Comprehensive Criminal Justice Notes: Pandemic Era Context, Norms, Law Evolution, and Systemic Debates
Pandemic context, gun violence, and executive actions
The pandemic years were unique and affected US society and the criminal justice system, including:
Political radicalization, socioeconomic stress, threat of war, health-care system five crises contributed to elevated stress, potentially linked to increases in homicide and gun violence incidents.ailings, deaths, social unrest, rise in gun sales, and other consequential dynamics.
The toll of collect
FBI 2020 Uniform Crime Report (UCR): homicide rose by 30\% from 2019 to 2020, the largest single-year increase since the start of violent crime tracking in the 1960s.
The 2020 UCR indicated that about 77\% of reported murders in 2020 were carried out with a gun, up from 74\% in 2019.
Gun sales surged during the COVID-19 pandemic.
December 2021: Biden administration announced three executive actions to address gun violence as a public health epidemic. Actions include:
Justice Department rule to stop ghost guns proliferation
Publishing model red flag legislation for states
Investment in evidence-based community violence interventions
Holding rogue firearms dealers accountable for violations of federal laws
Providing law enforcement with tools and resources to tackle gun violence
Helping formerly incarcerated persons reentry into communities
Expanding summer employment and services for teens and young adults
Developing steps to promote safe storage of firearms
Executive actions represented a whole-of-government approach engaging departments of Justice, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Transportation, Health & Human Services, Labor, Homeland Security, Education, and Housing & Urban Development.
The criminal justice system as a complex machine
The system tackles:
Removing criminals from the street
Ensuring fair trials
Supporting victims
Protecting society
Punishing and attempting rehabilitation of offenders
Persistent questions about fairness and procedure:
Were police procedures proper?
Were victims treated fairly and informed of rights?
Was the jury trial fair? Were due process rights protected?
Was sentencing appropriate? Was prison mistreatment possible?
Are there opportunities for rehabilitation? Was parole fair?
The book aims to foster critical thinking about realities and myths of the criminal justice system, and to show how roles of offenders, protectors, and victims are interwoven in a system dedicated to detection, guilt determination, and appropriate punishment.
Introduction to the nature of rules that constitute crime, and how the system is structured and operates.
Myth vs. reality; norms and deviance
Myth vs. reality:
Myth: some behaviors are crimes in all societies.
Reality: crime is not inherent to an act; it is defined by society.
A norm is a rule for appropriate behavior in a situation. Examples include:
Waiting in line for tickets, not eating mashed potatoes with fingers.
Abnormal connotes deviance (prefix a-b means “away from”); however, no behavior is inherently deviant – deviance depends on context, place, time, and the observer.
Formal norms (laws) are written; violations trigger the criminal justice system. Informal norms are unwritten but widely understood.
Informal norms can evolve into formal, legal norms over time.z
Global view of policing and firearms; norms around guns
Societies differ in norms about policing and firearm use. In the United States, carrying firearms as routine police equipment is a norm, but not universal.
About ~20 countries (e.g., Botswana, Iceland, Finland, Norway, UK excluding Northern Ireland) generally do not carry guns routinely; firearms are used only in exceptionally dangerous circumstances.
In 2019, US police lethal force data suggest a higher reliance on firearms, whereas in Norway there were zero lethal police shootings in that year.
The norms around guns influence both civilians and police risk. In the US, approximately 40\% of the world’s firearms are owned by people in the United States.
In many other countries, policing emphasizes consent and restraint in the use of force, with success often measured by the absence of crime rather than the number of arrests.
The US norm emphasizes policing through the use of force; there are calls to learn from unarmed policing models abroad and to adopt more selective, well-trained approaches.
Training differences:
Norway: roughly a three-year bachelor’s program with ethical study, shadowing, and investigations; selective admissions (about 14\% of applicants accepted) versus the US boot-camp style training (~21 weeks) plus a field training year.
European norms: officers may require higher-level permission before firing; in Finland and Norway, senior officer approval is often required before pulling the trigger.
Questions posed: What can US law enforcement learn from foreign policing models? Should the US adopt unarmed policing or more selective force applications?
The two broad categories of crime: mala in se vs. mala prohibita
Distinguishing two categories of crime:
Mala in se (evil in itself): acts inherently wrong, e.g., murder, rape, theft (though the definition of what constitutes a crime can evolve).
Mala prohibita: acts criminal because they are prohibited by law, reflecting public opinion at a given time.
The relationship between norms and laws can change as society’s values shift.
Rape, consent, and evolving legal definitions
The victim’s perspective on consent has evolved; there is no universal standard.
John Z. case (California Supreme Court, 2003): a defendant who began intercourse with a complainant after she initially consented but withdrew consent during intercourse was convicted of rape because he did not stop when consent was withdrawn.
Following this, by Feb 2004, eight states had extended interpretations of their rape laws beyond the use of force or threat; Illinois passed the “No Means No” Act (2004) to protect withdrawal of consent after intercourse.
The post-Weinstein era heightened belief in victims’ statements and shifted some focus away from whether the sex act was entirely unwanted, toward consent dynamics.
Consent definitions have continued to evolve with movements toward affirmative consent: “yes means yes” (affirmative, unambiguous, conscious consent).
As of 2021, laws requiring affirmative consent policies in postsecondary institutions existed in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Canada’s Supreme Court has similarly cited affirmative consent requirements in several cases since 1994.
Discussion prompts:
What is a reasonable time to stop after consent is withdrawn?
Can intoxication or intoxicated consent be valid?
References and case contexts include: People v. John Z. (Cal. 2003), Cal. 2003 decision, and related legislative changes in Illinois (2004).
Marijuana laws: consensus vs. conflict perspectives
Evolution of marijuana regulation shows law as a social construct that changes with public opinion and power interests:
1937: Marijuana Tax Act aimed to severely curtail usage; the AMA testified there was no medical evidence of harm, yet the act passed amid concerns about hemp competing with US industries.
1937–1960s: shift in public opinion; later, social protection concerns and industry interests influenced drug policy.
1990s–early 2000s: public support for decriminalization increased; by 2019, a majority (68%) of Americans supported legalization for recreational use, per Gallup.
2021: 36 states (plus Washington, DC) legalized medical marijuana; several states legalized recreational use. Federal law remains prohibitive; federal actions debated (e.g., MORE Act, HR 1588).
The question: Is marijuana illegal due to consensus (public opinion) or conflict (powerful interests)? Both perspectives apply at different times; the vagrancy laws in medieval England illustrate how laws can reflect power dynamics.
The marijuana debate is a paradigmatic example where some laws reflect consensus (public support for decriminalization) while others reflect conflict (pharmaceutical and alcohol industries potentially opposing legalization).
The “decision” to criminalize or decriminalize often involves both regional public attitudes and national political-economic interests.
Data points and sources include: Gallup polling (1969–2021), state legalization milestones (Colorado, Washington, 2012; 16+ states by 2021), and policy discussions around federal bills (e.g., HR 1588).
Discussion prompts:
Would taxation be a better tool to regulate marijuana than prohibition?
How have consensus and conflict shaped marijuana policy in different eras?
Namesake contexts: the tension between public opinion and corporate interests continues to shape drug policy.
Marijuana law evolution as a model for social constructions
The shift from prohibition to decriminalization shows how norms shift over time; the model applies to other crimes with evolving public opinion and powerful interests.
The “conflict” view is illustrated by early cases where corporate or elite interests pushed for prohibition (e.g., hemp competition concerns) despite limited medical evidence of harm.
The “consensus” view is illustrated by rising public support for legalization and the adoption of multiple states’ policies.
The politics of crime and crime control vs. due process models
Two broad public-policy models shape criminal justice: crime control and due process.
Crime control model prioritizes efficient arrest and processing to suppress crime; emphasizes public safety and quick conviction; permits less emphasis on procedural protections; has dominated debates since the 1980s.
Due process model emphasizes individual rights and procedural protections at all stages; prioritizes avoiding wrongful punishment; often framed as a maze of protections to ensure only the guilty are punished.
Some scholars argue that both models operate today, with varying emphasis across cases and contexts.
The debate reflects broader questions about balancing security and liberty in a democratic society.
Related topic: prevention vs. punishment; crime prevention focuses on stopping crime before it occurs (hot spots policing, target hardening, environmental design, community partnerships, deterrence, and offender interventions).
Prevention also targets victimization, focusing resources on high-risk groups (children, homeless, ex-offenders, people with disabilities).
The wedding cake model and case processing realism
The wedding cake model explains why most cases do not reach high-profile outcomes:
Layer 4 (base): about 90% of cases – misdemeanors and infractions – quick, high plea rates, minimal judicial resources.
Layer 3: less serious felonies – still relatively quick dispositions.
Layer 2: serious felonies – more likely to go to trial.
Layer 1 (top): celebrated cases (serial crimes, high media attention) – long trials unless plea bargains.
The model contrasts with popular TV depictions of swift, uniform justice; real systems must allocate limited resources.
Factors influencing case progression include:
Quality of evidence; witness availability; prosecutorial charging decisions; defense strategies; court resources.
The proportion of reported crimes (crime reporting rates) affects system flow; only about 40% of violent crimes are reported (National Crime Victimization Survey 2020).
The funnel concept shows that many arrested do not reach trial or conviction due to filtering by police, prosecutors, and judges; plea bargains help resolve many cases efficiently.
Crime prevention, crime control, and due process: three public safety debates
Crime prevention arguments include:
Hot spots policing, targeted deterrence, situational crime prevention, neighborhood crime prevention (environmental design), and community policing.
Prevention aims to reduce victimization risk and address root causes (e.g., homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse).
The crime control model emphasizes rapid arrests and processing to reduce crime, often at the expense of extensive due process protections.
The due process model emphasizes rights, safeguards, and procedural guarantees, even if it slows the system or allows some offenders to go free.
The two models co-exist, with policy shifts often reflecting current political and social pressures.
Fear, media, and public opinion; the politics of crime policy
Public fear of crime is often inflated by media coverage, which tends to emphasize violent or sensational crimes.
Fear of crime varies by gender, age, ethnicity, income, education, and area; fear can drive support for punitive policies (e.g., death penalty, handgun ownership).
Media coverage can shape policy preferences and political positions, including reactions to high-profile incidents and mass media narratives.
News media often portray perpetrators as minorities and victims as whites, contributing to biased public perceptions; this has spurred discussions on fairer media representations and policy impacts.
Social media also inflates crime discussions; analyses of thousands of tweets show biases toward violent or sexual crimes.
Policy influence: lawmakers’ funding decisions and federal grant programs shape local policing; for example, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) expanded community policing grants; the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act leveraged federal funds to push state changes.
Race, class, gender, and the namesake laws; advocacy and reform movements
Namesake laws name bills after victims, often reflecting political activism and advocacy groups; concerns have arisen about equitable naming across races and ages.
AP analysis (2019) found more namesakes named after white victims than black or Hispanic victims, prompting calls for more representative naming.
Victim advocacy and reform groups push for changes beyond punishment, including rehabilitation and parole reforms, and for addressing racial disparities.
Organizations such as MAD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and the Sensen Project advocate different policy directions; debates continue on punishment vs. rehabilitation and on reducing racial disparities.
The George Floyd protests (2020) intensified calls for policing reform and accountability.
Proposals and actions include:
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (House, 2021): limits on qualified immunity, restrictions on no-knock warrants, a national policing misconduct registry, and other reforms.
Obama and the My Brother’s Keeper initiative promoting policing reform and community accountability.
Stanford’s Center for Policing Equity assisting agencies to advance equity in policing.
These debates reflect how public opinion, media, and politics interact to shape law enforcement and criminal justice policy.
The opioid crisis, public health, and the role of the justice system
The opioid epidemic is a persistent public health challenge, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Overdose mortality surged, contributing to a decline in life expectancy.
Policy recommendations include increasing naloxone availability and expanding treatment access, within the purview of criminal justice and public health collaboration.
Law enforcement responsibilities in addressing the opioid crisis can be framed around three rules:
Emergency response to overdoses (preventing overdoses from becoming fatal)
Public safety: protecting individuals from opioid-related harm
Law enforcement: investigating and disrupting opioid-related crime
Coordinated responses across agencies and sectors improve outcomes.
Mental health, homelessness, and systemic challenges
Jails and prisons function as de facto psychiatric facilities; estimates suggest a substantial share of inmates have mental illness.
Homelessness is tightly linked to the criminal justice system; roughly 580k homeless people on a given night, with a disproportionate share interacting with the system as both victims and offenders.
Formerly incarcerated individuals face elevated risk of homelessness; housing policies and criminal justice reforms interact to reduce recidivism and improve reintegration.
Collaborative approaches include mental health liaison programs, crisis intervention training, and community-based supports; efforts aim to divert mentally ill individuals from the system and provide appropriate care.
The structure of the criminal justice system; victim services and ethics
The core components: law enforcement, courts, and corrections; victim services increasingly integrated across agencies.
The system depends on interdepartmental communication, and it is only as strong as its weakest link.
Victims’ concerns: victims are often neglected or abused within the system; this has spurred victim rights movements and reforms in the 1970s onward, including compensation and improved support services.
Ethics case study: Annie Dookhan (Massachusetts crime lab scandal)
Dookhan falsified, mishandled, or omitted drug evidence for years, compromising thousands of cases.
Her actions raised questions about oversight, lab accreditation, the reliability of expert testimony, and the safeguards against misconduct.
The scandal led to inquiries, funding for emergency measures, and broader discussions about laboratory oversight and expert witness credibility.
The case demonstrates that ethics breaches can undermine justice and public trust, highlighting the need for robust oversight, transparent procedures, independent verification, and clear guidelines for expert witnesses.
The right to post-conviction DNA testing and wrongful convictions
The two-process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against unfair government actions; post-conviction DNA testing can help exonerate the wrongly convicted.
Not all states guarantee post-conviction DNA testing; some require substantial evidence of innocence or other limitations before testing is allowed.
U.S. Supreme Court (2009) ruling in Osborne v. District Attorney for the Third Judicial District held that inmates do not have a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing; finality of convictions was cited as a compelling interest.
Case examples:
Claude Jones (Texas): DNA testing after execution would not have been possible due to the lack of physical evidence required at the time; later testing could have altered outcomes if performed earlier.
Alaska: Do not have a post-conviction DNA testing law; Osborne’s case highlighted the state’s inability to provide testing rights without statute.
All states have enacted laws allowing some access to DNA testing post-conviction, but many impose substantial limitations, such as proving innocence, high costs, or restricted access.
Questions for reflection:
Why would the right to DNA testing differ before trial and after conviction?
Should states impose minimum criteria to grant DNA testing after conviction?
How do limitations on DNA testing influence justice and risk of wrongful punishment?
No-knock warrants, police reform, and contemporary debates
The Breonna Taylor case highlighted critical issues around no-knock warrants and police procedures.
Namesake policy debates focus on police reform and accountability, including eliminating no-knock warrants in several states.
The broader reform effort seeks safer and more transparent policing that protects both public safety and civil rights.
The ripples of culture, media, and politics on policy
Media coverage and political lobbying influence public opinion and policy direction.
Public fear can drive punitive policy and support for the death penalty or expanded firearm rights.
The lawmaking process is affected by federal funding incentives and conditionalities; federal policy can shape state law through grants and enforcement priorities.
The modern security landscape: cyber threats, biological threats, and counterterrorism
Biothreats and synthetic biology: advances in genetic engineering raise concerns about new pathogens and pandemic risks; need for trusted collaboration between scientists and public health experts during crises.
Cyber threats: the US faces significant cyber risks; FBI reports billions in losses from cybercrime in 2020, with ransomware becoming prominent in 2021 (e.g., Colonial Pipeline, JBS).
The National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force coordinates 15 agencies to respond to ransomware and cyber threats; public education and preventive measures are central.
Terrorism: the domestic and international threat landscape includes racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism and anti-government threats; DHS prioritizes countering these threats with information sharing and prevention.
The justice system and desistance: moving beyond recidivism
Recidivism is a yes/no measure; it does not capture the full trajectory of desistance from crime.
A desistance framework emphasizes movement across decision points (arrest, charging, pretrial release, processing, disposition, sentencing, incarceration, reentry) and factors that influence cessation of criminal activity.
Emphasis on systems-based approaches and collaboration between practitioners and researchers to improve outcomes and resource use.
Recommendations include the NIJ guide on desistance: implications for research, policy, and practice.
The evolving terrorist and biological threat landscape
Domestic violent extremists and anti-government threats remain a concern in national security.
The DHS has prioritized countering domestic violent extremist threats; the 2021 national strategy focuses on four pillars:
1) Understand and share domestic terrorism-related information
2) Prevent domestic terrorism equipment and mobilization to violence
3) Disrupt and deter domestic terrorism activity
4) Confront long-term contributors to domestic terrorismImplementation seeks to safeguard free expression while reducing violence.
The future of policing, preparedness, and public health integration
The US faces ongoing challenges from pandemics, cyber risks, and mental health crises that intersect with policing and the criminal justice system.
Coordination among agencies, communities, and service providers is essential to address the complex needs of vulnerable populations (mentally ill, homeless, substance users).
Preparedness gaps revealed by COVID-19 have spurred debates about decarceration, diversion programs, and the use of non-carceral approaches to public safety.
Quick reference: key terms and concepts
Norms, deviance, and formal vs informal norms
Mala in se vs. mala prohibita
Consent, rape definitions, and affirmative consent policies
Wedding cake model of the criminal justice system
Crime prevention vs crime control vs due process
Victim services and the victim rights movement
Ethics in forensic science and the Annie Dookhan case
DNA testing post-conviction and Osborne v. District Attorney (2009)
No-knock warrants and Breonna Taylor
Namesake laws and media representations
Desistance and the National Institute of Justice guidance
Domestic violent extremism and DHS strategies
Cybersecurity, ransomware, and interagency responses
Public health approaches to opioid crisis and overdose prevention
Homelessness, mental health, and the intersection with criminal justice
Study prompts and reflections drawn from the transcript
How do macro events (pandemics, wars, health care failures) influence crime rates and policing strategies?
In what ways do norms shape what a society labels as crime, and how do those norms shift over time?
Compare and contrast mala in se and mala prohibita; how do public opinions and powerful interests influence lawmaking?
Evaluate the effectiveness of the wedding cake model as a teaching tool for understanding case processing in the real world.
Discuss the tension between crime control and due process. Can a balance be struck in practice, and if so, how?
Consider the ethics of forensic science. What safeguards are needed to restore trust in expert testimony and evidence handling?
How do media portrayals shape public policy on crime and justice? What reforms could mitigate biased coverage?
What are the implications of post-conviction DNA testing laws for justice and wrongful convictions?
How should the criminal justice system address homelessness and mental illness to reduce recidivism?
In light of opioid and other public health crises, what role should law enforcement play in prevention, public safety, and treatment access?
How can desistance-based approaches improve policy and practice beyond traditional recidivism metrics?
How should federal funding and policy shape state and local policing reforms, particularly in the wake of high-profile incidents and civil unrest?
Summary overview
The transcript provides a broad panorama of how crime, punishment, policy, and public perception interact in a changing landscape shaped by health crises, political dynamics, and evolving norms.
It emphasizes the social construction of crime, differences between consensus and conflict perspectives on criminal justice, and the need for balanced, evidence-based, and ethical approaches to enforcement, adjudication, and rehabilitation.
It also highlights how modern challenges—opioid epidemics, domestic extremism, cyber threats, and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic—require integrated, cross-sector responses that center victims, protect civil liberties, and pursue public safety with due process.
End of notes