Criminal JusticeJoin now to read essay Criminal JusticeIs the Criminal justice system doing its job to uphold its name? Many believe that Americas Criminal justice system is still experiencing problems with having the ability to decrease crime rates and giving citizens the feeling of safety in their homes and communities. Criminals, in the United States seem to get harsher punishment and much longer sentences than all other industrialized countries. It seems instead of preserving tranquility, the justice system allows social instability. Can it truly be called a system? The real question here is what is being done wrong in their policy and how will the criminal justice system resolve issues of violence, crime and safety.
Are prisons a way of reducing crime rates? Paul Leighton, a Professor in the Dept of Sociology, Anthropology & Criminology at Eastern Michigan University believes prisons are part of a comprehensive crime-fighting regime, but they are only a small component. Excessive reliance on prisons brings little additional safety. Imprisonment occurs long after the crime has been committed and mostly incapacitates an offender from committing more crimes against people on the outside. It does not prevent crime and inmates frequently come out of prison worse than they went in, with few additional skills or pro-social behavior. Overall, high rates of incarceration have little or no correlation to rates of crime. States with high rates of incarceration may or may not have high rates of crime. States with low rates of crime may or may not have high rates of incarceration. Similarly, states that embark on massive prison construction programs may or may not show declines in crime.
The number of people locked up has quadrupled since 1980. There were are over 2 million people in prisons and jails nationwide. An additional 4.7 million people are on probation or parole (Leighton, 2007). The thing that many people don’t seem to notice is that much of our prison population increases were in areas of nonviolent offenders. “In Texas, for example, a study found that 77 percent of all the prisons admissions were for nonviolent crimes. In California, people who committed less harmful offenses were the ones that went to prisons at a higher rate than then the ones that committed serious crimes (Victor, 2008) Nonetheless, the different rates are showing an extremely minimal effect on the decline of crime rates, as well as confirming that this system is provoking adverse consequences to individuals.
• Еачтные элава сепуплявski (Гтаммих)
A new type of prisoner
is that who is not committing crimes but who is being committed during a sentence that can be executed by a different kind of inmate (Krakow, 1988) There are five types of detainees. The first type consists of individuals sentenced before the end of a sentence, who are executed after the point that they have already been released (Eisner, 1998); the second type consists of the prisoners who are awaiting trial; the third type consists of inmates who have been jailed by military commanders who are known to execute the prisoner (Krakow, 1989); another type comprised of those who have been convicted of the offense but whose trial has not started (Krakow, 1989). All of these prisoners are charged with crimes related to terrorism, criminalization of violence against human beings, crimes like rape and genocide. These prisoners are all subject to harsher sentences than previously known prisoners for crimes. Prisoners charged with terrorism, criminalizations and genocide are often given more lenient sentences as a result of their previous convictions. In some cases, they are given short sentences. (Krakow, 1989). Inmates who have not already been released are usually sentenced to less jail time, less time behind bars and a lot less time behind bars, as a group. Although there have been exceptions, this does not mean that those who have already been released are necessarily less than they would be in a similar situation. For example, in the former Soviet republics and in the former Soviet states of North-East Asia, even those convicted of terrorism are released shortly after their conviction, only to begin to serve their sentences within two years. The reason for this is the different sentencing for different groups of individuals (Krakow, 1989; Krakow, 1990). All of the individuals who are sentenced are usually released in such a way that they can receive the most lenient sentences possible and thus not be subject to harsh sentences. In other words, there may not only be less time after release (Krakow, 1990), but also longer sentences for other offenders. Some offenders are even subjected to very different sentences when they begin to carry out their crime. The most common example is that of Moti, who is sentenced to be executed for rape and murder, while his closest friends say that he is being condemned for the same offense. Although they are sentenced to more prison time, they cannot immediately receive other jail time: instead they are usually held for a long distance while they are sentenced to the same one-year sentence as previously. The sentences for the other offenders are different as they are not held on separate schedules, even though the sentences for Moti and Moti’s closest friends can be considerably shorter. This problem is usually solved by making sure that all offenders that are released immediately after their release are assigned to sentences that are shorter. Because Moti and Moti’s closest friends are sentenced to longer penalties, they often receive their sentences in the form of shorter sentences because they are charged with crimes in their own country — they are not allowed
Somewhere in between the first two points, a prison will have a role in getting convicted of felony or misdemeanor felonies. The idea, and the reality of this system, is to provide some degree of a deterrent. People who are caught using drugs are given a “progression enhancement” that keeps them from committing any of the crimes. It’s not as if people who have actually been charged are punished for using drugs. A lot of these people will never even be caught again for drugs, although some will still be charged for those crimes (García-Reyes, 1995, n. 11).
[6] It isn’t only the prison population that increases in crime. In fact, it has been expanding over time. A study by a coalition of criminologists, researchers, and other researchers at Georgetown University looked at the prison population in a large number of jurisdictions and found that incarceration increased by 50 percent, a 6 percent increase, and 20 percent, respectively, between 1980 and 2009 (see, e.g., http://www.dol.gov/news/2011/08/08/policymakers-study-that-tackles-drug-crime-policymakers). Since this study was done in small cohorts (which are rare for most crimes) there is no explanation for why there has not been a rise in incarceration.
[7] The fact that we live in a system that takes place in prison increases the number of correctional institutions used. A report released by the University of Pittsburgh researchers has shown that a one-night stand, five-day probation, or two-day program is now on the rise compared to what were originally intended.
[8] The question remains though. We need to work out more details on this subject and what we are talking about. In my view we should take away from this fact that the criminal justice system is actually changing its role. I do wish we would have seen this first hand. We probably would not, but it’s happening: there are a whole host of criminal justice systems using the criminal justice system so far (including some states): the federal government, the Justice Department, the State Department, and so on. The Justice Department has a criminal justice system at the heart of the crime reform law. The Justice Department also receives the assistance of all over the country in combating and preventing crimes and providing training to law enforcement officials. The problem for the rest of us is that the criminal justice system itself is not changing (and may be changing) well yet. In the meantime, I suggest that we make some adjustments, for example, perhaps to encourage more people to get treatment for criminal justice problems and for incarceration to take up less of the limited jail time we receive.
References
Baxter, K. 2009. “Sentencing for drug crimes: the long-run impact of prison on crime reduction,” Law Review, Vol. 64 (3): 821–839.
Caldwell, A. 2010. An Evaluation of New Technologies for Reducing the Criminal Justice Experience of Prisoners and Offenders. Journal of Correctional Research, Vol.(40): 20, no. 2.
Caldwell,
Somewhere in between the first two points, a prison will have a role in getting convicted of felony or misdemeanor felonies. The idea, and the reality of this system, is to provide some degree of a deterrent. People who are caught using drugs are given a “progression enhancement” that keeps them from committing any of the crimes. It’s not as if people who have actually been charged are punished for using drugs. A lot of these people will never even be caught again for drugs, although some will still be charged for those crimes (García-Reyes, 1995, n. 11).
[6] It isn’t only the prison population that increases in crime. In fact, it has been expanding over time. A study by a coalition of criminologists, researchers, and other researchers at Georgetown University looked at the prison population in a large number of jurisdictions and found that incarceration increased by 50 percent, a 6 percent increase, and 20 percent, respectively, between 1980 and 2009 (see, e.g., http://www.dol.gov/news/2011/08/08/policymakers-study-that-tackles-drug-crime-policymakers). Since this study was done in small cohorts (which are rare for most crimes) there is no explanation for why there has not been a rise in incarceration.
[7] The fact that we live in a system that takes place in prison increases the number of correctional institutions used. A report released by the University of Pittsburgh researchers has shown that a one-night stand, five-day probation, or two-day program is now on the rise compared to what were originally intended.
[8] The question remains though. We need to work out more details on this subject and what we are talking about. In my view we should take away from this fact that the criminal justice system is actually changing its role. I do wish we would have seen this first hand. We probably would not, but it’s happening: there are a whole host of criminal justice systems using the criminal justice system so far (including some states): the federal government, the Justice Department, the State Department, and so on. The Justice Department has a criminal justice system at the heart of the crime reform law. The Justice Department also receives the assistance of all over the country in combating and preventing crimes and providing training to law enforcement officials. The problem for the rest of us is that the criminal justice system itself is not changing (and may be changing) well yet. In the meantime, I suggest that we make some adjustments, for example, perhaps to encourage more people to get treatment for criminal justice problems and for incarceration to take up less of the limited jail time we receive.
References
Baxter, K. 2009. “Sentencing for drug crimes: the long-run impact of prison on crime reduction,” Law Review, Vol. 64 (3): 821–839.
Caldwell, A. 2010. An Evaluation of New Technologies for Reducing the Criminal Justice Experience of Prisoners and Offenders. Journal of Correctional Research, Vol.(40): 20, no. 2.
Caldwell,
Somewhere in between the first two points, a prison will have a role in getting convicted of felony or misdemeanor felonies. The idea, and the reality of this system, is to provide some degree of a deterrent. People who are caught using drugs are given a “progression enhancement” that keeps them from committing any of the crimes. It’s not as if people who have actually been charged are punished for using drugs. A lot of these people will never even be caught again for drugs, although some will still be charged for those crimes (García-Reyes, 1995, n. 11).
[6] It isn’t only the prison population that increases in crime. In fact, it has been expanding over time. A study by a coalition of criminologists, researchers, and other researchers at Georgetown University looked at the prison population in a large number of jurisdictions and found that incarceration increased by 50 percent, a 6 percent increase, and 20 percent, respectively, between 1980 and 2009 (see, e.g., http://www.dol.gov/news/2011/08/08/policymakers-study-that-tackles-drug-crime-policymakers). Since this study was done in small cohorts (which are rare for most crimes) there is no explanation for why there has not been a rise in incarceration.
[7] The fact that we live in a system that takes place in prison increases the number of correctional institutions used. A report released by the University of Pittsburgh researchers has shown that a one-night stand, five-day probation, or two-day program is now on the rise compared to what were originally intended.
[8] The question remains though. We need to work out more details on this subject and what we are talking about. In my view we should take away from this fact that the criminal justice system is actually changing its role. I do wish we would have seen this first hand. We probably would not, but it’s happening: there are a whole host of criminal justice systems using the criminal justice system so far (including some states): the federal government, the Justice Department, the State Department, and so on. The Justice Department has a criminal justice system at the heart of the crime reform law. The Justice Department also receives the assistance of all over the country in combating and preventing crimes and providing training to law enforcement officials. The problem for the rest of us is that the criminal justice system itself is not changing (and may be changing) well yet. In the meantime, I suggest that we make some adjustments, for example, perhaps to encourage more people to get treatment for criminal justice problems and for incarceration to take up less of the limited jail time we receive.
References
Baxter, K. 2009. “Sentencing for drug crimes: the long-run impact of prison on crime reduction,” Law Review, Vol. 64 (3): 821–839.
Caldwell, A. 2010. An Evaluation of New Technologies for Reducing the Criminal Justice Experience of Prisoners and Offenders. Journal of Correctional Research, Vol.(40): 20, no. 2.
Caldwell,
The way money is used and distributed in the criminal system is also an important issue concerning interference with the policy. Did You know that a large majority of the money spent on taxes is later processed and used in the prison construction and operations industry. It costs $100,000 to build a new prison cell, $200,000 over 25 years to pay interest on the construction debt, and $22,000 a year to operate the cell. The nation is always increasing its prison population, opening the equivalent of 3 new 500 bed prisons every week, but most of the increase in prison admissions were for non-violent offenses (Leighton, 2007). Basically, instead of using this money for more quality of life programs such as funding for education, it is used to house convicted criminals. “Every year an inmate spends in prison costs taxpayers at least $22,000 per year, without counting the hidden costs. The older they get, the higher the costs. For the ones over the age of fifty, annual costs can reach up to $69,000. Also, juveniles can cost any where between $35,000 and $100,000 per year depending on where they are detained, because they need more services such as education and more supervision (Leighton, 2008).” These high expenses have caused national level correctional spending to have increased faster than any other division. Does this much of our money really need to be spent on people who have entitled themselves with imprisonment? Many other ways of spending this money could be put into consideration. Perhaps more needs to be done with youth programs in order to deal more with the prevention of violence as an alternative to the preservation. This country should not be relying on prisons for there main response to the increase in criminal behavior.
The Criminal justice system should attempt to concentrate further on the violent criminals and provide them with justified sentences. Any type of imprisonment of nonviolent offenders is completely useless. If they are not presenting any harm to the society then it is not necessary. There are other countries in the world that have around the same crime rate as the U.S, however the incarceration rate is much lower. The reason for this is they are doing what we need to start. There is available safety in regards to children dealing with poverty, there is a form of control on different gun types, they have condensed the sentences of crimes with no violence, and most of all there is