Chapter 9: Social Policy in Criminal Justice Systems
Social/Public Policy
The material in this section discusses the ways policy is influenced by social, political, economic, legal, and ideological forces. It should not be a secret that each of these forces plays some role in policy formation. Marion & Oliver, (2006; 2012) assert that the formulation of policy is influenced by social, political, economic, legal and ideological factors. The reader should pay close attention to these criteria in preparation for future evaluations. According to Marion & Oliver (2006: 2012) “The end result is crime policy that is rarely about reducing crime but policy that plays well with the public and the media” (p.23). None the less formulation of policy is the choice of those in charge either by position or authority, may be the inclination of fear mongering rather than factual contextual reporting.
Sentencing Policies
Consider the following three areas that have contemporary impacts on the CJ system. They are plea bargaining, truth-in-sentencing, and mandatory sentencing. This section offers a brief policy proposal on plea bargaining. The reader should consider their own policy for the remaining two that will offer guidelines to enhance the equity, efficiency, and efficacy of this policy. Truth in sentencing and mandatory sentencing is discussed further on in the material.
I would not change the process per se but would offer some minor tweaking. First all petty offenses of a non-violent nature would meet with administrative law judges and receive an opportunity to be heard and a civil compromise would be levied in the finding of guilt. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is a legal scholar (retired judge or lawyer) with authority of a sitting criminal judge in a less formal setting (relaxed rules of evidence) not requiring a bogged down system with lawyers, as the ALJ will be the guardian of rights for defense and prosecution. A civil compromise is a finding that does not label the defendant or provide them with a criminal record, much like the traffic court system (much like a driving record there is a recording of the event but not criminal). Second, if the defendant is habitual then the system is no longer available to this person. This system is based on the ability of the accused and accuser to negotiate justice. This will be particularly effective for bad checks, code violations, traffic, public intoxication, underage drinking etc.
The actual plea bargaining process will be limited to misdemeanors and felonies of less substance (non-violent matters or identity theft or larcenies less than $5,000) for the first time offender. If there exists a specialized court for a specific offense such as DWI Court, Drug Court, Mental Health Court, or Domestic Court, then that becomes the court of original jurisdiction. Pleas will be categorized by type of offense, prior criminal history and victim impact statement. The ALJ retains the authority to bump an offender to a higher court.
Spohn (2000) contends in his study “The finding of this review suggest that the disproportionate number of racial minorities confined in our Nation’s jails and prisons cannot be attributed solely to racially neutral efforts to control crime and protect society. Although it is irrefutable that the primary determinants of sentence decisions are the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior criminal record, race/ethnicity and other legally irrelevant offender characteristics also play a role”(p. 481). Due to recidivism rate of offenders then the second offense will often require serving full sentence of first offense then plea must contain rehab criteria before release, after release and relocation from existing environment similar to witness protection. Does the ethical issue of racial disparity interact with the plea bargaining process?
Incarceration and Release
The offender must be readied for return to society through programs aiding in offender growth and development which is important but equally critical is the rethinking of the entire system (Petersilia, 2000; & Travis, 2000; & Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). Family members are impacted by the offender as is the victim and the community and they too must be made whole in a restorative justice approach (Travis, 2000). However for this post I have chosen a separate field of discussion and that is the family financial support system critical in prisoner reentry.
The behavior of offender offspring(s) is often emulated and is a consideration of the reentry program (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). Children’s development may be negatively impacted via low income because it prevents parents from purchasing essential as well as socio critical materials, experiences or services as indicated by economic theory. Most offenders return with little or no money or savings (Petersilia, 2000). Reisig, Holtfreter & Morash (2002) contend “Generally, social theorists posit that a variety of positive outcomes is associated with healthy social networks…According to contemporary social theory, kin and non-kin social networks provide social resources that can produce a variety of desirable outcomes including employment, access to training and education, as well as instrumental, social, and emotional support” (p.167-168).
Ryan, Kalil, & Leininger, (2009) findings add to a long tradition of research illustrating the importance of social support, broadly defined, to the economic survival and emotional well-being of low-income. Specifically, the research demonstrates a significant and substantively important association between the availability of a private safety net and children’s internalizing symptoms and positive behaviors. Their work found the nature and strength of these associations across the two data sets in-spite of difference between operation of private safety nets in Fragile Families (which emphasized material support) and National support.
Ryan et al. (2009) find:
A positive association between private safety nets and children’s socioemotional well-being, but a different finding could have emerged. Qualitative literature on the dynamics of social support suggests that because mothers often receive informal support only on the condition of reciprocity, help from mothers sometimes can induce as much stress as it alleviates (Antonucci & Jackson, 1990; Howard, 2006, cited by Ryan et al., 2009) both because mothers worry about repaying their debts (financial or otherwise) and because the exchanges can complicate interpersonal relations. In these ways, mothers’ private safety nets could undermine their emotional well-being and consequently their parenting or expose children to negative relationships, either of which could disrupt children’s socioemotional development” (p. 294).
These studies indicate that rehabilitation or treatment has been the narrow scope of reentry qualifiers as the authors intimate it is the economic safety net that must also be taken into consideration. It does not assume a free pass but would require outcomes such as the resource is available for periods of training and job seeking. The funding is allocated directly to housing or grocery or medical staff (to name a few). One may ask at this juncture why safety nets are discussed (specifically economic nets). The fact is that they are an unintended consequence of offenders incarcerated and may or may not be appreciated in the over-all calculation of the cost of crime. A second consideration in addressing safety nets is the cost of Domestic Violence in America and hidden costs.
Juveniles in the Justice System
All crime is deviant but not all deviant behavior is criminal. Noted sociologist Howard Becker (1963) argues, “The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied, deviant behavior is behavior people so label” (p. 9). A Crime is a violation of the more repugnant rules and enacted by those currently holding social and political power. Offenders are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma, and loss of status (Siegel, 2008).
The ethical and political implications through policy development to detect and prevent crime also are pervasive in legislative enactments such as: Three Strikes you’re out, Mandatory/Minimum sentencing, Faith in Sentencing, or rehabilitative/reformative programs endorsed by Positivist designed to rejuvenate or reform an offender discouraging him/her from recidivism (Lilly, Cullen & Bell, 2007, Siegel, 2008). The conservative approach tends to favor longer sentencing while the liberal view centers on treatment and rehabilitation (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). There is similarities between the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex and the attached link provides information critical to this discussion. https://pointsforponder.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/gilmore-nd2.pdf
The Supreme Court through a series of decision culminating in the Roper v. Simmons (S.Ct., 205 WL 464890) backed the Missouri’s Supreme Court ruling that the execution of a person less than 18 years old was a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Further a litany of court cases evolving since the 1960’s have provided safeguards provided an adult and the juvenile offender (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006).
At the heart of this discussion are two differing theories of crime, first Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) self-control theory which is “for all intents and purposes, the individual-level cause of crime” (cited by Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005, p.232). Those with low self-control lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence, find a lack of determination to forego gratification, resolve matters in more physical rather than verbal fashion, usually do not possess or value higher education nor have cognitive abilities requisite to skills or training and lack interest in preparation for long-term pursuits and are more self-indulgent (Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005), Second, T.E. Moffitt, (1993), provides an interesting area of study specifically with two variances of delinquency, echoing the imitation aspect in the first distinction of behavior, adolescence-limited (AL) which is antisocial mimicking, gaining instruction through peers beginning with adolescence and terminating with adulthood. The second distinction of behavior is the life-course persistent (LCP) delinquency which deals with hereditary psychiatric disorders that have worsened with age. A third group emerged from this study, albeit small, yet significant is referred to as abstainers that refrain from antisocial behavior all together (Cauffman et al., 2005).
As asserted by Cauffman et al., (2005) “Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that a single factor, low self-control, when coupled with opportunity for antisocial activity, underlies antisocial behavior over the life course” (p. 142). They further draw a distinction between theories of Gottfredson and Hirschi, self-control and Moffitt’s AL and LCP theory claiming “that although self-control is an important individual-level characteristic which should be incorporated into models of criminal activity. It is not the only crime generating factor (especially among serious offenders). More specifically, biological and psychological/personality factors should also be directly and independently related to offending, above and beyond the impact of poor self-control” (p.139).
Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington & Milne, (2002) provides a longitudinal study relative to AL and LCP consisting of 1,037 children (52% males and 48% females) which suggests that LCP are few and persistent and AL is temporary and more common and near normative behavior. The LCP antisocial behavior began early on in life and the social environment and inherited or acquired neuropsychological severely manifests further behavioral problems. The transaction of poor family environment, poor relations with people in the form of peers and teachers emerge creating a deeper infinity for more aggressive behavior of which the inverse is purported for the AL delinquent.
The evolutionary path for understanding criminal behavior has often been misjudged, misguided or misplaced by political/partisan ideologies or through policies that have developed as a result of the era or its influences (Akers & Sellers, 2009, Akers, 1990, Lilly, Cullen & Bell, 2007, and Walsh, 2000). Society has provided numerous explanations of crime, cause and effect and to date there is no silver bullet or singular causation of criminal behavior that survives. Scholars will agree that crime does not have a specific cause in the brain nor is there a single explanation for criminal behavior (Rowe, 2002, Siegel, 2008, Fagin, 2007, Bartol & Bartol, 2008)
Regardless of society’s attempts to prevent juvenile crime through the use of a juvenile justice system developed for rehabilitation and treatment of an offender, juveniles sometimes commit very serious offenses. Their act demands prompt and even handed justice taking into account all available variables (Marion & Oliver, 2012: 2006). A justice system is in place to safeguard the rights of the juvenile offender and in order to transfer a case from the juvenile section to adult criminal courts generally requires a separate hearing to determine the merits. With this established there still resides the controversy of how much punishment and for how long. It has been suggested that with the newer technology perhaps the brain studies may become more useful in the criminal justice field and particularly in the juvenile sector (Dolan & Anderson, 2002).
At this juncture it is critical to think over the influences of policy on crime such as money, politics, ideology, social influences and media. The lack of funding for support of families with an incarcerated member or a domestic violence situation or the children involved. Take a moment and reflect on ethical issues that pertain. What questions may arise at this juncture?
Sentencing Disparities: Crack v. Powder Cocaine
The following material examines sentencing disparities. The sentencing disparities around crack and powder cocaine, pointing out the differences and similarities between sentencing practices used by the federal government and the State of Pennsylvania. What factor(s) might account for the disparities observed in the federal sentencing guidelines?
Crack cocaine and powder cocaine remains cocaine, so why is such a disparity in sentencing and why such a disparate impact on minorities? Researchers will often examine the environmental impacts that create disillusion with current laws and debilitation of neighborhoods. Based on material presented thus far could it simply be that those with political and economic means (major political contributors) lobby sufficiently to get tough on crime laws that will support the Prison Industrial Complex?
As asserted by Tonry (1994) “First, conservative Republicans in national elections “played the race card” by using anticrime slogans (remember Willie Horton?) as a way to appeal to anti-Black sentiments of White voters. Second, conservative politicians of both parties promoted and voted for harsh crime control and drug policies that exacerbated existing racial disparities” (p. 475). The police are the first line of defense against crime and the effectiveness of the police are generally measured by reported crime data in comparison to arrest data; however there is no real measure of overall success (Skogan, 1999).
More recently researchers have been driven by observations and the impact of quality of life enforcement or an ecological approach, still there remains the perception that drug dealing and drug proliferation are in direct proportion to the debilitation of neighborhoods, which holds some truths but in reality is a part of the problem not the whole problem. Indicated by other English speaking countries, they have disproven assertions that harsher punishments significantly increase public safety (Tonry, 1994).
Although treatment and school based prevention programs have demonstrated greater promise to intercede the drug epidemic, America has remained with drug control policies that are a major cause of racial disparity in prisons (Tonry, 1994). Pennsylvania and New York are similarly situated based on personal experience of the author. However, Pennsylvania is the subject material used in this comparison.
In the U.S. today, more than 2.3 million adults are in American jails or prisons and as the Pew Center on the States has reported, that amounts to more than one in every 100 adults in an American jail or prison nationwide. While dangerous criminals should be behind bars, high incarceration rates cost taxpayers $50 billion per year (Pew Center, 2008). In Pennsylvania, over 87,000 adults are behind bars, meaning that one in every 111 Pennsylvania adults are in prison. Incarcerating one of these prisoners costs $98 per day or over $35,000 a year. State corrections costs alone in Pennsylvania exceed $1.8 billion annually (Pew Center, 2009).
| Pennsylvania Corrections Data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of prisoners | Average Cost per state prisoner | Total annual state corrections costs in Pennsylvania |
| 87,363 | $35,000 per year | $1.8 billion |
Tonry (1994) maintains that “There is no valid policy justification for the harsh drug and crime control polices of the “Reagan and Bush administrations…The justification is entirely political” (p.488). However it is argued that it is sometimes unfair to blame national Republican policy; political leaders have followed the will of the people; and to ignore that crime may be interracial and to ignore it would have an adverse impact on the Black victims. Non-the-less, crime control effectiveness should not be politically motivated and disregard flexible public objectives that can be measured and evaluated in order to alter course for the best interest of those we serve.
Finally, this chapter afforded pathways to examine decision making relative to influences on public policy. The War on Drugs is posed in a fashion that alludes that drugs are the target of the enforcement and not the offender. The insidious crack cocaine epidemic has been associated with crimes of violence, which is accurate, but it remains that cocaine is cocaine in any form. The inner-city populations have sensed disparate impacts resulting in increased incarceration of minorities and deterioration of neighborhood quality of life issues. In the end one can argue that the get tough on crime policy and increased prison populations were resultant of deviant behaviors rising to the level of crime. One can also conclude that the public policies devised by government may have been influenced by campaign contributions for the benefit of the Prison Industry Complex. At the end of the day, the reader must decipher and equate ethics and ethical or non-ethical influences portrayed as a benefit to society or for only the profiteering segment of society. What is of interest is where ethical decision making in day to day CJ practices become tainted by public policy involving influences that may or may not be ethically founded.
References
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories (5th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Akers, R. L., & Jensen, e. G. F. (2006). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new century. Advances in Criminological Theory, 11
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2008). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology, 43(1), 133-176.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. In Peter B. Kraska & John J. Brent, 2011, (2nd Ed.) Theorizing Criminal Justice: Eight Essential Orientations (pp. 151-155 & 302-303). Longrove, Illinois: Waveland.
Dolan, M., & Anderson, I. M. (2002). Executive and memory function and its relationship to trait impulsivity and aggression in personality disordered offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 13(3), 503-526. Doi: 10.1080/0958518021000019452
Kraska, B. & Brent, J.J. (2011), Theorizing Criminal Justice: Eight Essential Orientations (2nd Ed.) Longrove, Illinois: Waveland.
Marion, N. E., & and Oliver, W. M. (2006: 2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mason, C. (January 2012). Too good to be true: Private prisons in America. The Sentencing Project: 2–4.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological theory (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
MacKenzie, D. L., Gover, A. R., Armstrong, G.S., & Mitchell, O. (2001). A national study comparing the environments of boot camps with traditional facilities for juvenile offenders. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, OJP, Washington, DC.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238.
Marion, N.E. & Olive, W.M. (2012). The Public Policy of crime and Criminal Justice (2nd end). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. In Ronald L. Akers & Gary F. Jensen, biology and crime Psychological Review, 100, (pp. 674-701. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.
Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on July 27, 2009 from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-1-1_FORWEB.pdf; The Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on July 27, 2009 from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3-26-09.pdf
Pew Center on the States. (2009). 1 in 31: The long reach of America corrections – Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on July 27, 2009 from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Fact_Sheets/PSPP_1in31_factsheet_PA.pdf; Pennsylvania Governor’s Budget Office. (2009). Current and proposed Commonwealth budgets. Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Petersilia, J. (2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, Economic, and social consequences. Sentencing & Corrections, 9, 1-8 Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Washington, D.C.: NIJ: Office of Justice Programs.
Reisig, M.D., Holtfreter, K. & Morash, M. (2002). Social capital among women offenders: Examining the distribution of social networks and resources. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18 (2), 167-187.
Robertson, D. L., & and Indermaur, D. (2005). Social issues as media constructions: The case of ‘road rage’. Crime, Media, Culture, 1, 301-321.
Ryan, R. M., Kalil, A., & Leininger, L. (2009). Low-income mother’s private safety nets and children’s socioemotional well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 278-298.
Siegel, L. J. (2008). Criminology (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Skogan, W. G. (1999). Measuring what matters: Crime, Disorder and fear.
Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing.
Process, Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System. 3. http://www.justicestudies.com/pubs/livelink3-1.pdf
Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth and violence at the edge of the 21st century. Bantam Books.
Tonry, M. (1994). Racial politics, racial disparities, and the war on crime. Crime & Delinquency, 40:4, 475-494.
Walsh, A. (2000). Behavior genetics and anomie/strain theory. Criminology, 38, 1,075-1,108.