According to a report by United State FBI 2010, roughly 14,200 people lost their lives in America in the year 2009 (Francis, 2011). However, the crime rate seems to be on a declining rate from the 1990 through 2012. Despite the decline, US government incurs heavy cost attributed to armed robbery crime. In this context, armed robbery refers to the act an individual using weapon forcefully abducts properties or assets from their rightful possessor. The weapons may range from crude to sophisticated firearms. Such behaviors inhibited from people from active engagement in their economic activities; thus negatively affecting the economy. Moreover, measures instituted to reduce such crime, prison maintainers and loss of both lives and properties significantly adds to government expenditure. It is in the wake of identifying the best approach to cub criminal offenses in the society that a new policy aiming to double prison duration has been drafted. Skepticism still lingers on whether this policy is the most appropriate move in fighting armed robbery.
Doubling the number of years crime offenders serves in jail has mixed opinions on effectiveness and efficiency rate. Weatherburn, 2006 reported that the doubling the jail turn reduced criminal rate in New South Wales by over 8 %. Criminals were wary of the losses they would incur once in jail for longer duration. Judging from this perspective, the policy seems to be beneficial in cutting down crime rate. It is believed that this and other background studies results have considerable effects on the popularity of the policy among the legislature; who have shown overwhelming support for the policy.
The policy main goal of the bill is aimed at reducing armed robbery crime rate by over 40% within a period of two years. In addition, the policy is expected to reduce the rate of recurrence crimes from those who have already served a jail term. Doubling the jail term will ensure that the number of criminals in the society will be reduced (Hofer & Vincent, 2008). This hypothesis is arched on the fact that the criminal once out of prison takes their time in forming gangs and recruiting youngsters into the program. Thus, increasing their stay in prison will reduce criminals’ involvement into new crimes. The policy also aims at reducing the number of cases in courts caused by criminal actions from exonerated individuals coming crime again.
Despite the fact that the policy has gained sound and profound popularity and support, there are a number of recommendations that need to be addressed before tabling the policy for ramification. The state and the federal government stand to increased expenses in maintaining these prisoners. The state need, therefore, be advised on this issue, and profound step instituted to reduce collateral loss. According to a report by Urahn, 2012, the prolonging the duration of stay in the prison cost the federal government roughly $23,300 per inmate with thin a period of one year. A recommendation proposed to minimize this cost is actively involving the inmate in community, social or government programs that generate revenue for the government. Crime reduction calls for more effective measures than just punishing the criminals. In this connection, the policies need to incorporate strategies on how the inmate will be supported for possible change in behavior. The imperativeness of this recommendation is minimizing the rate of exonerated criminals from engaging in criminal acts.
The policy, with these recommendations, will be effective reducing the criminal rates. According to Francis, 2011, punishment offered to criminal should be severe and costly (to criminals) than the severity and cost of crime. Therefore, doubling the prison period will shun away criminals’ acts. Psychological and social support measures will ensure that the criminals adopt society acceptable behaviors; thus, significantly transforming them to be noteworthy people in the society. Effectiveness of the bill will depend on the corroboration of both the prison, and legal departments.