Federalism, State Jurisdiction, and the Theories of Crime and Punishment

Review of Federalism and Constitutional Supremacy

• Federalism Defined: Federalism is characterized as a mixed system of power within the US legal system, where authority is shared between the federal government and individual state governments.

• State Sovereignty: The theory of federalism posits that each state possesses its own separate sovereignty, acting as an individual power unto itself.

• Historical Origins: This system served as a critical compromise between two opposing factions of the American founders: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

• The Principle of Constitutional Supremacy: Despite the shared power of the federalist system, the US Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. This principle, known as constitutional supremacy, dictates that the Constitution maintains its authority across all legal jurisdictions and hierarchical levels.

The Structure and Power of State Judicial Systems

• Judicial Federalism: While the US Supreme Court is the most high-profile judicial body, the vast majority of legal cases move through state supreme courts, county courts, and local jurisdictions.

• Stare Decisis and Precedent: The federalist system allows for the application of stare decisis, where courts follow precedents established by higher courts. However, the system also facilitates substantial legal variation across states, counties, and parishes.

• Jurisdictional Variation: Crimes and legal definitions differ significantly by state. For example, the state of Louisiana may define and punish certain crimes differently than Nevada.

• Internal State Supremacy: Within their specific jurisdictions, state supreme courts act as the supreme law of the land, establishing precedents that lower courts within that state must follow.

• Legal Doctrines: Specific legal doctrines such as mootness, standing, and justiciability apply to every court level within the federalist framework.

• Constitutional Sources of State Power: State and local courts derive their authority from three primary areas of the US Constitution:

  • Article III.

  • The Supremacy Clause.

  • The $10^{th}$ Amendment.

• Specific State Jurisdictional Powers: State judicial systems and governments have the explicit power to:

  • Conduct and manage elections.

  • Govern marriage laws.

  • Regulate intra-state commerce.

  • Enforce traffic laws.

  • Manage and regulate schools.

  • Determine the qualifications of voters.

  • Maintain separate state militias or the National Guard.

• Efficiency and Alleviation: State courts serve the vital function of alleviating the workload of the federal judiciary, allowing higher courts to focus on broader constitutional questions and doctrine.

Historical Case Study: Federalism and the Era of Reconstruction

• Laboratories of Democracy: States act as individual sovereigns that can create, enforce, and interpret their own laws, serving as testing grounds for various legal and social policies.

• The Conflict of Values: Tensions often arise due to differing economies, cultures, moral systems, and values across states, with the US Civil War being the most extreme historical example of this friction.

• The Reconstruction Amendments: Following the Civil War, three key amendments were passed to reshape the federalist balance and address the status of formerly enslaved populations:

  • $13^{th}$ Amendment: Abolished slavery.

  • $14^{th}$ Amendment: Established definitions of citizenship and the requirement of due process.

  • $15^{th}$ Amendment: Expanded voting rights.

• Enforcement Clauses: These amendments included the specific phrase: "Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article." This granted the federal government the power to intervene in state affairs to ensure the amendments were realized.

• Southern Resistance and Judicial Narrowing: Southern states frequently refused to acknowledge racial equality or new definitions of citizenship. In response, the Supreme Court took up cases such as the Slaughterhouse Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank in the $1870s$.

• The Failure of Reconstruction Legalism: In these cases, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Reconstruction Amendments. This constrained the definition of citizenship and increased the power of states to limit civil rights, effectively creating the legal conditions for the Jim Crow segregation regime and widespread racial violence.

Contemporary Tensions in Federalism

• Government Shutdowns: Modern history shows that federal dysfunction, such as government shutdowns, impacts states differently. While states are sovereign, they are often bound by federal failures and lack the power to prevent the consequences of such shutdowns.

Introduction to the Criminal Legal System

• State-Level Management: The criminal legal process in the US is overwhelmingly managed by state and local systems rather than federal authorities. Most law enforcement interactions involve local entities like the NOPD rather than federal agencies like the FBI.

• The Three Pillars of Criminal Justice: Any individual entering the criminal legal process interacts with three primary levels of punishment:

  1. Police: The enforcement power.

  2. Courts: The adjudicative body.

  3. Corrections: The punitive or reformative phase.

Historical Development and Professionalization of Policing

• Decentralized Origins: For much of US history, policing was informal and decentralized, consisting of local groups reacting to crimes after they occurred.

• $19^{th}$ Century Urbanization: The growth of urban centers led to an emphasis on crime prevention rather than mere reaction.

• The Progressive Era: This movement sought to reform local police forces to reduce corruption and improve safety in growing cities.

• Mid-Century Professionalization: During the mid-$20^{th}$ century, there was a concerted effort to make policing less political and more professional through:

  • Civil service exams.

  • Advanced training programs.

  • Technological advancements.

• $1960s$ and $1970s$ Formalization: Police units became more ritualized and formal. However, this era also saw violent crackdowns on anti-war movements and civil rights protests, demonstrating the increasing lethality and power of police forces.

• Police Funding Trends: Since the $1960s$, funding for police at both the state and federal levels has increased almost uninterrupted, often independent of actual crime rates.

Societal Trade-offs and the Executive Power of Law Enforcement

• Liberty vs. Safety: In a constitutional democracy, citizens trade a portion of their individual civil liberties for public safety and social order. This balance is constantly litigated and adjusted over time.

• Separation of Powers: According to the founders, the executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of laws, while the judicial branch is responsible for their interpretation.

• Foundational Goals of Enforcement:

  • The protection of individual and public safety.

  • The protection of private and public property.

  • The provision of appropriate punishment for wrongdoing against the political community.

  • The maintenance of social order.

Theoretical Foundations of Punishment: Deterrence and Rational Choice

• The Rational Choice Model: This model assumes that individuals are equal subjects with liberty who make logical decisions to advance their own interests. It posits that criminal behavior is the result of a calculated, rational choice.

• Deterrence Theory Defined: Deterrence is the cornerstone of crime prevention. It suggests that the legal system can prevent crime by making the consequences so unpleasant that a rational actor will choose not to commit the act.

• Three Central Assumptions of Deterrence:

  1. A message must be relayed to a target group.

  2. The target group must receive and perceive that message as a credible threat.

  3. The target group must make a rational choice to refrain from the action based on that threat.

• Types of Deterrence:

  • Specific Deterrence: Aimed at preventing a specific individual from re-offending.

  • General Deterrence: Aimed at the broader public to dissuade them from committing similar crimes.

• Criteria for Effective Punishment: According to deterrence theorists, for a punishment to be effective, it must possess three qualities:

  1. Swiftness: The punishment must occur quickly after the crime.

  2. Certainty: The individual must be certain they will be caught and punished.

  3. Severity: The punishment must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits of the crime, yet remain proportionate.