U.S. Criminal Justice System PDF

The U.S. criminal justice system as we know it has existed for more than a century and a half. Interest in crime and our justice system has generated thousands of television series and movies that examine how and why people commit crimes, how the justice system responds, the roles of people who work...

The U.S. criminal justice system as we know it has existed for more than a century and a half. Interest in crime and our justice system has generated thousands of television series and movies that examine how and why people commit crimes, how the justice system responds, the roles of people who work within our system, various punishments for criminal behavior, and our protections under the Bill of Rights. Some are fictional (The Wire, CSI, Law & Order, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, and NCIS), while others are based on true stories or follow real-life events (Tiger King, American Crime Story, The First 48, Making a Murderer, Unsolved Mysteries, and Cops). These programs have contributed to society's general knowledge about our justice system, but fictional stories and dramatic editing can produce misleading or inaccurate information. The criminal justice system is a critical part of our free, democratic society, and for that reason alone, we need to study and understand it. It serves to define our culture and how we live. It also influences the way in which we interact with the rest of the world. The terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, changed the way Americans felt about homeland safety and security. The events of 9/11 made people more aware that crime is an international problem. Crime regularly transcends national borders, and the way our federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies must organize and plan to deal with crime has changed in many ways, as this book will show. Another reason for carefully studying the criminal justice system is that, odds are, you and most Americans will be affected by crime during your lifetime. Just over 8 million serious criminal offenses are reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) each year, with about 1.2 million of them involving violence and 6.9 million involving damaged or stolen property.4 Millions more offenses occur that are less serious in nature, and many crimes go unreported. Given the far-reaching and significant impact of criminal activity, Americans should understand how offenders are processed through the three major components of our system---police, courts, and corrections---and know their legal rights. Finally, by studying the criminal justice system, you will understand how your tax dollars support criminal justice in federal, state, and local governments (which now spend over \$300 billion annually and employ over 2.4 million persons).5 A tremendous amount of resources are required to support our criminal justice system. But as the French novelist Alain-René Lesage stated several centuries ago, "Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it."6 This chapter provides an overview of the foundations of the criminal justice system. You will learn about the legal and historical bases of the system, the crime control and due process models of crime, the stages of the criminal justice process, a four-tier model used to categorize and describe different types of criminal cases, and how discretion and ethics permeate the system. FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BASES The foundation of our criminal justice system is the criminal law: laws that define criminal acts and how such acts will be punished. Indeed, enforcing these laws is what sets in motion the entire criminal justice process. But like most things in our dynamic society, the law is not static. Enactment of new criminal laws and changes to those laws are almost always triggered by social, political, and economic changes. New ways to commit crimes are discovered, new illegal drugs make their way to the marketplace, new weapons and technology (for criminals and police alike) come on the scene, and suddenly, lawmakers and law enforcement officials find themselves needing new tools to prevent and prosecute crimes. We turn first to how the law changes and the historical principles that still guide---and sometimes challenge---that process. The Criminal Law: How It Changes and How It Changes the System Kalief Browder was 16 years old when he was accused of stealing a backpack. He was detained at Rikers Island and spent nearly 2 years in solitary confinement, despite never being tried or convicted for his alleged crime. His case faced extreme delays in the clogged Bronx court system. Browder was released after 3 years due to insufficient evidence, but some have argued the abuse he endured during detention caused him to commit suicide at 22 years old in 2015.7 Subsequently, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to ban the solitary confinement of juveniles in federal prisons in 2016. Kalief Browder, of the Bronx, New York, was sent to Rikers Island jail at the age of 16, accused of stealing a backpack. He would eventually spend 3 years at Rikers, two of which were in solitary confinement. Two years after his release, Browder hanged himself at his mother's home---the result, some say, of mental, physical, and sexual abuse sustained while in custody. In the wake of similar and numerous news reports indicating abuses resulting from an overtaxed criminal justice system, many lawmakers and criminal justice officials have been exploring ways to divert persons experiencing incarceration away from traditional system responses. Attempts to find alternatives to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration have included providing treatment to help people experiencing the criminal justice system deal with underlying issues that cause criminal behavior (e.g., mental health or substance abuse issues), as well as decriminalizing nonviolent, low-level crimes (consider the discussion of marijuana law changes that follows later in this chapter). You will learn more about recent diversion laws and programs throughout this book. The search for alternative approaches to crime and justice indicates a significant shift away from the many "tough-on-crime" laws that were enacted in the 1990s. Most politicians wanted to appear tough on crime, particularly following high-profile violent cases, like the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Polly was abducted from her home in Petaluma, California, by Richard Allen Davis in 1993. California lawmakers responded just months after Davis confessed to his crimes by proposing the nation's first three-strikes law---a seemingly simple solution giving people committing violent crimes only two chances to turn themselves around. If they did not and they committed another crime, the third crime would be the final "strike" and the state could lock them up and throw away the key for 25 years to life.8 California voters overwhelmingly approved the measure, and within 2 years, more than 20 states and the federal government had done the same.9 Supporters predicted the new law would curb crime and protect society by incapacitating the worst offenders for a long period of time, while opponents argued that offenders facing their third strike would demand trials (rather than plea bargain) and send prison populations skyrocketing.10 The law that was finally enacted in California was vastly different from what was originally intended---and with many negative and unanticipated repercussions.11 According to The New York Times, the law was unfairly punitive and created a cruel and unfair criminal justice system that lost all sense of proportion, doling out life sentences disproportionately to Black defendants. Under the statute, the third offense that could result in a life sentence could be any number of low-level felony convictions, like stealing a jack from the back of a tow truck, shoplifting a pair of work gloves from a department store, pilfering small change from a parked car, or passing a bad check.12 Some research suggests there is greater public support of punitive policies, like the three-strikes law, if Black defendants, rather than white defendants, are disproportionately affected by such policies.13 This finding might help explain the initial broad public support for the law14 despite strong objections from justice-focused organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union.15 Studies of the California law found that prisoners added to the prison system in 1 decade's time would cost taxpayers an additional \$8.1 billion in prison and jail expenditures.16 Furthermore, persons incarcerated after three strikes and sentenced for nonviolent offenses would serve 143,439 more years behind bars than if they had been convicted prior to the law's passage.17 A nationwide study of three-strikes laws conducted about a decade after many states had adopted the law found no credible evidence to suggest the law reduced crime.18 Nearly 19 years after adoption of the three-strikes law, in November 2012 Californians voted to soften the sentencing law and to impose a life sentence only when the third felony offense is serious or violent, as defined in state law. The law also authorizes the courts to resentence thousands of people who were sent away for low-level third offenses and who present no danger to the public,19 and it provides redress to incarcerated persons who are mentally ill---who were estimated to compose up to 40% of those incarcerated persons with life sentences under the three-strikes rule.20 As you will read throughout this book, the adoption of laws and the processing of cases through our justice system is heavily influenced by politics. Many lawmakers and other politicians want to do what is right for society, but their decisions can also be influenced by their desire to be reelected, made with limited or inaccurate information, or prompted by a "knee-jerk" response to a high-profile event, like Kalief Browder's detention experience or Polly Klaas's murder. The Browder and Klaas cases provide excellent illustrations of the national impact of injustice and crime, the legislative process, and the democratic system of criminal justice that exists to deal with persons committing illegal offenses. These cases also prompt us to consider questions about the interaction of government and the justice system: What is the source of legislative and law enforcement powers? How can governments presume to maintain a system of laws that effectively governs its people and, moreover, a legal and just system that exists to punish persons who willfully violate those laws? We now consider those questions. The Consensus Versus Conflict Debate The criminal justice system plays a central role in our democratic society. We enact criminal laws to maintain order and to punish those who violate the democratically decided rules. But is order maintained through consensus---agreement---or is it preserved through conflict, the exercise of power by certain groups over others? This debate is important because it forces us to look at how laws are created, to whom they are meant to apply, and the impact of our justice system when considering these competing perspectives. Consensus Theory of Justice Our society contains innumerable lawbreakers---many of whom are more violent than Richard Allen Davis. Most of them consent to police power in a cooperative manner, without challenging the legitimacy of the law if arrested and incarcerated. Nor do they challenge the system of government that enacts the laws or the justice agencies that carry them out. The stability of our government for more than 200 years is a testament to the existence of a fair degree of consensus as to its legitimacy.21 Thomas Jefferson's statements in the Declaration of Independence are as true today as when he wrote them and are accepted as common sense: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit