15 sheet doc for Christine

How the criminal justice system in the US has evolved since 911 attacks

Robert Ponton

Professor Ramsey

UAGC

CRJ 422

11/6/2022

Introduction

The 9/11 attacks brought significant changes to the US criminal justice system. Although terrorism and targeted violence continues to be a threat to the US homeland security, various measures have been taken to beef up the US homeland security (Johnson and Hunter, 2017). The unified security structure has brought more coordination between various security agencies including the regular police, the FBI, and the traffic cops. Due to this factor, various terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS have evolved and changed their tactics (Bolleyer and Gauja, 2017). Nowadays, they are now using the Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs) to carry out their attacks. However, homeland security has remained firm in its responsibility for dealing with such threats (Bolleyer and Gauja, 2017). This essay will evaluate the evolution of the criminal justice system since the 9/11 attacks including; the steps made and small loopholes that continue to exist in the US criminal justice system.  

The evolution of the US criminal justice system in the US

The US criminal justices system has evolved since the 9/11 attacks. Bolleyer and Gauja (2017) state that US citizens are currently more secure than they were before the 9/11 attacks. The US criminal justice system has created a unified security structure that wasn’t there before the 9/11 attacks. Nowadays, there is a high level of coordination between the regular police, the traffic police, and other special teams such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the SWAT teams (Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak, 2020). Information collected by one team is shared across all the platforms and therefore, it has become easy for security agencies to identify, analyze and respond to any security emergency in the US. However, Johnson and Hunter (2017) state that this intensified security system has made terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, and ISIS change their tactics. 

Instead of directly attacking, these organizations are now using the Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs). Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak (2020) state that these are people who are recruited by terrorist organizations to commit crimes on their behalf. For example, on 12th June 2016, a lone gunman opened fire at a gay club in Florida killing 49 people while dozens of them were injured (Nelson et al., 2016). Therefore, these organizations are targeting and using such people to commit their crimes. 

To deal with the threat from HVEs, the US criminal justice system has diversified its unified security structure. The local state in the US no longer relies on the federal government for intelligence and security (Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak, 2020). Between 2001 and 2004, the majority of states such as California, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii have their own intelligence systems (Nelson et al., 2016). Therefore, any criminal activity is detected, analyzed, and shared with the FBI and other security agents for further action. Furthermore, the states in the US have also enacted policies that allow them to collect any intelligence before mass gatherings can be allowed in any location of their states (Nelson et al., 2016). Although this seems to be effective in cutting all the routes of terrorist activities, another problem emerges. The threat from immigrants cannot be underestimated. 

Immigrants are also seen as a channel that terrorists can use to perform terrorist activities in the US. Johnson and Hunter (2017) state that since 2004, the criminal justice system has taken great interest in the immigrants coming into the US. Donald Trump, the former president of the US also enacted tough policies on immigrants and also emphasized securing the US borders (Ouellet, Bouchard, and Hart, 2017). However, the process of dealing with immigrants has now become a joint effort. The unified security structure allows members of the regular police and the FBI teams to investigate immigrants including their personal information (Nelson et al., 2016). Those with criminal records from their countries are not allowed into the United States. Furthermore, the unified security structure also allows the security agencies to monitor all the activities of the immigrants. Although this tactic also seems to be effective, there is another problem. Terrorist organizations can also communicate and recruit the HVEs through technologies such as social media. 

However, the United States is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. Since the 9/11 attacks, Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak (2020) state that the criminal justice system in the US has shifted its attention from the traditional forms of criminal investigation in terms of its own personal activities and assistance to local agencies. Before the 9/11 attacks, Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak (2020) note that only 54% of Americans used the internet to communicate and share information. Currently, more than 90% of Americans can access and share information through the internet and social media (Mitnik, Freilich, and Chermak, 2020). This includes the Law enforcers who have become increasingly concerned about online activities and information sharing. The George Floyd video was shared on the internet and law enforcement agencies were quick to take action against the offenders. Although, terrorist organizations have resorted to using dirty means such as media and the internet to recruit their own Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs), Nelson et al. (2016) state that their threats might still be low because the law enforcers have advanced technologies that they can use to investigate any criminal information through the internet or the social media.

Another approach that the US criminal justice system has adopted is the bifurcated security structure. This structure is different from the Unified structure. All the states in the US have patrol systems that never existed before the 9/11 attacks (Ouellet, Bouchard, and Hart, 2017). Except for California, all other states have patrol systems in which officers physically patrol the streets to intercept or address any security emergencies. Furthermore, these patrols also work with the traffic department to collect any intelligence information that can help to intercept any criminal activities. For example, individuals caught with drugs or unlicensed firearms are often arrested and questioned to determine if they have any links to terrorist organizations or their mission (Nelson et al., 2016). Currently, it is common for security agencies to share intelligence information, but this was not there before the 9/11 attacks. Although, there might be some security lapses, for example, the 2016 mass shooting in Florida, the criminal justice system in the US has reduced such threats (Nelson et al., 2016).

Additionally, homeland security in the US has been beefed up through the training of the police and other law enforcers. Since all the states have their own security systems and methods of collecting intelligence data, Ouellet, Bouchard, and Hart (2017) note that security teams such as SWAT have been excellent in offering training programs to various police departments in every state. Although it is not clear what these training programs might be, Nelson et al. (2016) anticipates them to be high-tech cyber-crimes, forensic analysis, and how to deal with life-threatening weapons like bombs. This shows how the criminal justice system is serious about enhancing homeland security in the US. Nowadays, various security groups in the US are working more closely than ever. Although the majority of the states focus on their own security, it helps to enhance the overall security in the country because as they become more vigilant, the country becomes safer (Ouellet, Bouchard, and Hart, 2017). However, there is another problem regarding the position of private agencies in the country. Private entities may actually be the weak links through which terrorist organizations communicate or recruit HVEs to conduct their evil activities. 

This is evident because the majority of the federal and states police have increased their interaction with private agencies. As Johnson and Hunter (2017) state, the federal and the state police also house numerous records linked to both public and private companies. Interacting with private organizations is crucial in helping the police to determine the patterns of crime or any links with terrorism activities. Moreover, Bolleyer and Gauja (2017) also state that the interaction of police with private agencies also includes the issues of personnel and corporate security. Since the 9/11 attacks, the criminal justice system of the US has also been concerned about the security of private organizations. Nelson et al. (2016) state that their aim is also to enhance the security of both citizens and private/public organizations and their personnel. 

Lastly, all the security personnel in the US have also enhanced their involvement in collecting intelligence information. As Johnson and Hunter (2017) state, most police officers in the federal and state government have become more willing to collect, gather and share security information, a trend that was not there before the 9/11 attacks. This indicates that the criminal justice system in the US has increased its efforts of enhancing homeland security. 

To conclude, the security framework that has been implemented by the criminal justice system in the US has been effective at maintaining and addressing all the security challenges in the country. It has ensured that all the federal states are independent in enhancing their own security measures and securing their borders and their people. Secondly, this framework has also ensured that the security agencies in the US are working together to collect and share intelligence data and deal with all the security challenges that arise. Although terrorist groups have tried to change their tactics including the process of using HVEs, the justice system has remained strong in its mandate of enhancing homeland security in the US. 

References

Bolleyer, N., & Gauja, A. (2017). Combating terrorism by constraining charities?

Charity and counter‐terrorism legislation before and after 9/11. Public Administration, 95(3), 654-669.

Johnson, T. C., & Hunter, R. D. (2017). Changes in homeland security activities since 9/11:

An examination of state and local law enforcement agencies’ practices. Police Practice and Research, 18(2), 160-173.

Mitnik, Z. S., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2020). Post-9/11 coverage of terrorism

in the New York Times. Justice Quarterly, 37(1), 161-185.

Nelson, M. S., Wooditch, A., Martin, F. A., Hummer, D., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2016).

Hate crimes in post-9/11 Pennsylvania: Case characteristics and police response revisited. Race and justice, 6(4), 303-324.

Ouellet, M., Bouchard, M., & Hart, M. (2017). Criminal collaboration and risk: The drivers

of Al Qaeda’s network structure before and after 9/11. Social Networks, 51, 171-177.