The recent return to determinate sentencing over the past thirty years has finally overcrowded America's federal and state prison systems. Despite a substantial decline in crime rates starting in 1991, the number of incarcerated people increased steadily through 2011 and the incarceration rate through 2007. Jails and prisons in 1991 contained 1,219,014 inmates. The rate was 481 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2008, the number of prisoners had almost doubled to 2,308,390. Both the number of people admitted to federal and state prisons, and those incarcerated in them, increased substantially in 2013. (Tonry, 1997.) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe determinate sentence has a specific number of years, no minimum or maximum. While determinate sentencing was created to promote equality of punishment, it does not always do so. Determinate sentences and truth-based sentences have very limited discretion/parole. These laws are based on the model of justice introduced by David Fogul and on the concept of “just desert”, offered by Andrew von Hirsh. These concepts are based on the similar approach that punishment should be commensurate with the severity of the crime. (book) However, these “tough on crime” sentencing laws are what have caused our nation's current prison overcrowding dilemma. (Abadinsky, 2015.) One of the goals of determinate sentences is to rid the system of parole boards. However, parole and parole boards have proven useful to the system. Conditional release has been used for years to support prison discipline and decrease prison overcrowding. As I stated before, parole resulted from clemency issues on the part of governors. This tactic was used when prisons became overcrowded before parole boards were created. During indeterminate sentencing, parole agencies served as a “safety valve” for crowded prisons. When Texas prisons were overcrowded in the 1980s, Texas increased parole. In 1983, approximately forty percent of prisoners were released on parole after their first hearing. (Abadinsky, 2015) Another pressing issue with determinate sentences is prosecutorial discretion. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished indeterminate sentences and was intended to reduce sentencing disparity and free up the parole system, but discretion lost by judges was gained by prosecutors, resulting in longer prison sentences long and overcrowded prisons. Ronald Wright stated in his article Managing Prison Growth in North Carolina through Structured Sentencing, that "legislatively-imposed determinate sentences have not proven to be a viable alternative to the traditional indeterminate system." (Abadinksy, 2015.) Sentencing disparity has been another growing concern with the abolition of parole boards and determinate sentences. In the determinate sentencing scheme, the role of the parole board in reducing sentencing disparity is ignored. Because one of the parole board's primary functions is to review the sentences of all state prisoners, it can serve as a mediating factor. The state of Nebraska is a great example. The parole board functions as an “equalizer,” mediatingbetween ninety-three prosecutor's offices and multiple jurisdictions. (Abadinsky, 2015.) Prisons are not built to house every offender sentenced to a prison sentence. The prison should function as a circulation system. Unfortunately the circulation system was blocked. Politics had an influence on changing policy on prison sentences and ultimately overcrowded prisons. One theory suggests that high incarceration rates in the United States and overcrowding in U.S. jails and prisons result from decisions by politicians to increase the use of prison sentences as well as their severity (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). In 1982, when President Reagan declared the War on Drugs, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges began treating drug crimes more seriously and this led to an increase in incarcerations. (Javitze, 2009.) Politicians who preach “tough on crime” statutes are also responsible for prison overcrowding. “Clearly, parole was an easy target for those seeking political opportunity,” observes Barbara Krauth, and “the emotional appeal of an attack on the system that released criminals onto the streets may have benefited some political careers more than if it had actually addressed some of the problems." complex criminal justice problems”. (Abadinksy, 2015.) Some have described sentencing reform as a “political football.” (Stansky, 1996.) Because of our nation's democratic system, characterized by frequent legislative elections, widely dispersed government powers, and the election of judges and prosecutors, legislators tend to be sensitive to public opinions about crime and may become vulnerable to pressure of the public and prosecutors. political opponents to quickly enact tough legislation (Javitze, 2009). Indeterminate sentencing systems are a much better alternative to determinate sentencing. Indeterminate sentencing usually involves a minimum and maximum, with actual release determined by a parole board or the result of the accumulation of time served. This type of sentencing was first introduced in 1840 when Alexander Maconochie established a philosophy of punishment based on the reform of the individual criminal; the criminal had to be punished for the past and trained for the future. (Abadinsky, 2015.) Unlike determinate sentences, indeterminate sentences are less likely to allow for premature release or prolonged imprisonment beyond that necessary to ensure the safety of society. (Slobogin, 2011). Indeterminate sentencing focuses on a rehabilitative and reformative approach rather than a “deserts only” approach. Rehabilitative correctional programs cost more than a prison system that simply aims for merciless punishment, but in the long run they bring greater benefits to society and to the prisoners themselves. Indeterminate sentences require regular evaluations and hearings, treatment teams and means of rehabilitation in the community in addition to places of confinement. However, community programs are less expensive than institutions once established and are more effective in reducing recidivism, thus reducing overcrowding in the prison population (Slobogin, 2011). prepare prisoners for the outside world. “In the absence of discretionary release by a parole board, there is little, if any, pressure on prisoners to prepare for subsequent release.” (Abadinsky, 2015.). The second is that this type of sentencing scheme protects the public from violent and habitual offenders, while at the same time helping non-violent offenders obtain.