencies of the structure, with the hope that the government will pay attention to the outcry and rectify the flaws. There is a major concern over the rising number of prison inmates, with the observation that ever since the Regan government, the figures have increased at a steady pace. To illustrate the gravity of the matter, statistics indicate that the total population of US citizens in prisons adds up to the total population of the fourth largest city in America. The nature of the system has strayed away from the intended purpose of the development of prisons. The inadequacies are visible through the processes that lead to imprisonment, and the problems within a prison. The essay provides a descriptive breakdown of issues researchers have observed about the prison system in America.
America has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. Mark Godsey, a federal prosecutor turned author accredits the occurrence to a factor the man calls “Blind Injustice” ("The Problem With Prisons In America"). The author claims that based on his experience within the federal system, there are flaws that people are in denial about. The team that operates within the justice system tends to apply a tunnel vision when dealing with trivial matters. In a difficult matter, the team will define the appropriate course of action by focusing on what option provides the best outcome for the team. Such decisions can lead to loss of freedom and even life for the common people. An example of such a scenario is in the case of a man who went to appeal against the state in a rape case("The Problem With Prisons In America"). The prosecution did not provide evidence that could free the man. The judge threw out the case, and the man spent about 46 years in prison. Another way through which blind injustice works is by prosecutors refusing to let inmates undergo DNA tests, yet the results of the tests provide evidence to free the inmates. Elected judges are also at fault because the group prefers to be unrelenting on crime to win more votes instead of promoting fairness and making sober decisions. The tendency of employees within the federal system to make unfair decisions that lead to imprisonment undermines the purpose of the establishment of the system.
The second issue of concern is the presentation of false evidence and witnesses. Prisons host many innocent people who faced conviction under false and petty allegations because of the existence of rickety laws (Riglesberger). The author argues that any person can face accusation, trial, and condemnation based on the presence of circumstantial proof. The law works by once a jury, and a judge declare a defendant guilty in a case based on circumstantial evidence; the case has reached finality. The declaration erases any hopes that the defendant may be innocent because of the laws on circumstantial evidence so the person cannot appeal the verdict. The problem with circumstantial evidence is the evidence does not come from a first-hand witness and is not based on fact (Riglesberger). There is no eyewitness or DNA evidence to prove whether the accused is innocent or guilty. A prosecutor can insinuate the occurrence of an incident but fail to prove directly that the incident occurred. The prosecutor designs facts that will convince a jury to determine whether the accused is innocent or guilty. The problem with circumstantial proof is a judge can admit the evidence to court if there is a strong relationship between the apparent fact and the insinuation. A prosecutor can craft the story to get a jury to convict a defendant. One can escape such a fate with an appropriate legal counsel, but many people below the upper class cannot afford such services. Another unfortunate factor is that the Supreme Court upholds the admission of circumstantial evidence where the direct proof is insufficient. Even though the court specifies that the circumstances on which a ...