
The justice system in the United States of America was designed to fulfill a number of specific social and moral goals. It fulfills a retributive purpose, punishing those that are deemed to be unlawful or morally lacking. Alternatively, justice is also procedural, determining how people in society must be treated. Justice can also be restorative, aiming to integrate individuals back into society. The understanding of which aims must take precedence depends on the person. Once a person serves their sentence and comes out of prison, it is generally expected that they will be able to become a normally functioning member of society, capable of following its rules and regulations. However, in many cases, people commit more crimes after being freed.
These types of individuals are often called repeat offenders, habitual offenders, or career offenders. Present systems of post-convict integration and the associated safety nets are considerably lacking, leading to many people struggling outside of prison. In most cases, repeat offender is not able to fully adapt to life outside of the criminal justice system, making them turn to the only lifestyle they are familiar with – lawlessness. Due to this fact, the US legislation also includes certain laws and guidelines for working with those who have previous experience with the justice system. The existence of Career offender guidelines is aimed at reducing cases of recidivism and discouraging criminal behavior. However, the actual effectiveness of such methods varies severely. This review will focus on discussing career offender guidelines and their effectiveness within the justice system.
Overview
Career Offenders
First, the designation “career offender” itself can be discussed. A person is considered to be a serial offender when they meet a number of criteria, including being over 18 years old at the time of a crime, being convicted of a violent or drug-related crime, and having at least two prior similar offenses (Burnham & Gorokhov, 2017). Meeting all of the above criteria makes one a career offender within the US justice system. When assigned such a status, it incurs a number of penalties with it, primarily focusing on the severity of sentencing. Usually, the minimum charge in court is increased, making any potential criminal repercussions more severe than they would have been otherwise (Burnham & Gorokhov, 2017). Additionally, the criminal history of a person considered a career offender is placed in a heavier category. The combination of the two results in most career offenders getting spending more time in the prison system. An individual is able to challenge their designation, and not all people are eligible for the title of a career offender.
While the career offender system was designed in order to prevent repeat offenses and discourage criminality, the actual sentence limits were not established using empirical data. All of the increased sentences provided under this legislation are estimates. Additionally, it can be noted that the career offender system overlooks many types of crime prevalent in society. Corporate crime, theft, and inappropriate actions against others are not covered by the repeat offender guidelines.
This approach makes the system especially prone to be ineffective or to target certain types of people more than others. Due to the correlation between certain living conditions, income, and poverty, drug, and violence-related sentencing disproportionately affects social groups (Blankenship et al., 2018). In particular, black people are much more likely to be prosecuted for drug-related offenses. In regards to the career offender guidelines, this means that black people and other people of color find it more difficult to leave the prison system (Blankenship et al., 2018). Even in cases where an individual is able to serve their sentence fully, the actual process of adjusting to normal life often becomes too difficult. A disparity between sentencing outcomes and treatment negatively affects the wellness of non-white communities. Black men, historically the most vulnerable demographic for the prison system, are separated from their communities and left unable to integrate.
Three-Strike Law
The three-strike law is a more general way of referring to systems such as the career offender guidelines. As evidenced by the name, these types of guidelines put heavy punishments on people after they have been found guilty three times. Designed in order to increase the punishment for repeat offenders, the actual way the laws are implemented depends on the state. Compared to the career offender guidelines, the three-strike approach focuses on certain types of felonies. Most states have implemented this law into action with varying degrees of severity. Life sentences are a large issue concerning the three-strike law, as the majority of people are committed to prison for life following their actions. In California, for example, no consideration is taken for the time between each crime, meaning that a person can get a life sentence as a consequence of something they did many years ago.
In addition, the three-strikes legislation also has other similarities with the career offender guidelines. The political aspect of criminal understanding is enhanced within this framework, and crimes considered to be more socially reprehensive become more likely to warrant increased sentencing Researchers also say that it is likely to be ineffective at preventing crime instead of working to promote social inequality. As discussed in work “Reimagining Criminal Justice”, the law was initially passed in order to keep socially detrimental individuals and outcasts away from others and safeguard the wellness of society. This meant that people such as murderers and rapists would have fewer opportunities to re-offend (Flores, 2020). However, with the current version of the law, most people under its influence serve sentences for non-violent crimes. The Three-strike system does not fulfill its stated goals and actively worsens the livelihoods of smaller offenders.
First Step Act
The third notable piece of legislation is the First Step Act. Compared to the two discussed before, this law is used to help repeat offenders improve their standing. Signed comparatively recently, in 2018, the act was promised to lead to less recidivism. The legislation was designed in order to cut existing unnecessarily long prison sentences while also providing criminals with a framework of self-betterment. In addition, it was designed to make the present prison conditions better. Inhumane and violent practices of prison are cut short by the new legislation, limiting the amount of physical and mental stress prisoners fall under. Additionally, the First Step Act gives judges more freedom to assign lower sentences to repeat offenders. Shortly after the time of its approval, 3100 inmates had the chance to be released back into society after sentence reductions ( The first step act of 2018: An overview ). The effects of the act were immediate, with people starting to get shorter time in prison ( The first step act of 2018: An overview ). However, the actual overall effectiveness of the law remains to be seen, as it has not been fully seen through on a country-wide level.
Recommendation
I fully disagree with the present implementation of career offender legislation and similar initiatives. While the stated goals of more thorough punishment as a method of deterrence are clear, their actual real-life effectiveness comes under heavy criticism. As shown by a number of researchers and examinations, the singular goal repeat offender laws consistently achieve is increasing the prison population. They are not conducive to reintegration into society, are destructive to communities, and don’t act as a sufficient deterrent. Currently, existing laws actively make it more difficult for people to move through the justice system. As noted by present research, the system of career offender guidelines is both largely inhumane, unable to reach their stated goals, and detrimental to society as a whole (Saltzman, 2019). The career offender laws target specific types of criminals, most notably those connected with drugs and violence, and make their sentences considerably harsher than they could have been.
Black people, due to the correlation between racial profiling, historical differences in crime statistics, and other factors, become especially vulnerable to charges related to drugs. As a result, some groups of people, and their communities, are affected more than others. The three-strike legislation, then, applies to a wider range of potential offenses, while not taking into account the time or circumstances of each one. Additionally, it fails to achieve its initial goal of keeping dangerous individuals in prisons while excessively persecuting others for non-violent offenses. Both systems can be noted as especially ineffective at rehabilitating people instead of focusing on keeping repeat offenders secluded from society within the prison system. Their combined effort disproportionally targets people of color and leads to a disparity in justice outcomes. Comparatively, laws similar to the First Step Act are designed to assist people in their integration into society. By making it easier for offenders to get lighter sentences or get a sentence reduction, they encourage lawful behavior while also reducing the strain on the prison system as a whole.

In conclusion, it can be noted that systems of interacting with repeat offenders are flawed. In many states of the US, specific versions of offender laws are implemented, each offering their own types of punishments for those that break the law repeatedly. However, the consideration for who gets punished, what they are punished for, and how long is insufficient. People with non-violent offenses are forced into living their lives in prison, while more dangerous criminals are either not rehabilitated or not picked up by the system. Legislation such as the first step act makes strides toward improving the prison system and its relation to repeated offenses; however, it does not resolve the central issue at hand. The career offender laws are not conducive to the types of outcomes society favors for prisoners. They act as a danger to less dangerous criminals while also overloading the criminal justice system. In order to remedy the existing problems of the prison complex, it is necessary to find an alternative to re-offender laws favoring restorative justice instead of punishment. Re-integration of former offenders into society improves the well-being of communities, eases the burden of the prison system, and promotes better individual outcomes.