Factors That Influenced The State Of The Criminal Justice System

The speaker argues that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Do you agree? Why or why not?

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

Part 1 of the book highlights chapter 1 and 2, which talks about politics and the consequences of incarceration while chapter 2 talks about the politics of being punished within the united states, some sub topics between chapter 1 and 2 include problem ownership, philosophies, historic changes with the corrections policy throughout time and the economic impact of being incarcerated. Chapter 2 talks about the process in which politics can affect the outcome on crime and punishment, throughout the 1960s the criminal justice system has changed a lot especially correctional professionals who have brought issues to crime and its political forefront.

Reiman and Leighton comprehensively begin the discussion of crime by outlining their main objectives, establishing the immediate problems surrounding crime control in America, and setting the groundwork for their premises. In recent years, the crime rate in the United States has declined. This decline is generally attributed to ‘tough on crime’ and mass incarceration policies, but the authors are quick to assert that other variables--economic, social-- are greater contributors to this decrease, with the ‘imprisonment binge’ only actually contributing a small amount to the decline. These strict crime enforcement policies might have a small impact on crime prevention, but criminologists are concerned with the potential effect such policies might have on criminal justice procedures--promoting profit rather than safety-- and endangering citizens’ rights (particularly those considered minorities).

The Criminal Justice System has undergone numerous, yet significant, changes within the last century. In fact, current research reflects the progressive movement from one of rehabilitation to that of punishment and retribution. Such transition reflects issues pertaining to the management and supervision and treatment of offenders. This study will, therefore, consider and evaluate dilemmas within the Criminal Justice System, as well as, issues that have transpired while trying to reduce crime through punishment. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice System will be discussed through a law perspective regarding supervision and management in order to understand the current challenges and issues involving crime.

The realities and everyday necessities in Indigenous communities seem concealed and compromised in the enduring Indigenous criminal law discourse which is framed by issues throughout history, jurisdictions, prisons, courts and the criminal justice system. Whilst today’s intergeneration effects of poverty and the loss of autonomy fuel Indigenous disadvantage, the criminal law institution is another contributor which vividly displays disadvantages and barriers which preclude Indigenous Australians from sufficiently accessing justice. However, the pursuit for justice is more multifaceted than a return to Indigenous tradition and retainment of the dominant criminal justice system. The following essay will highlight this

In reference to the attitudinal characteristics of the United States over time, there is sharp contrast between the old shorthand phrase of “tough on crime,” and the newer, “smart on crime” development. A change has certainly occurred between the participant U.S, attitudes and strong values against crime that lead to “longer prison sentences, mandatory minimums and truth-in-sentencing laws” and the more pragmatic, budget conscious decisions to choose treatment over incarceration (Swope,

Our criminal justice system is complex and multi-faceted. When people talk about criminal justice reform, they are actually referring to a number of distinct issues and problems. On a national level, the focus on reform can be seen as a recognition that the “tough on crime” legislation that was all the rage in the 1980s and 1990s – mandatory minimums, “three strikes” laws, enhanced sentences for drug crimes to name a few examples – created more problems than they were designed

The reasons incarceration rates raised 500% in the last thirty years had to do with neoliberalism and its use of the prisons and incarceration as means of social control. (Simon) When government does not have social programs it creates crime to give an appearance of governance and to keep people obedient.

There have been a number of changes within the legal and criminal justice system in the last 3-4 decades. History remembers, for example, the Kent State and Chicago Democratic Convention riots in 1968, and since then, a number of criminologists and political scientists have been asked about the use of force, rights-based policing, community involvement, and crime prevention (Russell 2005). The Red Cross and Amnesty International, for instance, have endorsed a rights-based policing model. This idea tempers all police activity with the basic tenet of human rights and rights under the Constitution. Central to this argument is the nature of the relationship between the community and the Criminal Justice System. Local law enforcement bond with community members to implement the day-to-day needs of that community. The idea centers around a basic philosophical tenet: use less force, communicate more, pay attention to human rights, and work to dialog and prevent, not to punish and incarcerate (Williamson 2008).

Few, such as Webb, are courageous enough to describe the United States prison system as “flawed” in its approach for targeting, punishing and releasing individuals identified as criminals. Truthfully, our current prison system unfairly incarcerates people who do not belong in jail and does an inefficient job at protecting its citizens from violent criminals. It is crucial, then, to devise a way in which to tackle the issues of crime such as drug trafficking and nonviolent criminal behavior, while working towards minimizing violent crime and large-scale gang activity in order to fix the current prison system (Webb 1). Currently, the voting public is largely uniformed regarding the criminal justice system. And it is this lack of education

The fifth cause is exaggerated claims for incarceration, where it explains how the disappointment of rehabilitation created certain factors of the punitive turn which it has led to interest in an effective substitute, (Mears & Joshua C, 2015). Although, exaggeration claims for incarceration seemed to be something that the people wanted we must first consider the amount of knowledge the public have of the criminal justice system and the punishments available to the courts. The sixth cause, discounting the effectiveness of non-incarceration sanctions, is one that made the policymakers and the public may have convinced themselves that incarceration was the only effective way. They felt that it was one of the only effective sanction and non-incarceration

From the 19th century to the 20th, crime control state agencies have become instilled with ‘penal welfarism’ and rehabilitation. However since then they’ve been dominated by risk management, incapacitation and retribution. In clarifying this change Garland; the formal organisations of crime control have a tendency to be responsive. Garland states “too often our attention focuses on the state’s institutions and neglects the informal social practices upon which state

It is through the Criminal Justice System’s close collaborations with like-minded agencies such as the Police, Prison and Courts Services, that the public’s concerns and worries are resolved, in order to bring about justice in our communities (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007 as cited in Fox, 2014). With that in mind and out of the way, this essay will aim to explore some of the strengths and weaknesses, which are prominent within the Criminal Justice System. To do this successfully, the Police and the Courts Service will be the key agencies that will be explored in relation to the key Models that shape the whole Criminal Justice System. These Models were founded by Herbert L. Packer (1968) and Michael King (1981).

The challenge of crime policy is that crime is not evenly distributed across the socio-economic population. There are a multitude of reasons why this is a fact, but what is important to know, is that it greatly impacts crime policy. Criminal justice policies have vastly changed, especially in the last fifty years, in an effort to respond to citizens’ needs because of the uneven distribution of crime. Therefore, this means it is a reactionary response. It is imperative to remember that crime tends to effect the poor, the young, and particular ethnic groups more, when examining criminal justice policies. Policies that are of the criminal justice persuasion in their nature, in the extent of the policies, and in their impact directly effects the liberties of a governments’ citizens are always in flux.