Lecture 2, Part I - Criminal Justice System

SPEAKER 0 Greetings all. This week we are going to be discussing the criminal justice system. Today I'm going to try to get through a few different, uh, topical areas to discuss what the criminal justice system looks like, discuss the goals of the system, not pontificate what justice means, and the...

SPEAKER 0 Greetings all. This week we are going to be discussing the criminal justice system. Today I'm going to try to get through a few different, uh, topical areas to discuss what the criminal justice system looks like, discuss the goals of the system, not pontificate what justice means, and then explore some of the consequences of possessing a crime control mentality. So here is the image of the criminal justice system. Um, and as you can see, um, it looks quite complicated. There are lots of, um, ways to offroad the system, if you will. Um, only one way in. But there are many different things that can happen So the system is a series of decisions or choices that are interrelated. Okay. Say, what do we mean by interrelated? Well, decisions that police make, um, in the initial stages can have an impact on, um, how difficult a prosecutor's job might be, right? Uh, prosecutor's choice, um, might impact the outcome of, uh, a case. Um, Correctional decisions such as parole, um, might also have impact on individuals and communities. So there are a series of interrelated, uh, choices and decisions. We often refer to the criminal justice system as this singular entity. But in reality, there are thousands of these systems operating Simultaneously on any given day across the United States, most operate at the county level. And so if we look across the country, we might see that these systems, um, don't operate identically across jurisdiction. And that's because the areas that they operate in have some influence over them, which we'll we'll talk about momentarily. Um, what are the goals of the system? Um, according according to Cole and colleagues, you know, they identify three expressed goals. Okay. Um, here, I'm just going to, um, introduce the goals, and then we'll dive into them, uh, a bit deeper here subsequently. So the first is, um, doing justice, right? The goal, one of the goals of the system is to Bring about justice when someone has been been harmed. Another goal of the system is controlling crime, right? So in addition to to righting wrongs and doing justice, the system attempts to control crime. And controlling crime is supposed to be carried out within the framework of the law. Right. We'll talk about this as the semester goes on. But, um, procedural justice outlines how the criminal justice system and its actors are supposed to carry out their roles. It's not carte blanche discretion, um, that criminal justice actors have. They? They're expected to behave within the parameters of the law when trying to control crime. And then the third goal that Cole and colleagues identify preventing crime or crime prevention. Um, and here we're talking about, um, the system serving as a deterrent for would be criminals. Right. Um, I think the real question is, does the system prevent crime? And if we were in a traditional class, we would we would explore that. Um, and I'm sure many of you might have, uh, ideas that you would want to volunteer. Uh, and then another question that I like to explore with my classes. And you can think about this on your own, you know, is it the system's sole responsibility to prevent crime? Is that asking too much of the system, or should society also be the kind of co-producer of of crime prevention? And again, in a traditional class, we would we would likely have, um, pretty interesting discussion. Um, based on these two points. Um, and so let's dive into these goals a little bit deeper. Yeah. So we're going to start off talking about justice. Right. So we have this system that seeks justice. But what is justice. What does that mean. I think it's hard to define in such a way that encompasses everyone's perception. Um, not everyone thinks about things identically. We are not monolithic beings. We all have our own ideas and belief systems. Um, so we might not be able to to nail it down 100%, but at a minimum, I think we can identify some qualities of justice. Okay. Um, and again, in a traditional class, we would be talking about this and I presume some of the things that are coming to your, to your mind might be some of the things that pop here, pop up here on the screen. So when we think about qualities of justice, um, again, it might not be defined in a way that conforms to everyone's conception. Um, but here are some of the things that I think we would, we would, uh, we would highlight, um, is it fair treatment? You know, and then if fair treatment is something that you're thinking about, um, you have to ask, what does fair mean? Is it equitable treatment? Okay. Um, and what does that mean? Is it equity in and of itself, or do we contextualize it with, um, underlying features that led someone to commit crime? As an example, should the system treat a 17 year old single mother who steals to provide food for her child, the same as a 17 year old male who steals to buy the latest pair of Jordans. Right. I assume some of you think. Yes, some of you think no. Right? Some people think that context is important. Some people look solely at the behavior. Um, so should we be concerned with context or simply behavior? Um, we might think about being impartial, right? We might think about consistency, representing justice. Um, we might think about deserving ness. You know, does the individual, uh, how deserving is the individual of the outcome meted out by the justice system? Um, according to Cole and colleagues, there are three principles of doing justice. So the first is, um, to hold offenders accountable. Right. We want individuals to know that what they did was not approved of by a society. And in letting them know that we are going to hold them accountable in some way, some form of of punishment. Doing justice also um, incorporates protecting offenders rights. So just because someone does something that violates the social contract does not mean that the system should, um, treat them poorly. After all, offenders are humans, and they deserve the same basic rights and dignities that that all humans, um, should have access to. And then the third principle that Cole and colleagues, uh, identify is treating like offenses and like and taking into account meaningful differences among offenders and offenses. And again here we're talking about context. Going back to that previous example, um, to someone who steals to provide a need such as food for one's child deserve the same type of punishment that one gets for stealing something they want, such as the young man stealing the Jordans, right? On the one hand, you have a need driving someone to that decision point. On the other, you have a want. And the question becomes should should these two individuals be treated the same? And again, there's no right or wrong answer here. This is purely based on your individual perception of what um, justice um means. Okay. And so you know, I think the overarching question is, does the criminal justice system provide justice? And I think, you know, we cannot answer this. Uh, certainly in a, in a single day's lecture. Uh, but we're not likely going to come to a firm conclusion, at least many of us might not come to a firm conclusion over the course of the semester. But we are going to be coming back to this question over the course of the semester as we talk about certain things that occur. The second goal, again, is controlling crime. And, you know, there are many different ways that we control crime. We have police, we have lots of technology. Now, you know, whether it be drones or cameras. Uh, we have prisons, we have jails. Um, you know, all of these are forms of crime control or attempts at crime control, right Police there to, um, represent the kind of official starting point, if you will, of the criminal justice system. Right. They wear uniforms. They're recognizable by almost anyone. Uh, if you see a police officer, you can likely change your behavior even if you're not doing anything wrong. Uh, just because you understand what a police officer represents. Right. And then now, as we move throughout the 21st century, we have technology that's being embedded and not just police services, but also, um, correctional services. And so all of these are attempts at um. Controlling crime in some way or responding to crime. Um, sometimes I think when we talk about control, we think about it meaning solely, um, like reducing. And, um, that's not what it always means. Also means, um, managing crime, if you will. And we've over the years, over the decades, become much more, um, focused on having a crime control mentality. Right. We look back over time and some things don't really resemble or look like they do today. And so one of the things we can look at, the kind of evolution of, of crowd control and, and police and rioting context and modern police in riot, you know, look more akin to, uh, a soldier and train and occupied area than they do a civil servant aimed at protecting and serving. Right. And so one of the things that I think gets lost in the mix a lot is that, yes, police are, uh, formal forms of social control. And yes, they are authorized to take one's liberty. Um and in worst case scenarios, they're authorized to, um, kill people, right? Um, but they're also here to serve the public in many ways, which we'll talk about over the course of the semester. Um, but if we look at this image here, moving from 1968 to to 2011, we can just see how visually, um, police officers have again, kind of. Changed from, you know, an appearance that is approachable in the 1960s and even in the 1990s to one that is almost fear inducing. Um, in the middle of the beginning of the, uh, 20 tens. So, you know, this crime control mentality that and we'll see the impact it's had over time as well. Um has really shifted how we think about crime and justice and kind of images that resemble crime and justice. One of the consequences of this crime control mentality is just the sheer volume of arrests. So we see here, starting 1980, um, volume of arrests right around 10 million. And then it creeps up slightly, um, throughout the years and then comes back down in 2016 to about that same same number, roughly 10 million. Um, but what's interesting, um, about arrests over time, we can see that there hasn't been a great deal of variation, some variation, but largely speaking Um, not a significant variation, but what has changed over time is that 80% of arrests, um, are for nonviolent criminal activity. Right. So you can see that the vast majority of offenses for which, uh, arrests are made for nonviolent criminal activity. And so here you go back thinking about mallet and say, versus mallet prohibitive. And the vast majority of, um, arrests are for behaviors that most would deem not evil. Right. Number mallet and say or the behaviors, um, that were considered inherently evil. And they're we're talking about things such as rape and murder and assault. Now prohibited are those that are, um. Deemed legal. Because there's a consensus that there's a social harm imposed. Um, but they're not inherently evil acts. And so when we look at that, we say, wow, um, 80% of of these arrests are for behaviors that are not violent. Um, acts seems like, uh, pretty staggering result. And so the consequences of these, um, policies over the years, um, crime control policies over the years is really, um, quite staggering. So as arrests have increased, increased. Pardon me, uh, the jail and prison populations have also increased over the last 30 plus years. And it's estimated that somewhere between 25 and 30% of Americans have an arrest record. Um and this obviously has an impact on jail and prison populations. So you can see here the estimate that one out of four people has a criminal record. Um, and on the left hand side, you can see the percentage of 23 year olds with an arrest record. Okay. So pretty staggering stuff. If we want to look at kind of the impact, the total, uh, jail in prison populations, we can look at this graph. So between 1980, which is really when we started to see this crime control mentality really dig in. And the mid 2000 jail and prison populations exploded, as you can see here. Um, the total incarceration, um, you know, less than, um, 500,000 or right at 500,000 in 1980. And we peaked at, you know over 2 million. Um, in the early, early 2000. So criminal records come with some staggering consequences that can block legitimate pathways for people. Right. So someone is designated, uh, a felon. They have, depending on the state they live in. Talk about these things much later in the semester, but they might be, uh, cut off from a variety of legitimate pathways, um, voting, certain employment opportunities, um, social programing, to name a few. Housing. Okay. Some meaningful things. Um, so suffice to say that, you know, felons are cut off from a lot of opportunities. Um, some of them for the rest of their lives. And that's something that we often don't think Recognize, particularly people who don't study this is that long after someone leaves the prison walls serves their sentence successfully. Depending on the state, they can be punished in perpetuity because of their felon status, which seems to run counter to the, um. You know, you do the crime, you do the time, and then you're kind of free and clear. Yeah, you may not be spending time in prison anymore. You may not have to meet with your parole officer anymore, but you might not be able to vote ever again, or you might not be able to, um, hold a certain job, or you might be disqualified from social benefits. So is there meaningful, meaningful restrictions that some individuals face For extremely long periods of time. If not for the rest of their life. Um, the third um, feature of justice, again, is crime prevention. And this can come in in many forms. From some very simple examples, such as the club, which is that physical device that some people put on their steering wheel to, uh, make it more difficult to, to steal a car. Right. The idea being that if you can't turn the steering wheel, it's hard to steal the car. Um, passwords on phones. Um, and then we think we can think about more sophisticated measures such as, um, building neighborhood and park design. Okay, so I also have some examples in here of, uh, shopping carts that have these devices that sense when they are taken beyond a certain point. Um in a parking lot and then the wheels lock up. The idea being the wheels lock up and it's harder to push. Most people are not going to steal the shopping cart. We can also look at the image in the bottom left hand corner of the screen, which is PEX plumbing. Um, and this has been introduced as a more cost effective way, but to um. Replace or run water lines. But it's also, um, less appealing to criminals because there's really no value in it, unlike copper that can be scrapped and sold for money. This is not going to be the case with with PEX. And so these are some examples of crime prevention. We also have lighting here. Uh, parks you know, that are well lit and open with good view, um, are considered to conform to um, sound crown crime prevention. Um. Principles. On the bottom right hand corner is a stairwell of a hotel in Munich, Germany. And I took this picture in 2016, I believe, um, when I was out on a walk with my family. And because it represents a sound crime prevention principle, unlike stairwells that are, um, opaque and not well-lit, um, this stairwell allows people from the outside to see what's going on, and so it makes it less appealing for someone who wants to commit a crime, say, steal a purse or something else from someone walking in a stairwell makes it less appealing, because now there's more natural surveillance, if you will. People on the outside can see and you can see that it's very well-lit. Um, and that provides also some deterrent effect, if you will. Um, because it makes it more difficult for a would be criminal to sneak up on someone in this in this context. Uh, we can also think about crime prevention, um, through the criminal justice system itself. Right. So so I asked, is it solely the justice systems responsibility? Well, I don't think so. Um, at least not based on what I see anyway. Um, because companies wouldn't invest in shopping carts that are, uh, that have wheels, that lock, um, consumers wouldn't invest in the club builders or homeowners wouldn't buy PEX plumbing. Um, if that mentality was that it's solely, solely the system's fault, uh, not fault, but responsibility. Um, so prisons and punishment in general are supposed to be preventative as well. Um, and so we can think about prison as deterring someone from committing crime while they are there in jail for the same, uh, reason. If someone's confined to a to a space, at least they're not going to be able to, um, offend against free society. The ultimate form of prevention would be the death penalty, right? Once. Once someone is executed, they certainly are not, um, going to be committing crimes anymore. Um. So I want to switch topics a little bit and talk about federalism. Um, you know, at the outset I said, you know, there are literally thousands of criminal justice systems operating throughout the country on a given day, and they might not operate identically. Um, I think last week we talked about, you know, how marijuana laws Differ across states. Well, all of this is owing to federalism. So federalism is a system of government, government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. For example, uh, the national and state level. So both the national government and the smaller state governments have the power to make laws, and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. So no single level of government is solely responsible for the administration of justice. Um, the vast majority of crimes are defined by state laws rather than federal law. In the United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government and the government of the individual states. So why is it important to understand this concept of federalism and how it impacts, um criminal justice? Well, it separates the federal government from state governments and allows states to create and enforce their own laws. Right. So just as we talked about last week in Michigan, uh, marijuana is legal for recreational purposes as well as medicinal purposes, but in Texas, it's not right. Um, similarly, according to the federal government, um, marijuana is not legal. And so the federal government, um, and state governments have the ability to make their own laws and enforce their own laws. Okay. So this this helps explain why there might be differences in how things operate across states and systems. Right. We're not, um Not all states have identical laws. As we highlight it with marijuana and we can look at other things as well. And even if they do have laws, they might be slightly different. If they have very similar laws, they might be slightly, slightly different. Um, and that is owing to this concept of federalism. Now, if there is an egregious overstep at the state level, then yes, the federal government might step in, um, and try to rectify things, um, or tell a state, um, that they need to revisit, um, a particular law or case, which again, we'll talk about in the coming and coming months. Um, and so again, we'll go back to this example of marijuana, both for recreational and medicinal purposes. Um, because this is literally federalism in action. All right. So as we've identified, some states have said recreational and medicinal marijuana is legal, but the federal government has not removed marijuana from the list of schedule one drugs. Right. So as this graphic notes, at the federal level, the DEA deems marijuana as a schedule one drug and does not think there is scientific evidence to suggest it has any valid medical use. So, according to the federal government, marijuana poses the same level of risk as heroin, ecstasy and LSD, to name a few. As you can see in this screenshot of the DA's website. So federalism explains differences in why and how things can operate differently across states and across systems. It's important to note that in April of this year, April 2024, the DEA A acknowledge that it's going to reclassify marijuana as a schedule three controlled substance, um, thereby acknowledging its, um, medicinal purposes. But currently that that rescheduling has not, um, happened. Uh, but it's said to be coming down the pike soon. Um, and I think that this is probably a function of, you know, the fact that we have now, I think it's 38 states that, um, have legalized marijuana, either for recreational, um, and or medicinal purposes. And I think as more research comes out suggesting that there are legitimate medical uses, um, that could save people, um, suffering and pain, I think this is the natural progression. But this is an example of federalism in action.