Social Issues and Justice

vixen1004

10CH_Collica_Crime_2e.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help > Social Issues and Justice

305

10 Reducing Crime and Reforming the Criminal Justice System

Ryan Tarinelli/AP/Associated Press

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Discuss the ideological and financial obstacles to criminal justice system reform.

• Describe the disconnect between popular assumptions and scientific evidence about crime.

• Explain evidence-driven crime-control strategies in contemporary America.

• Contrast retributivism and restorative justice as guiding principles for criminal justice.

306

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

In August of 2010, after serving nearly 10 years in prison for two bank robberies, Lance Brown walked out of a North Carolina prison a free man. Since his release he has been strug- gling with poverty and homelessness and was forced out of a homeless shelter for fighting with another patron. In April of 2012, Brown approached his parole officer and asked what he needed to do to get put back in prison! His parole officer referred him to a series of agencies and support services that Brown did not pursue. Instead, he walked into the local courthouse in Columbus Georgia and threatened to kill the president of the United States. However, offi- cers did not believe that Brown’s threats were credible and thus there were no consequences. Apparently frustrated, Brown exited the courthouse and promptly threw a brick through the glass front door of the courthouse. Brown was held in jail for 9 months awaiting trial. At trial he was sentenced to 1 month in jail and 3 years probation for malicious mischief. In court, Brown noted that his behavior would result in shelter in a facility in which at least, “some- one’s going to offer me a sandwich and drink” (Associated Press, 2012, p. 1).

Many experts believe that the problem of crime in America is grounded in larger issues of social structural marginality. Thus, issues like the economy, poverty, health care, and educa- tion may be central in an encompassing crime-control strategy.

10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo One of the paramount challenges in criminology is developing systematic, evidence-driven and practical public policies to address the crime problem. However, public policy does not exist in a vacuum; developing, implementing, and evaluating cost-effective and pragmatic crime-control policies is only part of the challenge. Many experts highlight that changes in criminal justice policy include a series of obstacles. There are ideological barriers to change given America’s historic support of “tough on crime” policies. There are individuals and industries that benefit from the criminal justice system in its existing form. And individuals and groups reap massive profits from committing crime in America and internationally.

Thus, the next era of criminal justice policy faces a two-pronged challenge. First, to develop sound public policy to reduce crime and its attendant harms. And second, to overcome obsta- cles to change and the vested interests in the status quo.

The Crime Control Industrial Complex Classical sociological theorist Karl Marx made a series of astute observations about crime that are as relevant today as they were 150 years ago. Marx argued that the social-structural dynamics of capitalism would shape crime as well as how society would attempt to control crime. Economic obstacles may be one of the most significant barriers to criminal justice sys- tem reform.

307

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

Industries associated with crime control provide a series of economic and social opportuni- ties for individuals in modern society. A series of legal system actors depend on the criminal justice system for employment including police, judges, prison guards, and many others. In addition, a number of individuals and professions depend on industries directly related with the criminal justice system. For example, both college professors and college students may study criminology and criminal justice. Publishing companies regularly publish textbooks and other books that are required in college courses. Private security companies install and monitor alarm systems in private homes and businesses. These firms may also provide pri- vate security personnel to individuals and communities. Construction companies build and maintain America’s jails and prisons. Prisons require laundry services, telephone companies, and electronic surveillance systems. The garment industry produces uniforms for both crimi- nal justice system employees and inmates. Crime and crime control are big business.

Criminologists and sociologists often refer to the series of individuals and industries that depend on crime as the crime control industrial complex. This concept has a rich and important history. The ideological origin of this construct was former President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961, which warned America about what Eisenhower coined the “military industrial complex.” In this famous speech, Eisenhower reflected on witnessing world war and the corresponding human and social toll of widespread violence. Within the framework of American democracy, he warned the American public to be extra judicious when deciding the appropriateness of war. He expressed concern that America had created a massive, expensive, and influential military machine that had the potential to artificially encourage the country to go to war, in part to justify its own existence; that military elites have the power to potentially influence the country to use its military might in part because of the economic necessity created by the military industrial complex. Criminologists have built upon Eisenhower’s rich military industrial complex concept by applying it to a series of criminal justice issues.

Journalist Eric Schlosser (1998) applied Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex concept to the economics of prisons. Schlosser defined the prison industrial complex as “a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of the actual need” (Schlosser, 1998, p. 1). Similarly, this concept can be applied more broadly to crime control in general. Thus, we can define the crime control industrial complex as “a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on [crime control] regardless of the actual need” (Schlosser, 1998, p. 1).

Any systemic reforms to the criminal justice system must overcome possible resistance from the crime control and prison industrial complexes. Thus, as suggested by Karl Marx, economic dynamics are likely central to the future of criminal justice policy in America.

308

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

Web Field Trip: Corrections Corporation of America

Up until the 1980s, all correctional facilities were public or government owned and operated. Then a few individuals started a private company that promised to design, construct, expand, and manage prisons, jails, and detention facilities. They also provide inmate transportation and a multitude of in-prison programs. While private correctional facilities promise to be bet- ter than public ones and to offer more resources and a more effective system, they are also companies trying to make a profit. The ethics behind this business model and whether private facilities are in fact better than public prisons, is up for debate.

Visit the website of the private prison company the Corrections Corporation America (recently rebranded as Core Civic) at http://www.correctionscorp.com/. Click on “Who We Are” from the “About CCA” dropdown menu and watch the embedded video on that page.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. How would you describe the tone of the video? 2. What are the pros and cons of privatization in the criminal justice system? 3. Are there other ways to reform prisons that do not include privatization?

The Profitability of Crime Crime is also big business for criminals; the scope and profitability of crime on the inter- national stage is striking. According to one report, the global gross proceeds from criminal behavior is estimated at $1.6 to $2.2 trillion annually (Channing, 2017)! If “crime” was a sov- ereign nation, it would be one of the largest 20 economies in the world (Dahl, 2012).

The most profitable international criminal industries are counterfeiting (up to $1.13 trillion per year), illegal drug trafficking (up to $652 billion per year), and human trafficking ($150.2 billion per year) (Channing, 2017). Any of these organizations may have enough power and resources to destabilize and threaten the viability of existing governments in the developing world. In addition, human traffickers victimize approximately 2.4 million people each year. The UN describes this horrific criminal industry as, “a shameful crime of modern-day slav- ery” (Dahl, 2012, p. 1). Finally, many types of organized criminal groups engage in corruption, which is estimated to have a global cost of $2.6 trillion, equal to 5% of the world’s economy (United Nations Security Council, 2018).

International criminal business is often associated with organized crime. However, modern organized criminal groups tend to be more fluid and dynamic compared to past decades. In previous eras, international organized criminal groups were often strictly hierarchical in nature and typically restricted membership by national origin and ethnic or racial heri- tage. Modern groups tend to be more flexible. They often cooperate to commit one or more criminal endeavors and then disband. Thus, traditional international law enforcement strate- gies targeting group leaders are less viable strategies (Dahl, 2012; Elliott, 1997). The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (n.d.) adds that the changing nature of technology and access to international information and relationships continue to increase the effectiveness of transnational organized criminal groups. Organized crime is linked to drug trades, human trafficking, money laundering, maritime crime and piracy, cybercrime, and political crimes, among others.

http://www.correctionscorp.com/

309

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

Reducing the profitability of crime may be central to criminal justice system reform. Given the lucrativeness of crime, both internationally and within America, reforms might seek out practical ways to reduce the profits, and thus the rewards, from engaging in criminal behav- ior. While the scope of these problems can be daunting, criminologists and policy experts have highlighted some areas that are ripe for reform to reduce the profitability of engaging in criminal behavior. The evidence suggests that reducing the profitability of drug crime might be a prudent approach to undermining the profitability of international organized crime. However, these suggested reforms also must overcome entrenched ideologies that may be resistant to change.

Web Field Trip: Drug Drones

From speedboats to homemade submarines to catapults, drug traffickers have become adept at developing new methods of smuggling their products. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, some cartels have begun using drones to transport drugs into the United States. American officials have responded by developing new methods to track and cripple the traffickers’ ability to transport drugs.

To learn more about this latest battle between drug traffickers and law enforcement, watch the video “Drug Cartels Using Drones To Smuggle Across Borders” at https://nowthisnews .com/videos/weed/drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-across-borders.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. How do drones reaffirm the challenges of combating international organized crime? 2. What strategies do you think would be effective to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in

America? 3. What strategies do you think would be effective to reduce the demand for illegal drugs

in America?

Ideological Challenges to the Status Quo The chapters in this book have presented various theories to explain crime and described a range of crimes. While crime is declining, it remains a significant social issue, and America continues to have significantly higher rates of violent crime compared to other Western dem- ocratic societies (Lynch & Pridemore, 2011). In addition, the nature of crime and how society responds to crime is changing. Advances in technology give law enforcement new tools to monitor what they believe may be potential criminal activity. Information sharing between law enforcement agencies and the private sector has created a new era of policing. Many of these changes in how the criminal justice system and society react to crime have been shaped by the attacks on September 11, 2001. The post-9/11 world has created public fear of new types of crimes. Not only are people afraid of being victimized by traditional street crime but concerns about terrorism shape society’s experiences in places ranging from airports to schools. Reviewing recent works about crime and punishment illustrate the changing nature of crime and society. Moreover, these cornerstone works examine the ideologies of crime con- trol and public interpretations of the crime problem.

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/weed/drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-across-borders

310

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

The Culture of Control In The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, legal scholar and sociologist David Garland (2001) presents an overview of the changes in society’s attitudes about crime and punishment since the 1970s. Garland argues that changes in social condi- tions, such as growing insecurities about safety and increased perceptions of risk, have led society to adopt increasingly punitive responses to crime. Crime rates did not rise, but fear of crime, possibly facilitated by the government and media, did grow. According to the analysis, increased vengeance is not reserved for the most serious offenses. Rather, a punitive approach is applied to juvenile offenses and growing numbers of less serious offenses.

According to Garland, society reacts emotionally to the belief that crime is an ever-increasing problem. In turn, this fear of crime has changed the tone of criminal justice policy. The media creates images of “unruly youth, dangerous predators, and incorrigible career criminals” (Garland, 2001, p. 10). Rather than creating laws that react to empirical realities of increased crime rates, the government often passes legislation based on sensationalized media accounts. Thus, contemporary criminal justice is focused on providing security for the public, contain- ing danger, and identifying and containing any type of risk.

Protecting the public is a highly-politicized process. This process often omits criminological researchers and practitioners from the creation of criminal justice policy in favor of politi- cians and members of society who have been victims of crime. Accordingly, laws are often named after crime victims. For example, Megan’s law was named for Megan Kanka who was raped and murdered by a neighbor who was a two-time convicted pedophile. In 1996, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed the Megan’s Law bill into law. Nearly 20 years after the law was estab- lished, society is struggling with the increasing numbers of sex offenders who, when released from prison, often abscond from parole. Increasing restrictive provisions, such as limitations on where they can live, and public backlash when they move into neighborhoods has created an unintended consequence. Instead of improved supervision when released, Megan’s law has likely made it more difficult for law enforcement to track sex offenders.

Garland also discusses the expanding infrastructure of crime prevention and community safety. An ever-growing network of partnerships between law enforcement agencies are increasingly participating in information sharing. The Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and local enforcement agencies have created networks in which they work together on public safety initiatives. These initiatives are largely preventa- tive in nature. They do not react to crime, as traditional law enforcement, but watch, track, and collect data about individuals and groups that may engage in criminal activity.

Multiagency information sharing and crime prevention are likely sound strategies, but in practice some controversial cases have raised important questions about individual civil lib- erties. For example, in 2012, the media learned that the New York Police Department (NYPD) had been granted permission to surveil Muslim students at Rutgers University, New Jersey’s largest public university in 2007. Apparently, the surveillance expanded to include Muslims in Newark, New Jersey, and other nearby cities. Media accounts suggest that Newark’s mayor, the New Jersey State Police, and Rutgers’ officials approved this surveillance. However, no individual Muslim people or members of the mosques where they worshipped were sus- pected or accused of engaging in terrorist or other criminal activity.

311

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

Not only are law enforcement agencies creating new alliances, but within society crime con- trol is becoming increasingly commercialized. Private police, security guards, private security systems installed in homes, and private prisons are more common. While security was once the responsibility of the state, private citizens are relying on private industries to provide them with the services the government once did. Garland attributes some of the growth of the private security business to the perpetual sense of crisis present in society.

Governing Through Crime In Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear, Jonathan Simon (2007) argues that freedom and equality are the price society is willing to pay to achieve a sense of safety. Consider, for example, the dramatic federal laws enacted by the federal government in response to the 9/11 attacks; the Patriot Act, signed into law one month after the attacks, gave the government sweeping powers to monitor electronic communications and people of interest in the hopes of thwarting further terrorist attacks.

However, society’s fear of crime and violence, Simon argues, is irrational. He points out that the title of his book, “governing through crime” refers to the idea that power and authority in the United States are wielded based on the constant threat of crime and violence. Society typically awards policies and procedures created in the name of preventing crime with less scrutiny and immediate legitimacy. According to Simon, society is more willing than ever to relinquish rights while accepting social institutions’ expanding powers.

Prisons of Poverty In Prisons of Poverty, Loic Wacquant (2009) points out society’s

intensified surveillance of so-called problem neighborhoods, increased anxi- ety over and representation of youth delinquency, harassment of the home- less and immigrants in public space, night curfews and “zero tolerance,” the relentless growth of custodial populations, the deterioration and privatiza- tion of correctional services, the disciplinary monitoring of recipients of pub- lic assistance. (Wacquant, 2009, p. 1)

He argues that governments, the United States and European Union in particular, are relying on the criminal justice system to control the disorder that has resulted from social problems. More specifically, mass unemployment, the growing wage gap between social classes, and the shrinking networks of state social support have a direct and important connection with crime (see Chapter 3). He refers to the phenomenon as a transition from the social state to the penal state.

Wacquant pays particular attention to New York City and the aggressive policy of fighting quality-of-life crimes based on the broken windows theory. According to the approach, by focusing on relatively minor offenses, such as vandalism and loitering by homeless people, more serious crime will decrease. Law enforcement will be sending a message that smaller offenses will not be tolerated, and offenders will be less likely to target those communities. Poor, disenfranchised, or powerless people living in urban areas are most likely to commit minor offenses such as quality-of-life violations. Waquant argues this creates a dangerous underclass in the eyes of the public.

312

Section 10.1 The Challenge of the Status Quo

Wacquant also points out how the changing approach to controlling crime benefits the state that puts the legislation in place. The penal state is justified by the images of fear that the government and media create for public consumption. The combination of unemployment, immigrants, and criminality has often been used to justify the penal state. Powerful law enforcement becomes necessary, then, to protect the public from the imminent threat of these growing social problems. One way to protect society is by collecting increasing amounts of personal information—from the Internet searches of individuals, to their travel patterns, and even the groups to which they make charitable contributions. Creating data-bases of private information about individuals, which increasingly includes genetic data, permits the gov- ernment to surveil without individuals’ consent or knowledge. Budgets for maintaining and strengthening this penal state continue to grow as the state’s social support or welfare role diminishes.

With Liberty and Justice for Some In With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, Glenn Greenwald (2011) outlines the inequalities that permeate the United States’ criminal justice system. He argues that not only do people with political and economic power have advantages within the criminal justice system but they are actually allowed to break the law, largely without legal consequences. It is not only that the wealthy have better lawyers but many corporate acts that cause massive harm are not defined as crimes in the first place.

One of the founding principles of the United States is that the law is meant to act as an equaliz- ing force. The sayings such as “all people are created equally” and “justice is blind” reflect the

ideal that the country’s system of laws is created with an emphasis on fundamental notions of fairness. Today, Green- wald argues, there is a two-tiered system of justice with the politically and financially powerful largely exempt from the system that imprisons the poor and powerless at a higher rate than any other country in the world. As the powerful gain protection, the powerless become subject to increas- ingly punitive punishments.

What Greenwald calls “elite immunity” is clearly illustrated by the financial meltdown of 2008. Federal Reserve chair- man Ben Bernanke testified in front of Congress that the United States’ economy was days away from a meltdown. Years of banks issuing high-risk mortgages and selling bank products, such as derivatives, without the assets to back them eventually had a significant impact on the health of the American and world economies. The United States’ largest banks needed money to be able to pay their debts. In Octo- ber 2009, Congress gave $700 billion in taxpayer money to avoid the banks going bankrupt and the ripple effects the bankruptcies would have on the American economy. How- ever, damage had largely already been done to Wall Street. The stock market responded negatively and dramatically to the fears and instability of the economy.

Eric Risberg/Associated Press Failure to hold top bank officials criminally responsible for the 2008 financial crisis is an example of “elite immunity” according to Glenn Greenwald.

313

Section 10.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Crime

Government officials regulate banks and Wall Street transactions. However, many experts contend that the treasury secretary has a symbiotic and cozy relationship with the top offi- cials of the banks and Wall Street tycoons he is supposed to be regulating. Greenwald suggests that there is no steadfast federal oversight of the financially powerful people who created the economic downturn. Neither they nor the government regulators who allowed the crisis to happen have ever been held criminally responsible for their actions.

Greenwald presents powerful examples from modern history, from Watergate to President George W. Bush’s controversial actions surrounding the war in Iraq, to demonstrate how America’s elite often go unscathed by the law. He explains how the media, the government, and the criminal justice system have each played a role in creating the two-tiered system of laws we have today.

The work of David Garland, Jonathan Simon, Loic Wacquant, and Glenn Greenwald describes the current state of the criminal justice system. Their work contains several common themes. Laws are differentially enforced. People’s criminal justice system vulnerability often depends on their social location and who they are—their race, gender, and socioeconomic status. More- over, these cornerstone works suggest that society is driven by an irrational fear of crime and violence. This irrational fear often centers on violent, interpersonal street crime committed by strangers and often ignores the harms and crimes of corporate America. In examining the present criminal justice system, these scholars are debunking the myths commonly believed by the members of society.

10.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Crime The authors’ works described in the previous section examine the current state of crime and criminal justice in the United States. The authors point out how social changes have affected the way society thinks about and reacts to crime. Bohm and Walker (2006) refer to crime myths as misconceptions that lead to misguided criminal justice policies. The public, the media, politicians, and the politically and economically powerful sustain these myths.

Case Study: Officer Bricknell

Peter Moskos is an associate professor of law and political science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Moskos earned a PhD in sociology from Harvard University in 2004 and also served as a police officer in the high-crime Eastern District of inner-city Baltimore from 1999 to 2001. He combined his lived experience as a patrol officer with his scholarly insight into criminal justice issues in an award-winning book titled Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Bal- timore’s Eastern District (Moskos, 2008).

This book provides tremendous insight into a series of criminal justice issues. Moskos presents a scathing evaluation of the police academy. He advocates for individual police officer discre- tion, especially for low-level crime. He criticizes the war on drugs and articulates the challenge of enforcing the war on drugs in neighborhoods where robust open-air drug markets flourish. Moreover, he provides insight into issues of police culture, socialization, and corruption.

(continued on next page)

314

Section 10.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Crime

The Myth That Crime and Criminality Can Be Accurately Measured It is a myth that crime statistics accurately show what crimes are being committed and what crimes are most harmful (see Chapter 1). Most crime and violence is unreported. Researchers refer to this as the dark figure of crime. When law enforcement is unable to accurately count crime, society has an inaccurate picture of offenders.

Increases in the number of arrests do not necessarily correspond to an actual increase in the number of offenses being committed. For example, sometimes the police will adopt a policy of proactive policing—that is, taking the initiative to address public order offenses such as clearing streets of people who are loitering and may be homeless, rather than responding to calls from the public in response to crimes after they have been committed. Police activity will be increased, but it is in part due to their proactive policies not because crime rates have actually increased.

While still imperfect, the best measures of crime include all major available data-collections methods to unearth common themes and trends. While crime cannot be accurately mea- sured, the best criminal justice policies will be grounded in data trends that are supported by the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and self-report studies. Relying exclusively on “official” measures of crime presents an inaccurate picture of crime and criminality in America.

Case Study: Officer Bricknell (continued)

A major theme of Cop in the Hood, is the controversial role of arrests in modern policing. As noted, police arrests are a major contributor to the UCR, America’s “official” repository of data about crime. Moskos emphasizes that the number of arrests made do not necessarily always reflect the prevalence of crime in a given area. He argues that the decision to make an arrest for a low-level crime is often somewhat arbitrary and guided more by officer preference, the time required, and other factors that are unrelated to the crime itself. Moskos argued that arrests are appropriate in some situations, but often a patrol officer can be more effective preventing crime or resolving contentious situations without making arrests. While Moskos was never subject to an official arrest quota, officers in his unit were regularly encouraged by high-level administrators to increase the number of arrests that they made in a given month.

Moskos demonstrates the controversies surrounding the arrest-based initiative through the case of Officer Bricknell. This case also illustrates how official data on crime can be shaped by factors other than the prevalence of crime itself. In response to law enforcement administra- tors encouraging patrol officers to make more arrests, Officer Bricknell set out to make more arrests than any other officer in the history of the department in any one-month period. In March of 2000, Officer Bricknell made a total of 26 arrests and in fact set the monthly arrest record. Every single one of his arrests that month was for violations of bicycle regulations, like not wearing a helmet (Moskos, 2008). The narrative of Officer Bricknell reinforces that law enforcement discretion and resource allocation decisions play a significant role in official crime data.

315

Section 10.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Crime

The Myth That White-Collar Crime Is Only About Financial Loss It is a myth that white-collar crimes do not cause significant and tangible harm to individuals and society. In The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get Prison, Jeffrey Reiman (2007) points out that white-collar crime, perpetrated through business and industry, in medical malpractice, and by the government, does more harm to society than street crime. Greater damage is done to society by the number of people who are injured and killed in industrial accidents, medical procedures gone wrong, and lost retirement and investments funds, for example, than is done by street crime each year. While people are socialized to fear the stranger lurking around the corner waiting to attack, the decisions made by executives may have more negative effects on more people than do the actions of street offenders.

Hazardous work conditions and consumer products cause significant harm to our society. For example, workers exposed to substances such as asbestos and lead have long-term health problems. The workers who cleared the piles of debris from the destruction of the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11 were locked in a decade-long legal battle with the gov- ernment, which initially denied that any of their health problems were related to their work. The mining industry is one of the most dangerous with mine collapses causing fatalities on a regular basis.

Food products are another source of danger to the public. During the Winter of 2019, there was an outbreak of E. coli due to contaminated romaine lettuce. Pharmaceuticals are another industry that has disbursed dangerous products that have had to be recalled. The Ford Pinto that exploded when it was rear-ended by another car, and Firestone tires that were unsafe are more examples of industries releasing dangerous products that put the public at risk.

An often-overlooked type of white-collar crime is environmental crimes such as toxic waste dumping. Releasing poisonous substances into the water and ground of communities can have negative health effects on generations of people to come. Factories and plants that gen- erate these toxic substances are most commonly located in economically disadvantaged com- munities. Thus, many experts contend that environmental crimes dovetail with issues of envi- ronmental racism.

Reiman describes these white-collar crimes as “crime by any other name” (Reiman, 2007, 60). A “crime by any other name” refers to corporate crime that is often overlooked by the criminal justice system. But in addition, this concept refers to corporate-related behavior that does not violate criminal statutes, thus are not “crimes” in the strict sense, but cause mas- sive harm to society. He argues that if the criminal justice system was truly and neutrally concerned about harms to society, law enforcement and legal system actors would vigorously examine the harms caused by corporations. Thus, some experts contend that the criminal justice system could be reformed with an increased focus on white-collar crime and “crime by any other name.”

316

Section 10.2 Myths and Misconceptions About Crime

The Myth of Differentiation in the Classification of Dangerous Offenders It is a myth that “criminals” are significantly different from “noncriminals.” While it is com- forting to believe that criminals are somehow inherently different from the rest of us, there is no categorical evidence that supports this claim. According to early Positivist criminology, offenders were less evolved than nonoffenders. Today, science suggests that criminals are not a unique breed of human. While people differ in terms of mental development, there is no criminal man (see Chapter 1) as suggested by Cesare Lombroso (1876/2006) nor can crimi- nology, psychology, or any other science distinguish between “good” and “bad” people. It is not possible to categorize people according to biological, physiological, or social characteris- tics and determine their criminality.

The ability of science to differentiate between who is likely to engage in serious crime and who is not is questionable at best. The error rates of predictions are high. One of the stron- gest principles psychologists have is that future behavior is best predicted by past behavior. When scientists consider demographic (e.g., age, gender) and clinical (e.g., substance abuse, diagnoses of psychopathy) factors, combined with knowledge about past behavior, they are best able to make statements about people’s likelihood of future offending. However, there is no mathematical formula that can correctly predict anyone’s future behavior. The so-called actuarial method, which uses survey instruments to make predictions about people, has been found to be no more effective than the clinical method that uses human judgment to collect information and diagnose people.

While the media sensationalizes crime and criminals, there is no evidence that offenders dif- fer from nonoffenders in a discernible, biological way. There is no criminal gene. Rather, a complex series of biological, psychological, and sociological factors often contribute to the commission of crime. The future of criminal justice must realize that criminals do not exist in a vacuum but are profoundly shaped by social structural dynamics; thus education, the economy, housing, and health care are likely critical in crime prevention.

Understanding the theoretical and empirical evidence about crime and criminal behavior is essential to debunking, or challenging, these prevalent myths about crime. Reiman (2007) argues that the relatively lenient treatment of white-collar crime, and the relatively vigorous treatment of street crime, presents a distorted image of the crime problem to the American public. Moreover, since those of the upper class benefit from a series of structural advantages in the criminal justice process, crime is also presented to the American public overwhelmingly as a problem for the lower classes. Reiman (2007) describes the connections between crime myths and the American public using a concept that he calls “the carnival mirror image.” He notes, “The American criminal justice system is a mirror that shows a distorted image of the dangers that threaten us—an image created more by the shape of the mirror than by the real- ity reflected” (p. 62).

Reiman contends that the criminal justice system and the media present an image of the “typ- ical criminal” who is “a he . . . young . . . predominately urban . . . disproportionately black . . . [and] poor” (Reiman, 2007, p. 63). This image of the typical criminal discourages a critical examination of the role of social class in the criminal justice system. It discourages a vigor- ous study of the harms of white-collar crime. Debunking these popular misconceptions about crime and criminal justice is essential to creating fair and effective criminal justice policy.

317

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence One of the reoccurring themes throughout this textbook has been the social conditions that influence criminality. When society considers how to reduce crime, social structural factors play a central role. Thus, many criminologists advocate addressing larger social structural issues in American society as a method to reduce crime and its attendant harms. Society’s response to crime is just that—a response. An alternative is proactive interventions, those that are put into place to prevent rather than react to problems that can lead to criminal- ity. Addressing large-scale, society-wide social problems is likely a prudent strategy to reduce crime.

Many promising crime-control and crime-prevention strategies are grounded in cornerstone criminological theories. As discussed in Chapter 1, many influential theoretical schools in criminology link crime with larger social issues and social problems. For example, self- control theory identifies quality education and the socialization that it can provide as key in controlling criminality. Strain theory suggests that an accessible economy and traditional routes to upward social mobility are critical to avoid pushing individuals toward crime. Social disorganization theory clearly and explicitly links crime with community-level social problems. And various critical perspectives highlight inequality in society as the facilitator of crime and negative labeling. Many of the policy suggestions in the following sections are intimately connected with these fundamental theoretical perspectives on crime.

The following sections examine social-structural strategies that the evidence suggests may contribute to a significant and sustained decrease in crime. However, this is not an exhaustive list. The following approaches represent some of the most promising strategies, but there are likely viable crime reduction strategies beyond the scope of this single chapter. Moreover, these strategies are not mutually exclusive. That means that using any one of these approaches alone is not the most prudent choice. Rather, the most effective strategies to reduce crime will likely require the simultaneous use of many, if not all, of the following approaches.

Stratification, Poverty, and Employment America is an outlier among Western democratic societies because of the high levels of inequality and stratification among its population (see Chapter 3). Inequality, stratification, and poverty all correlate with crime. Moreover, issues like education, employment, and health care, which are fundamentally shaped by stratification and larger economic dynamics in the country, have a significant impact on crime dynamics.

Job training and employment skills can interrupt the cycle of unemployment and crime. Bring- ing jobs to inner cities and rural areas can also reduce poverty while investing in communi- ties that would otherwise be left to growing levels of disorganization as the United States’ economy suffers. Many criminologists would argue that increasing the rewards of the legiti- mate economy might be a very persuasive way to deter individuals from entering into the illegitimate, criminal economy.

In Crime and Punishment in America, renowned criminologist Elliott Currie (1998) explores the relationship between social-structural problems, like poverty and employment, and crime. Currie’s argument fits squarely within Robert Merton’s classic version of Strain Theory: that individuals adapt, in sometimes criminal ways, if they cannot meet the prescribed goals of

318

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

society via the available means (see Chapter 1). Currie notes that in the last part of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s America’s dramatic increase in incarceration rates corresponded with an increase in social structural marginalization:

The vast increase in imprisonment . . . coincided with a sharp deterioration in the social conditions of the people and communities most at risk of vio- lent crime. Thus, while we were busily jamming our prisons to the rafters with young, poor men, we were simultaneously generating the fastest rise in income inequality in recent history. (Currie, 1998, p. 30)

Currie then argues that American social norms are no longer focused on long-term prosper- ity and responsible economic management reminiscent of the Protestant Work Ethic. Rather, the norms and values of America focus on “a particularly virulent ethic of consumption and instant gratification” (Currie, 1998, p. 31). Unrealistic economic goals, combined with increasing inequality and stratification, exemplify the dynamics of Strain Theory; the rewards of the legitimate economy decrease, crime increases, and prison becomes a reactive, catch- all response to a combination of social problems. Thus, many experts contend that reducing stratification in America is central to reducing crime and its attendant harms. In his 2012 piece Reaping What We Sow: The Impact of Economic Justice on Criminal Justice Currie (2012) reflects on the connections between criminal justice challenges and larger issues of economic and social justice:

America’s extraordinary level of violence—including wide and growing eco- nomic inequality, the advanced industrial world’s deepest and most con- centrated poverty, and mass joblessness that is only partly captured by our conventional unemployment rate. In a very real sense, our swollen prison sys- tem has functioned as a costly and ineffective alternative to serious efforts to address those enduring social deficits. (Currie, 2012, p. 46)

Education High-quality education programs for young people are likely one of the most effective anti- crime policies available (Currie, 1998; Reiman, 2007; Bourgois, 1995). Educational interven- tions that prepare children, especially those underserved by public education in poor com- munities, can help reduce the high rates of school dropout. Dropping out of school is related to delinquency and reduces job opportunities. In fact, 30% of prisoners have not obtained a high school degree and regularly score lower on tests measuring literacy and math skills (Tofig, 2017). By investing in schools where rates of poverty are high, society may be able to change the trajectory that often leads from poor school performance to later criminality.

Tragically, the dramatic increase in prisons in America has come at the expense of educa- tion, possibly one of the most effective institutions for preventing crime. According to the self-control theory posited by Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990; see Chapter 1), the school system is the critical institution for preventing crime and delinquency. More spe- cifically, schools might be best positioned to socialize students to embrace self-control and sound decision making. School-based socialization may be particularly important in house- holds with full-time working parents.

319

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

In the Field: Experts Weigh In on Educating Prisoners

Do prison education programs have impacts on criminal justice reforms?

Jody Lewen

Strong prison education programs are, among other things, leadership development programs. The more people in prison are able to represent themselves in their own voices, and tell their stories and share their perspec- tives in the public sphere, the more easily the public will come to understand that crime can be both prevented and responded to through rational and humane meth- ods. Our hope is that the more the public sees people in prison as fully human, the less interested they will be in supporting costly, punitive measures that increase suf- fering but do little to protect public safety.

Can you please tell us more about the College Program at San Quentin State Prison, its students and its faculty?

David Cowan

The central project of PUP is the College Program at San Quentin. The Program provides college prepara- tory classes in math and English, as well as college credit classes in the humanities, social sciences, math, and sci- ence, leading to an associate of arts degree in liberal stud- ies, to over 300 students at the prison. Most instructors with the program are graduate students or faculty from

Courtesy of Jody Lewen Jody Lewen, executive director of the Prison University Project at San Quentin State Prison in California.

The relationship between education and punishment is cyclical and critically important to criminal justice system reform. As incarceration rates increase, often funding available for education decreases. Decreased quality of education then increases crime and the need for, and expense of, incarceration. Currie (1998) notes, “The money spent on prisons in the 1980s and 1990s, then, was money taken from the parts of the public sector that educate, train, socialize, treat, nurture, and house the population—particularly the children of the poor” (p. 35).

The inverse relationship between education spending and prison spending is demonstrated empirically by Stephen Bainbridge, a distinguished professor of law at the University of Cali- fornia at Los Angeles School of Law. Dr. Bainbridge compared prison spending in the state of California to spending on the state’s public universities. What he discovered was that as spending on public universities went down from 1967 to 2008, spending on the correctional system went up. His analysis demonstrates that correctional system expenditures may come at the direct expense of one of the best institutions for crime prevention: education. The evi- dence suggests strongly that any systemic approach to reducing crime would rely heavily on increasing the availability and quality of public education in America (Bainbridge, 2012).

(continued on next page)

320

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

the University of California at Berkeley, San Francisco State University, the University of San Francisco, Sonoma State University, and Stanford University; all teach as vol- unteers. The Program receives no state or federal fund- ing and relies entirely on donations from individuals and foundations.

To enroll in the program, students must hold at least a high school diploma or GED. Most completed their GED while in prison. If they are part of the mainline, general population of San Quentin, which means they are classi- fied as medium security, then they are eligible.

What impacts do such education programs have on pris- oner rehabilitation and reintegration?

Jody Lewen

Unlike the violent, racist, hyper-masculine dominant culture of most California prisons, the College Program at San Quentin creates an environment of physical and emotional safety, in which people feel comfortable doing things like asking for help, showing vulnerability, and interacting with others across racial lines. This happens almost nowhere else within the system, where the population has often been isolated for an extended period of time, and yet these are precisely the kinds of skills that people need to function in a healthy social or professional environment. PUP’s education program also uniquely impacts reintegration because of the presence of the large volunteer faculty, who genuinely care about their students and treat them with respect. They not only provide instruction in course material but also reinforce important community values and norms that would not and could not normally be reinforced in the prison environment.

Is there a method for measuring the relationship between such prison education programs and recidivism? How do such programs affect recidivism?

Jody Lewen

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 barred people in prison from receiving Pell Grants, which led to most prison higher education programs around the United States being shut down. As a result, most the data on the impact of such programs is quite old. Nevertheless, the data that does exist, both from before and after 1994, consistently demon- strate that the more education a person receives in prison, the less likely they are to return.

While the state-wide rate of recidivism in California is 70%, according to some studies, stu- dents who complete an associate’s degree while in prison return at a rate of less than 10%. Eventually we also intend to develop long-term case studies examining the impact of program participation on educational attainment, income, employment, civic engagement, mental health, substance abuse, and other indicators of individual and community wellbeing.

Courtesy of David Cowan David Cowan, Prison University Project graduate and current Prison University Project director of operations.

In the Field: Experts Weigh In on Educating Prisoners (continued)

321

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

Health Care From a criminal justice perspective, the evidence is quite clear that universally obtainable, quality health care prevents crime. Health care services, both physical and mental, during childhood are important given the cycle of violence (the connection between physical and sexual abuse victimization and later offending). Children who grow up around violence, whether in their homes or their neighborhoods, can benefit from mental health care to inter- rupt the cycle of violence. Anger management, counseling, and support services thus should be a central feature of domestic violence law.

Quality health care can also prevent crime early in the life course. The evidence suggests that both prenatal care and nutrition early in life are essential for brain development. Healthy cog- nitive development is essential for decision making and impulse control in every stage of life. Thus, interventions that provide prenatal care and nutrition to families who otherwise could not obtain them has a twofold benefit: increases in human health and decreases in crime and crime victimization (Tibbetts, 2012).

Criminological research has long supported that regular home visits by registered nurses and other medical professionals are very effective in preventing crime in “at-risk” populations (Tibbetts, 2012; Currie, 1998). These medical professionals can work with parents on effec- tive and healthy childrearing practices. Moreover, they can diagnose and begin treating any serious health issues like head trauma, hormone imbalances, and exposure to toxins (expo- sure to lead most notably). Pilot home visit programs have shown promising results in both New York and Hawaii (Currie, 1998).

Charles Tibbetts, a criminal justice professor at California State University at San Bernardino and criminology theory expert, enumerates the importance of health care services for the prevention of crime. He astutely summarizes the importance of health care availability in the context of crime reduction strategies, grounded in a biosocial perspective on criminality. “Another obvious policy implication derived from biosocial theory is mandatory health insur- ance for pregnant mothers and children, which is quite likely the most efficient way to reduce crime in the long term” (Wright et al., 2008, as cited in Tibbetts, 2012, p. 80).

Guns and Gun Crime Gun control is a very controversial and politically divisive issue in contemporary America. Moreover, gun control is embedded in constitutional debates and issues of civil liberties and responsibility deeply rooted in American culture. Despite these complexities, the evidence about the role of guns in facilitating crime, and violent crime in particular, suggests that criti- cally examining gun control policy is essential to a viable crime reduction strategy.

322

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

Compared to other industrialized democracies, the United States has the highest firearm death rate by a significant margin (Naghavi, 2018). Fueled in part by a dramatic economic downturn, a combustible drug economy, and the rise of powerful street gangs, the 1980s and early 1990s saw a dramatic increase in firearm-related death, particularly among America’s youth. Reflecting on these dynamics, Garen Wintemute, a nationally recognized researcher on gun policy and regular advisor to government agencies, noted, “The entire increase in homicide in the United States through 1993 was attributable to firearm homicide” (Winte- mute, 2005, p. 52; cited in Reiman, 2007, p. 34). By 2006, guns were the weapon of choice in almost 12,800 homicides, 28,000 total deaths, and 500,000 assaults and robberies (Cook et al., 2011). As demonstrated in Figure 10.1, guns are the most frequently used weapon in homicides in America. Clearly, the evidence suggests investigating measures to reduce the impact of guns on society and their role in the commission of crime is essential to effective criminal justice policy.

Figure 10.1: Murders and weapon types, 2014–2018

Firearms are used in a majority of murders in the United States.

Adapted from “Expanded homicide data table 8: Murder victims by weapon 2014–2018,” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Crime in the United States 2018, 2019 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded -homicide-data-table-8.xls).

8,000

10,000

12,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Firearms Other Knives or cutting instruments

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet) Blunt objects (clubs, hammers)

323

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

In the Field: An Expert Weighs in on Gun Violence Intervention

Joshua Gryniewicz

How does CeaseFire’s form of intervention differ from other forms of crime intervention?

It is important to note that CeaseFire focuses specifi- cally on violence prevention. CeaseFire is not a catch-all model. It has a very focused, very strategic point of inter- vention. The model has been demonstrated effective at reducing shootings and killings. In part, these results and the workers’ reputations as credible messengers rely on a harm reduction mentality of meeting the client where they are. In other words, our workers are nonjudgmen- tal. They do not address crime as a whole, but intervene to reduce shootings and killings. Again, we also are inter- ested specifically in those who are at the highest risk for shooting and killing. A youth can be high-risk, involved in a certain lifestyle, but not necessar- ily at risk for shooting or killing; and those individuals are more likely to be referred to another type of program.

Frontline aired The Interrupters, a documentary directed and produced by Steve James. This documentary presents 1 year in the lives of three violence interrupters who work for CeaseFire. How did the release of this documentary impact CeaseFire and the communities being helped?

There is this amazing story that appeared in the Chicago Defender (December, 2012) where a young man, Jason Harrison, was “close to giving someone the business.” He had no real rela- tionship with CeaseFire; there were no personal connections to any of our workers, but he had seen the documentary and it had a profound impact on him. Harrison explained to the Chicago Defender, moments before he carried out a plan that could have taken a life and cost his free- dom: “Something just clicked in my head. I thought about the movie about CeaseFire. I just couldn’t do it.” It sounds like one of those too-good-to-be-true stories, but this is exactly what our public education component—communication with a behavior change bent—is aimed at achieving. That is what happens when community norms begin to shift.

In addition to the statistically significant decline in either homicides or nonfatal shootings or both in each of the communities, researchers discovered the positive effects (less shootings and/or killings or both) diffused into the neighboring communities as well as people not even involved in the program directly! In other words, high-risk people in the neighborhoods where the CeaseFire model is being implemented were changing their thinking and attitudes toward violence even if we weren’t directly working with them. I think these benefits, the effect of the film on individuals like Jason Harrison, were worth more than any award the film won.

Courtesy of Joshua Gryniewicz Joshua Gryniewicz, former communication director for CeaseFire in Chicago, Illinois.

Reform the War on Drugs Since its declaration in 1972, the war on drugs has had a massive cumulative effect on jails and prisons in the United States. When examining local jails, state and federal prisons, nearly 20% of everyone incarcerated in the United States is incarcerated primarily for a drug offense (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). In addition, drug offenders are among the groups with the highest rates of recidivism (Clarke, 2019), and research has consistently shown

324

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

that the vast majority of drug offenders are nonviolent (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010; King & Mauer, 2002). In fact, some studies have shown that approximately 75% of drug offend- ers incarcerated in state prisons have no prior convictions for violent crime (King & Mauer, 2002). Moreover, these nonviolent offenders are also disproportionately relatively low-level players in the drug-dealing hierarchy.

Despite the kingpin rhetoric that is often included in drug crime legislation, overwhelmingly the War on Drugs has incarcerated relatively low-level drug offenders. In 2008, Kentucky Jus- tice and Public Safety Cabinet secretary J. Michael Brown provided the following testimony to the Kentucky Senate Judiciary Committee. Brown reflected on the War on Drugs and both its massive impact on the American correctional system and its propensity for incarcerating low-level offenders:

We have too many people in jails, too many people in prisons. Our capacity to care for them has been strained to the limit. . . . I don’t think we’re getting the worst drug lords into the prisons. We’re just getting the people who went out and got caught. . . . It’s the low-hanging fruit. (Kentucky Senate Judiciary Com- mittee, 2008, p. 1)

From an agricultural perspective, low-hanging fruit are easy to pick because they are low on the tree, ripe, and easily harvested. From a law enforcement perspective, the low-hanging fruit in the drug trade are often user-dealers, who occupy the most vulnerable positions in the drug dealing hierarchy, often doing hand-to-hand drug sales in urban open-air drug markets. Moreover, these most vulnerable players in the drug dealing game are likely to be young and poor and thus not able to rely on private attorneys, to post bail, or to benefit from the other resource-based advantages available to members of the middle and upper classes.

Troy Duster, the Silver Professor of Sociology at New York University, examined why the war on drugs incarcerates so many low-level offenders. In Pattern, Purpose and Race in the Drug War: The Crisis of Credibility in Criminal Justice, Duster argues that low-level drug dealers are not only vulnerable but also suffer from additional structural disadvantages in the crimi- nal justice process. He presents evidence that higher-level drug dealers have a significant advantage in the plea-bargaining process. Higher-level dealers likely can provide valuable information to law enforcement about the illegal drug industry and possibly other major drug dealers. Historically, high-level drug dealers may provide information about members of their own organization but prefer to provide information to authorities about the operations of rival organizations when possible. The accused can use this information to leverage a more favorable plea bargain. In contrast, the lower-level drug dealers likely do not have valuable information to provide to authorities and thus have far less leverage if they choose to pursue the plea-bargaining process (Duster, 1997).

Many states are experimenting with alternative, less-punitive approaches to the war on drugs. Some experts advocate for a public health approach to drugs that emphasizes medical- ization. From a correctional perspective, key in this approach is institutional and transitional treatment for drug offenders in hopes of reducing recidivism rates (Gupta, 2012). The LEAD program, developed in Seattle, WA, in 2011, essentially decriminalizes drug use by divert- ing low-level, nonviolent offenders to social service programs and intensive case manage- ment (Kristoff, 2019). The program has shown success and, as of early 2020, 20 states are operating LEAD programs, with another 16 in the process of either developing or exploring programs (LEAD National Support Bureau, 2020). The state of Texas saved approximately $2

325

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

billion between 2007 and 2012 by diverting low-level drug offenders away from traditional incarceration facilities and providing drug treatment for drug offenders in the traditional correctional system (Gupta, 2012). The abandonment of some aspects of the war on drugs has allowed states to experiment in legalizing marijuana for both medical and personal, rec- reational use. Early studies indicate that legalization may result in fewer marijuana-related arrests and court cases (Farley & Orchowsky, 2019). However, long-term results remain to be seen, especially since the federal government still considers marijuana an illegal substance and it is unclear if the it will continue to look the other way as states contradict federal law.

The evidence suggests that reforming the War on Drugs may be an essential component of systemic criminal justice system reform. Since declaring the War on Drugs in 1972, illegal drugs are more available, more potent, and relatively less expensive (controlling for inflation) in America’s communities (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). Moreover, because incarceration is so expensive and recidivism rates are so high (see Chapter 2), treatment-based diversion pro- grams may be most cost effective and practical. The recent economic downturn has increased the incentives for states and the federal government to consider viable alternatives to the punitive prohibition of the war on drugs.

Case Study: Needle Exchange Programs

A vigorous debate is ongoing among experts about how society should manage drug use, as a victimless crime. Some countries, like the United States, tend to treat drugs as a criminal jus- tice system issue. Other countries have tried less punitive approaches, as exemplified by Swit- zerland’s Needle Park. In an attempt to control heroin use, Switzerland opened Needle Park in the early 1990s. Needle Park was created to provide a place where heroin addicts could use, buy, or sell drugs without legal sanction. The park received 4,000 visitors a day. This strategy did have some public health benefits, and it contributed to a 90% reduction in new cases of HIV in the region. However, complaints from residents caused the closure of the park in 1992.

Countries around the world have developed other harm-reduction strategies for drug users. Needle exchange programs were established where addicts could receive clean needles and “shoot up” in injection rooms sometimes referred to as safe injection facilities or SIFs. Injec- tion rooms provide a clean and safe environment off the streets and trained medical personnel are available if medical assistance is needed.

In 2017, the United States adopted a progressive strategy Australia has been using to reduce the harms associated with the intravenous use of illegal drugs: syringe vending machines. In an effort to control HIV and hepatitis C, Nevada implemented its first syringe vending machines in the city of Las Vegas. The machines are located in convenient locations, and drug users who have signed up for a vending machine card can discretely access sterile needles and other injection equipment.

For more information about Nevada’s syringe vending machines, read the following article: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/heroin-crisis-nevada-becomes-first-state -install-syringe-vending-machines-n746111.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Many people have criticized needle exchange programs for potentially encouraging drug

use. What are your thoughts? 2. Do these public health measures help the drug problem or make it worse?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/heroin-crisis-nevada-becomes-first-state-install-syringe-vending-machines-n746111

326

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

Reduce the Prison Population In Reaping What We Sow: The Impact of Economic Justice on Criminal Justice, Currie (2012) begins by declaring,

The most important change we could make in our criminal justice system over the next 25 years would be to bring our level of incarceration down to some- thing resembling that of the rest of the advanced industrial world. Whether we can do that, however, is an open question. (Currie, 2012, p. 46)

As Currie notes, the criminological research reveals two major dynamics that have led to America having 5% of the world’s population, yet 25% of its incarcerated population (see Chapter 2). The research demonstrates that the levels of serious violent crime—murder, rape, and gun crime—are higher in America than in any other Westernized democracy (Lynch & Pridemore, 2011). Moreover, America is much more likely than its peer nations to use more punitive sentences, including mandatory minimum and determinate sentencing structures (see Chapter 2) for first-time offenders, drug offenders, and nonviolent offenders (Currie, 1998; Currie, 2012). Rethinking these punitive and rigid sentencing policies for low-level offenders may be important features of a more equitable and effective criminal justice system.

The United States federal government passed the First Step Act in 2018 in the hopes of reduc- ing federal prison populations. The Act is an attempt to reduce recidivism levels via inmate risk assessment and subsequent assignment of inmates to appropriate recidivism reduction programming. Inmates who successfully complete the programming can earn time credits toward early placement in prerelease custody. Promising outcomes of similar state-level prison reform efforts enacted prior to the Act’s passing suggest the federal effort may achieve similarly positive results (Bergmann, 2018).

Reducing America’s relatively high levels of crime, violent crime in particular, is likely inti- mately intertwined with larger issues of social justice and equality. A legacy of research in criminology and sociology links many varieties of criminal behavior with social structural marginality and economic exclusion. A series of experts advocate for the federal government to take an active role to create a national strategy to reduce poverty, create a more robust and accessible economy, and reduce social structural marginalization more generally (Derber, 2009; Currie, 1998; Currie, 2012). Currie advocates for . . .

strategies to reduce the deepening poverty, widening inequality, growing con- centration of disadvantage and obliteration of opportunities for a productive and inclusive life for too many of our citizens. Chief among those policies must be a commitment to full employment at living wages—a commitment that, as we increasingly understand, is highly unlikely to be fulfilled by the private economy alone. That means we will need a publicly funded employment pro- gram that centrally includes direct job creation as well as relevant training. (Currie, 2012, p. 47)

While the role of the federal government in economic reform may be controversial, economic reforms are likely central to reducing crime and thus reducing America’s correctional system, which is currently the largest in the world. While Currie may focus on economic factors, a sus- tained reduction in the size of the correctional system in America will likely require embrac- ing a series of social-structural reforms suggested in this chapter.

327

Section 10.3 Crime Reduction: According to the Evidence

A major theme of this book is that crime is complex and deeply rooted in larger social issues. Centuries of gathering evidence about crime and constructing theories about its origins sug- gest that there is no single approach to the crime problem. Rather, the complexities of crime dynamics mandate an equally complex response involving a host of prevention and evidence- driven strategies. In addition, any criminal justice system reform is inherently linked with larger issues of ideology; the future of American criminal justice must critically reflect on the “tough on crime” ideology that has profoundly shaped our criminal justice system since its inception.

In the Field: An Expert Weighs in on Influencing Policy toward Nonincarcerative Alternatives

Georgia Lerner

What role do organizations such as WPA have in criminal jus- tice reforms or policy reforms?

WPA and comparable organizations can educate and provide feedback to government and policy makers about the condi- tions of the facilities they operate and impact of their deci- sions on women and on people who are indirectly affected. For example, prisons and jails are not mandated to pay atten- tion to child welfare issues, but educating child welfare and corrections officials about the shared populations they serve and affect can foster productive discussion and thinking about how they can reduce the harms caused by their systems.

WPA receives a wealth of information and perspective from clients and from staff and colleagues, and we seek to improve conditions, either through our own efforts or by working with colleagues. WPA operates a program for women with criminal justice histories who want to become advocates; they select issues and develop and present recommendations for reform to the policy makers who have the power to make change. For example, our recom- mendations caused the local jail to create a new law library in the women’s jail and to include materials related to the child care and custody issues.

Our recommendations often focus on local practices that create obstacles to women’s success in the community. For example, when jails release women on weekends or late at night, it is impossible to take them directly to drug treatment programs for intake (as intakes are gener- ally conducted during typical business hours). WPA met with jail officials who had expressed a commitment to doing what they could to reduce readmissions to the jail, and, as a result, the time and days of discharges was changed. Now, women are more successful at engaging with the services they need.

On a broader scale, WPA promotes the use of evidence-based tools and practices to inform responses to crime that do not include incarceration. For many years, WPA operated a resi- dential alternative to incarceration, and we always try to advocate for our clients to receive sentences that can address the underlying issues (usually substance abuse, parental stress, mental illness, unsafe housing, or poverty) that contributed to their criminal involvement. We participate in national conferences, are part of the team that implemented and guides the National Resource Center for Justice Involved Women, respond to inquiries from all over the world, and use every opportunity to educate people about the tools we have available to enhance public safety through nonincarcerative responses to crime.

Courtesy of Georgia Lerner. Georgia Lerner, executive director for Women’s Prison Association in New York, New York.

328

Section 10.4 Paradigm Shift: From Retributivism to Restorative Justice

10.4 Paradigm Shift: From Retributivism to Restorative Justice Society’s classic reaction to crime tends to be characterized by one of two approaches: retri- bution (or punishment of lawbreakers) or rehabilitation (treatment to transition lawbreak- ers into law-abiders). There is a third model: restorative justice.

According to restorative justice, crime harms not only the victim but the larger community and the offender as well. As a result, all three groups of stakeholders should come together and actively participate in the resolution to the crime. This inclusive method stands in con- trast to the traditional American approach to criminal justice that includes the offender with the victim virtually removed from the process and replaced by the state. Restorative justice attempts to repair the damage to the victim and the community, while also reintegrating the offender. It is important to note that restorative justice is not available for every criminal case, and many states require the process to be initiated by the victim (Beitsch, 2016). As of 2016, all but 10 states had some form of a restorative justice program codified by statute (Pavelka, S. 2016).

There is no single definition of restorative justice, and some researchers argue that the approach can include any future-looking activities. For example, giving offenders the oppor- tunity to make amends and demonstrate their value and potential while making positive con- tributions to the community (Maruna & LeBel, 2003). Restorative activities hold offenders

accountable for their crimes while allowing them to make restitution by helping others. Being provided with the opportunity to help and engage in altruistic activities (Toch, 2000) can enable the offender to reinte- grate back into society. The restitution can transform how offenders relate to others.

Many programs allow inmates to engage in activities that provide them with the oppor- tunity to provide restitution through their efforts. At Angola Penitentiary, men restore bicycles and build toys for underprivileged children. In Wisconsin, maximum-security inmates also build birdhouses for conser- vatory groups and rocking horses for Head

Start programs. In Maine, juveniles convicted of serious offenses can participate in the Blan- ket Program where they learn to crochet blankets and hats. The blankets are donated to day- care centers, homeless shelters, and retirement homes.

Tim Hacker/East Valley Tribune/Associated Press Repairing children’s bicycles is an example of an activity inmates may take part in as part of a restitution program.

329

Section 10.4 Paradigm Shift: From Retributivism to Restorative Justice

When offenders make amends to those they harmed in society, it is a way for them to poten- tially earn back the trust of the community. However, this requires forgiveness on the part of society. Society must demonstrate mercy—not necessarily forgiveness of the offenders’ actions—once the offenders have made reparations for the harms they perpetrated. Long- time human rights activist and the first Black South African Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “Forgiveness is not for sissies” (as cited in Peyper & Coetzee, 2009, para. 1). It is not easy to forgive those who have done us harm. Like the anger and desire for revenge that often accompany retribution, restorative justice, too, has an emo- tional component. With restorative justice, however, there is the opportunity to build a bridge of goodwill based on trust and a need to heal. A community’s response to crime impacts how offenders see themselves, so a restorative response creates the chance to show offenders respect for their courage to confront what they have done, acknowledge the harm they have committed, and work to make reparations. When the community demonstrates compassion and trust, offenders can learn that many are not hopelessly evil or bad.

Web Field Trip: A Different Kind of Punishment

While prison systems in the United States tend to focus on punishment and deprivation, some Norway prisons take a different approach. Indeed, parts of the Norwegian correctional philos- ophy focus on preparing prisoners for reintegration by cultivating skills needed once released. This system has seen some good results, with just 20% of Norwegian prisoners who go through the system reoffending within 2 years. Although Norway does have many high security prisons for offenders deemed unfit for rehabilitation, there are several facilities where prisoners are free to roam the grounds and have a great deal of choice in how their days are structured.

The Bastoy prison, for example, does not have armed guards, and prisoners carry their own keys to their rooms. Prisoners get a stipend to buy groceries, and they work from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. Available jobs include farming and cutting firewood, which requires that convicts are trusted to use axes. Bastoy cultivates a community vibe instead of a locked prison facility, and its model is designed to rehabilitate criminals and transform them into productive members of society.

Learn more about Bastoy Island and the prison system of Norway here: https://www.cnn .com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think it is rewarding to criminals to serve sentences at Bastoy, or that time

served there still functions as punishment for committing crimes? 2. Why is Bastoy’s method successful in your opinion? 3. Do you think this type of system could work in the United States?

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html

330

Chapter Summary

A central concept to restorative justice is its forward-looking nature. Rather than simply blam- ing people for their past acts, they are able to learn how to redeem themselves. Learning and taking responsibility for their actions promotes active responsibility. While passive respon- sibility leaves people liable for what they have done in the past, active responsibility holds people accountable for putting things right in the future (Braithwaite, 2005). The improve- ment or transformation within the offender that can follow may aid in the desistance from crime, or end of criminal behavior. Through participation, offenders hopefully recognize their responsibility for their actions while at the same time they engage in a self-healing process. Restoration comes from this acknowledgement and truth telling. The cycle of harm—punish- ment as retaliation, and inescapable stigmatization and suffering—is interrupted when all parties seek to transform bad into good. Within a restorative justice framework, offenders acknowledge that they have responsibilities to society, and through their work they attempt to break from their past and transform themselves. Thus, restorative justice has the poten- tial to reshape the ideology of the American criminal justice system with potentially positive impacts on individuals and communities.

Chapter Summary This chapter explored possible strategies to reduce crime and reform the criminal justice system in America. Evidence was presented about the financial obstacles to possible reforms including the crime control industrial complex and large criminal organizations that currently profit from crime. Similarly, cornerstone pieces of research in modern criminology were presented that focused on the ideology of criminal justice policy and how those ideologies may translate into barriers to potential reforms.

The bulk of this chapter explored evidence-based strategies to reduce crime. The vast majority of these strategies involve addressing what many consider the root causes of many types of crime: poverty, unemployment, underemployment, a lack of universal health care, and a lack of universal access to high-quality education.

Similarly, possible criminal justice system reforms were explored. Potentially, the artery of criminal justice policy most ripe for reform is the War on Drugs. Drug offenders contribute significantly to our correctional population, are often low-level and nonviolent offenders, and have relatively high recidivism rates. Diversion programs and public health approaches might be practical alternatives to the current punitive prohibition approach. Many experts contend that reducing the overall size of the American correctional system would have a series of social and criminal justice benefits.

It seems that systemic criminal justice system reform will depend on an ideological shift in American society. Arguably, the punishment-based mantras of retributivism have shaped the crime-control policy in the United States. Many experts argue that in the new millennium, policy makers should consider implementing notions of restorative justice in conjunction with larger structural changes toward equality and social justice.

331

Chapter Summary

It is important that the suggestions presented in this chapter for how society can respond to crime are not viewed as individual strategies. A broad national plan that incorporates all of these factors has the greatest likelihood of being effective. Crime is not a simple social problem, as each of the chapters in this textbook has demonstrated. Only by including individuals, families, schools, employment, and communities will society have a chance at changing the current trajectory of this country: billions spent on prisons and criminal justice policy that are not only ineffective but often create further harm to society.

Sociologists, criminologists, and other social scientists have a critical role to play in these criminal justice system reforms. Armed with sound research methodologies and critical thinking skills, interdisciplinary science is critical to study these issues and communicate the empirical reality of criminal justice to policy makers and the American public.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. In what way can the fear of crime be more significant than crime itself ? 2. What is meant by the terms “crime control industrial complex” and “prison indus-

trial complex”? Who benefits from them? Who suffers as a result? 3. How do modern international crime organizations differ from those of the past? 4. How do you think society might most effectively reduce crime’s profitability? 5. What is your opinion of the broken windows theory of crime prevention? 6. What myths, according to the author, are used to justify “the penal state”? What

impact does this have on the day-to-day lives of noncriminal citizens? 7. How do white-collar crimes and “crimes by any other name” impact average

citizens?

Key Terms dark figure of crime A term used to describe the difference between the prevalence of crime in society and the rates of crime measured by law enforcement.

prison industrial complex The overlapping bureaucratic, political, and economic factors that encourage increased spending on prisons, whether they are needed or not.

proactive policing Law enforcement taking the initiative to address public order offenses such as clearing streets of people who are loitering and may be homeless, rather than responding to calls from the public in response to crimes after they have been committed.