Chapter 3 CCP notes

INTRODUCTION

  • The desire for a fair and just criminal justice system is shared by many, emphasizing the importance of cost-efficiency and effectiveness in crime reduction.

  • Analysis of U.S. crime control strategies indicates some policies are misguided, costly, or ineffective in reducing crime.

  • Mears (2017) describes the justice system as "out-of-control," providing numerous examples to illustrate this.

  • For instance, U.S. taxpayers spent over a trillion dollars on the war on drugs from 1971 to 2017 (Coyne & Hall, 2017).

  • Despite the imprisonment of millions due to drug laws since the 1970s, studies show that incarceration has not reduced drug use or demand, as evidenced by rising overdose numbers (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017).

  • In 2016 alone, approximately 64,000 overdose deaths were recorded in the U.S. (Katz, 2017), surpassing deaths from motor vehicle crashes and firearm homicides combined.

  • This raises the question of whether more effective strategies exist for addressing substance abuse, such as increasing drug prevention programs, providing treatment for addiction, or establishing specialized drug courts.

  • Alternatives like these are seen as cheaper and less harmful than imprisonment, especially since only 11.2% of prison and jail inmates with substance abuse issues received any treatment (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2010).

COMPLEXITY OF CRIME REDUCTION

  • Policymakers face the challenge of addressing crime as a complex social issue that resists simple solutions (Walker, 2015).

  • There is often a disconnect between proposed legislation and the actual laws that are enacted, as well as between legislation and its implementation on the ground.

  • Discretion exercised by police, court personnel, and corrections officials can lead to differences in the application of these laws.

  • Harris and Jesilow (2000, p. 187) highlight that courtroom professionals may mediate or ignore legislative changes affecting court operations.

  • This discussion will cover various issues related to criminal justice policy, involvement of stakeholders, and barriers to rational policy implementation.

  • Unintended consequences of reforms may render them ineffective or even increase crime, underscoring the need for evidence-based policy development.

  • While introducing rational criminal justice policies may seem straightforward, it presents significant challenges in practice.

CHALLENGES TO RATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICIES

  • Numerous scholars criticize U.S. criminal justice policies labeled as irrational, including:

    • Lengthy pre-trial incarceration for non-violent offenders

    • Boot camps lacking in rehabilitation

    • Life sentences for youths (under 18) for non-homicide offenses

    • "Three strikes" laws leading to excessive sentences for non-violent crimes

    • Excessive sentences for certain drug offenders (Tonry, 2017a).

  • Walker (2015, p. 22) describes many criminal justice policies as nonsensical, suggesting they are based on flawed assumptions, or "resting on faith rather than facts."

  • The definition of a crime itself can sometimes be contentious, noted by Reiman and Leighton (2017), who criticize the focus on street crime, predominantly involving poorer individuals, while corporate crimes often go unpunished.

  • Example: General Motors (GM) was aware of faulty ignition switches leading to fatalities over many years, resulting in 124 deaths but no executives were prosecuted (Stempel, 2017).

Mears’ SEVEN BARRIERS TO RATIONAL JUSTICE POLICIES

  1. Politicization of Crime: The crime issue is frequently used for political gain, as seen with Richard Nixon in his 1968 presidential campaign.

    • Since the 1970s, politicians have campaigned on "get tough on crime" platforms, resulting in mass incarceration.

    • Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's contrasting positions in the 2016 presidential election highlighted the political stakes of crime strategies.

  2. False Dichotomies: Political discussions often oversimplify crime policy into "either-or" scenarios (e.g., punishment vs. rehabilitation).

    • Various offenders require tailored approaches; relying on only one method can hinder effective reform, akin to cancer patients needing different treatments.

  3. Bad Cases Make Bad Policies: Extreme, high-profile crimes can lead to outcry-driven legislation that does not address underlying issues.

    • Example: Public outrage over Willie Bosket’s case led to stricter juvenile laws but resulted in many non-violent youth facing severe sentences (Singer, 1996).

  4. Symbolic Gestures: Politicians introduce policies to appear responsive, often resulting in increased punishments without thoughtful consideration of their effectiveness.

    • The rapid passage of the USA PATRIOT Act post-9/11 exemplified knee-jerk policy-making.

  5. Public Opinion: Politician actions are often swayed by public sentiment, with a punitive approach prevailing in the U.S. justice system.

    • Support for the death penalty has remained relatively stable over decades (Gallup, 2017a), making it politically risky to adopt reformist stances.

  6. Swings Between Extremes: Policies oscillate between overly punitive and overly lenient responses to crime, creating instability.

  7. Limited Production of Policy Research: There is insufficient research-based evaluation of effective crime reduction strategies, stymying rational policymaking.

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

  • Legislative changes often generate unintended collateral consequences impacting offenders' future opportunities.

  • Examples of collateral consequences include:

    • Restrictions on voting

    • Barriers to certain occupations

    • Limited access to housing and educational opportunities

  • Social isolation from some restrictions can heighten re-offense risks (Grossi, 2017).

RESEARCH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

  • The shift towards research-informed policies accelerated after the 1997 Report to Congress, marking growing emphasis on data-driven practices since the 1990s.

  • Sherman et al. (1997) outlined what programs effectively reduce crime, revealing that previously popular programs (e.g., DARE) were ineffective.

  • Evidence-based practices (EBP) gained traction globally post-2010, facilitating collaborations between researchers and law enforcement.

  • Existing policies are often funded without proper evaluation, perpetuating the funding of ineffective programs (Gendreau, Smith & Theriault, 2009).

  • Factors contributing to re-offense rates include:

    • Interactions with higher-risk offenders

    • Efficacy of staff implementing programs (Viglione, Rudes & Taxman, 2017).

STAKEHOLDERS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DEVELOPMENT

  • Multiple stakeholders influence policy development, each with distinct motivations and interests:

    • Politicians: Legislation reflects their philosophies pertaining to crime.

    • Public Officials: Bureaucratic figures who draft and enforce legislation.

    • Law Enforcement Professionals: Influence and lobby for policies benefiting their operations.

    • Advocacy Organizations: Groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums advocate for reforms targeting specific systemic issues.

    • Victims: Advocacy groups help elevate victims' voices in legislative discussions.

    • The General Public: Voter sentiment can dictate crime policies significantly.

    • Media: Shape public perceptions through their portrayal of crime, often sensationalizing rare offenses.

    • Academic Researchers: Engage in evaluation and policy critiques, though biases may exist depending on ideological perspectives.

    • Private Firms: Profit from criminal justice services, impacting legislative decisions and funding.

    • International Institutions: Shape global standards and influence national policies on issues like drug enforcement and human rights.

CONCLUSION

  • Trend shifts from addressing root causes, like poverty and inequality, to enhancing the operational efficiency of law enforcement, courts, and corrections.

  • Success in future criminal justice reform may stem from increasingly evaluating policies, understanding offenders, and integrating research-driven frameworks into practice.

  • Challenges remain, compounded by political motivations, community dynamics, and systemic limitations affecting justice policy effectiveness.

KEY TERMS

  • Collateral Consequences: Non-legal sanctions impacting an offender's future opportunities.

  • Cost-Benefit Analyses: Evaluative method comparing costs and benefits of interventions.

  • Critical Criminologists: Scholars advocating for a focus on societal factors causing crime.

  • Evidence-Based Practices (EBP): Strategies supported by research demonstrating their effectiveness.

  • Knee-Jerk Reaction: Rapid legislative response often lacking in thorough consideration.

  • Mass Incarceration (Mass Imprisonment): Phenomenon of disproportionately high imprisonment rates.

  • Operation Ceasefire: Intervention aimed at reducing gang violence.

  • Program Fidelity: Adherence to the original program model impacting effectiveness.

  • Root Causes of Crime: Fundamental social and economic factors contributing to criminal activity.

  • Social Justice Activists: Advocates working towards equality and fair treatment within the justice system.

  • Stakeholders: Individuals or groups with vested interests in the outcomes of criminal justice policies.

  • Sunset Clause: Provision allowing laws to expire unless actively renewed to assess effectiveness.