Criminal Laws Should Be Organized

This paper discusses three critical issues in the criminal justice system. It touches on the general issues of punishment philosophies, sentence decision making, and prison overcrowding and focused more specifically on the negative effects of each. Highlighted in this informational paper is the interrelated nature of the issues; each issue affects and is affected by the others. Data and information has been gathered from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Amnesty International, the NAACP Legal Defense

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

The corrections system has gone through the medical model, the community model, and the crime control model over the last century. In the late eighteen hundreds, the belief that incarceration itself did not reduce crime was emerging. Community based sanctions, like probation and parole, were thought to be great additions and that they would work well in conjunction with incarceration. (Wodahl, 8) Between

We can date the United States criminal justice policies all the way back to the 17th Century. Although it is nothing compared to what we have today, there have been improvements along the way. One of the major reform needed in our corrections system are the war on drugs and overcrowded prison. The history of corrections in the U.S. has been seen through four major eras known as the Penitentiary, Reformatory, Reintegration, and Retributive Era. Each era has tried to explore the best way to deal with people who have broken the law. Based on the ideas of each era, we’ll explore which reform needs to be implemented.

The Justice system seeks to prevent crimes and to capture those who have committed crimes. But what are the causes of crime, maybe poverty, or greed, or is sometimes caused by the system. Is the risk worth the reward and is reward the worth risking the punishment? Power and influence is threaded deeply into the Criminal Justice System. Are all offenders caught and processed with the same demeanor and given the same punishment? The system needs to be impartial to all offenders regardless of the offender’s social position, job or yearly income. The general punishment for most crimes is incarceration in most states with a difference in duration to adjust per each crime. This is the deterrent against crime. This is what should be keeping

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

Corrections have existed throughout society for many years and continued to change and evolve in the United States reflecting society’s values and ideals throughout the centuries. In the criminal justice system, corrections exist in more than one form. Not only do corrections refer to jails and prison systems but they also pertain to community-based programs, such as probation, parole, halfway houses, and treatment facilities. Past, present, and future trends in regard to the development and operation of institutional and community-based corrections vary between states but corrections have grown immensely since the early 1800s and have continued to expand

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

Prisons and jails hold some similar characteristics but are completely different models in which they serve in the criminal justice system. Some of the types of crimes that America faces today are: violent crimes, property, white collar or organized crime, and public order crimes (Worrall, 2008). The criminal justice system sets the regulations and policies of how an offender will be held accountable for their inappropriate actions. The criminal justice system is a process that takes time and money from society. The following information will briefly discuss the main purposes for the jail and prison systems, which will focus on the length of sentencing, funding sources, and private sector ownership. Let’s begin by explaining the length of

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

Due to all the failures throughout history in corrections, there are several changes that have been made since the initial developments of reform. Humans need to be punished in order to understand wrongdoing, therefore the corrections system will need to change not only to modern society, but also to the populations to avoid overcrowding. Americans should transition to more probations and community corrections programs, but eligibility for the new lenient methods of correction should only be available to non violent or first time offenders. As society continues changing, the way the corrections system functions needs to change as well in the way it attempts to reform offenders. From experience in the police officer side of the system, its been observed that different offenders respond differently to different approaches or explanations of punishment.

Recidivism is an important part and essentially one of the main problems of the criminal justice system. Recidivism occurs anytime an individual reverts to committing illegal activities, after they have endured some form of punishment for a previous (if not the same) crime. Every neighborhood and every community experiences crime. Every community sends its criminals away and once their time is served they are released back into that same community. Under the canopy of recidivism, regardless of the specific type of crime, the issue if not changed will continue to perpetuate crime. While not every criminal reverts, problems within the criminal justice system are facilitating recidivism.

In his letters taken from The Panopticon Writings written in 1787, Philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham tries to convince of the effectiveness of a penitentiary unit that would only require one watchman. Indeed, he explains the layout as “Panoptican” which is a reference to Panoptes, a giant with a hundred eyes and thus was known to be a very effective watchman from the Greek mythology. He tries first to convince his audience by posing a problem (it is impossible for the delinquents to be constantly watched by a single watchman) in his first letter and a solution in the second letter (make them thing they are constantly being watched by building a circular structure where the watchman is the center and the delinquents around him).

Jeremy Bentham, a leading English prison reformer of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, developed an architectural plan for an ideal prison that he called the Panopticon. Such a prison would consist of a ring of individual cells encircling an observation tower. Each of the cells would open toward the tower and be illuminated by its own outside window. So, by the effect of backlighting, a single guard in the observation tower could keep watch on many prisoners--each of whom would be individually confined--without himself being seen. And because the prisoners could not see their supervisors, they would have to assume that they were being watched at all times--even if they were not. The Panopticon was