Reiman And Leighton Theory Summary

To begin with, criminal justice is a system that is designed to maintain social control, which means it is a necessary aspect of every society since “Laws are the conditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society” (Beccaria, 1764: 16). In order words, crime control deals with the methods that are taken by a society to reduce its crime. As a matter of fact, there are various crime control strategies from community policing to risk assessments. In addition to the different tactics for controlling crime, there are several theories that not only attempt to explain the causes of crime, but also outline different ways to handle offenders; for example, deterrence, rehabilitation, and even retribution.

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

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

It is irrational to think that the death penalty – a remote threat at best – will avert murders committed in drug turf wars or by street-level dealers” (Bedau). This shows that the death penalty is not stopping murders from occurring. The introduction to the death penalty conducted a survey were top criminologists stated that the death penalty does not deter homicide rates (Introduction). “For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9 [Murder rates by the 100,000], while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8” (Introduction).

The past quarter century has seen an enormous growth in the American incarceration rate. Importantly, some scholars have suggested that the rate of prison growth has little to do with the theme of crime itself, but it is the end result of particular U.S. policy choices. Clear (2007) posits that "these policy choices have had well-defined implications for the way prison populations have come to replicate a concentrated occurrence among specified subgroups in the United States population in particular young black men from deprived communities" (p. 49).

The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, by Nancy E. Marion and Willard M. Oliver. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearso

Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the

Within the Criminal Justice system, comes a structure of both practices as well as organizations that main role is to uphold not only social jurisdiction, but to discourage and diminish criminal activity. The Criminal Justice system also sanctions those who violate the laws of the land with penalties and reintegration of the criminals into society. In the United States, our policy has been guided by the 1967 President 's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which issued a ground-breaking report 'The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society ' (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice [Presidents Commission], 1967).

The United States (US) incarcerates its citizens at the highest rate in the world, 707 US citizens per 100,000 are incarcerated, a rate 5 -10 times higher than other western democracies (National Research Council, 2014). From the 1930s to the 1970s the number of incarcerated citizens in the US remained relatively stable, 161 citizens per 100,00 were incarcerated in 1972 (Hindelang, 1977). However since the 1970s the population of America’s prison system has increased by 700% (ACLU, 2011), and there are now currently over 2.2 million incarcerated Americans. Because of this rapid increase to an unprecedented level US incarceration levels have been widely discussed across academic literature. Not only are current US incarceration levels internationally unique and unprecedented, they are unique and unprecedented within the history of the US itself. This makes the US incarceration levels best suited to a single case analysis, as there is a high level of internal historical change to compare across. It is widely accepted that the rise in US incarceration levels are due to ‘the war on drugs’ - tough on crime law enforcement strategies introduced in the 1970s to combat illegal drug activity. However, there are differing theories as to how these historic policies continue to impact incarceration levels today. In this essay I will argue that the war on drugs is one of many mechanisms employed to continually discriminate against the black minority in America. I will analyse

Katherine Beckett. 1997. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics, Oxford University Press. Published in the Crime and Public Policy Series, edited by Norval Morris and Michael Tonry.

In chapter four of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner discuss the downturn of criminal activity in the United States. They begin the chapter by giving a summary of Romania’s abortion law, and then they switch to the history of criminal activity in the U.S. At the end, they also make sure to connect the ideas while including clear explanations of their perspectives (Levitt and Dubner 105-132). The way they examine some of the most impactful components that decreased felonies in the U.S., such as dependency on prisons and police strategies/quantity, is done in an effective way for the reader to understand.

The Culture of Control, Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, David Garland (2001) is certainly one worth the read. Garland, one of the leading criminologists, begins the book with a fantastic insight on ‘history of the present’ of penological developments in the US, compares it with Britain in late 1970’s. He picks out indicative theories by Foucault and several examples to support his arguments. He portrays an intricate argument about the rise of crime control and punitiveness. Garland continues throughout to link new developments in both countries to identify each countries crime control stratergy and the effect of their strategies. He ends it with further theories and opinions on crime control and social order. Garlands purpose of writing the book is to give a deep analysis and an absorbing read of crime control in USA and UK to his readers. The purpose of the following review is to give the readers a brief understanding of some issues by Garland on crime and social order in contemporary society.

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.

Roughly a decade ago, Messner and Rosenfeld identified the United states as differing from all other nation-states due to two characteristics (Chamlin, 2007, p. 40). First, U.S residents place an elevated emphasis on the acquisition of property, and thus a vast preoccupation with material success (Chamlin, 2007, p. 40). The ladder goals take precedence over other definitions of success, such as prioritizing parenthood or aiding to societal needs (Chamlin, 2007, p. 40). Second, U.S residents are plagued with extraordinarily high levels of serious crime (Chamlin, 2007, p. 41). According to Messner and Rosenfeld, the United Stated does in fact have exceedingly high rates of so called ‘serious crime’ (Chamlin, 2007, p. 44). Messner and Rosenfeld seek to illustrate the disparity of high crime rates by comparing the results with additional nation-states.

Becker continues on in his lecture to the topic of crime and punishment. He notes how crime is not a result of mental illness or social repression but is actually a rational action that many people participate in, though not in the degree of what is conventionally viewed as criminal. Many people weigh the costs and benefits of committing a crime and when the benefit of committing outweigh the costs of conviction and how serious the crime is. Despite the rationality of criminal activities, certain acts are labelled as particularly heinous their participants are typically marked as risk-loving. Becker notes that it would be economically optimal if federal spending “would balance the reduced spending on police and courts from lowering the probability of conviction against the preference of risk-preferring criminals for a lesser certainty of punishment” (42). There is a specific economic need to reduce crime- as eradicating it is nearly impossible in Becker’s eyes-as crime is described as rent-seeking in that it does not generate any economic surplus or any gain and the weapons and plans that sprout from crime are at their roots wholly unproductive to