Crime Control Policies in the United States - Term Paper Example

Running head: Criminal Justice Crime Control Policies in the United s Insert Insert Grade Insert 16 July Introduction Successful crime control plans should surpass funding police and corrections organizations. Crime management policies denote the laws, guidelines along with other governmental actions that are aimed at minimizing criminal acts (Woods, 2008). Owing to the fact that public security is a key task of government, policy formulators at the federal, regional and local echelons are implicated in developing and implementing crime management policies. Criminal justice encompasses a wide system of institutions and operations aimed at guaranteeing order, stability, equality and justice along with punishment for the offense. Among the core parameters of the vast criminal justice system is crime control, which signifies the government’s initiatives and strategies in managing crime in society. Crime control policies, therefore, denote the frameworks established by the government to minimize criminal activity, deal with violent crime incidences and guarantee the execution of justice through the judicial processes. The criminal justice system of the United States is comprehensive enough and encompasses diversity of operations, institutions and process. Crime control in the United States is practiced at a departmental level under the homeland security fragment though the entire judicial system plays a commanding role in defining overall techniques of crime control. In essence, America’s criminal justice system along with the particular crime control policies is managed at three levels; federal, state and local. However, major criminal issues are governed by the federal administration that has an oversight authority over the entire operations. The aim of this paper is to provide an in-depth evaluation of the criminal justice particularly crime curtailing in the U.S. The paper will take a broad perspective of crime control policies with special reference to the United States. Background Criminal justice is the organization of practices and agencies of governments directed at perpetuation of social control, discouraging and mitigating crime, or permitting those who infringe laws with criminal punishments and rehabilitation endeavors. Those accused of misdemeanor have protections against mistreatment of investigatory and tribunal powers. In America, criminal justice strategy has been directed by the 1967 Presidents Commission on police and management of Justice, which provided a pioneering report to the challenge of crime in a liberated society (Ismail, 2010). This account made in excess of 200 recommendations as a section of a comprehensive strategy toward the avoidance and fighting of crime. Some of those proposals became part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The conference supported a systems methodology to criminal justice, with enhanced harmonization among law enforcement, judiciary, and correctional agencies. The Presidents Commission described the criminal justice organization as the means for the public to implement the standards of demeanor essential to protect individuals along with the community. Models of Crime Control Herbert Packer, a professor of law at Stanford University, created two models; the crime control model, as well as the due process model, to symbolize the two competing schemes of values in use within the criminal justice (Tonry, 2006). The apprehension involving the two versions for the clash and disharmony that currently is evident in the criminal justice system. Crime Control Model The containment of crime ought to be the most essential function of criminal justice for the reason that order is a necessary stipulation for a free society. Criminal justice ought to concentrate on justifying victims rights instead of protecting defendants rights. Police powers ought to be increased to make it convenient to investigate, seize, search, confiscate, and convict. Legal details that handcuff the law enforcement should be abolished. The criminal justice course should function like an assembly-line conveyor strap, moving cases quickly along in the direction of their disposition. If the police force apprehends and a prosecutor recommends criminal charges, the accused ought to be presumed guilty for the reason that the fact-finding of law enforcement and prosecutors is extremely reliable. The main purpose of the criminal justice procedure should be to determine the truth or to institute the factual culpability of the accused. Due Process Model Herbert Packers due process model is considered a counterproposal to the crime management model (Blomberg, 2010). It comprises of these arguments: The most imperative function of criminal justice ought to present due process or basic fairness under the law. Criminal justice ought to focus on defendants rights, not victims rights, for the reason that the Bill of Rights specifically provides for the defense of defendants rights. Police powers ought to be limited to stop official domination of the individual. Legal rights arent mere technicalities; criminal justice leadership ought to be held accountable to rules, modus operandi, and guidelines to make certain equality and consistency in the justice process. The criminal justice procedure should appear like an impediment course, comprising of a series of obstructions that take the form of technical safeguards that serve as much to shield the factually guiltless as to convict the factually guilty. The government shouldnt consider a person guilty exclusively on the foundation of the facts; an individual should be found culpable only if the government pursues legal practices in its fact-finding. Evaluating the Crime Control and Due Process Models To state that one of these forms is better to the other needs one to make a value judgment. The crime management model reflects conventional values, while the due process mold reflects open-minded values (Braswell et al, 2011). Political climate decides which model influences criminal justice plan at a precise time. In the course of the politically moderate 1960s, the rules and policies of due process prevailed in criminal justice. From the mid 1970s to the first phases of the twenty-first century, conservatism has prevailed as the overriding political viewpoint, and conformists have developed criminal justice strategies in the representation of the crime management model. Crime Control Federal crime control endeavors conventionally have been aimed at problems surpassing state boundaries, with preserving law and order in regions subject exclusively to federal authority or of national concern (Greenwood & Zimring, 2007). Primarily, policies developed in the 107th Congress are those improving the authorities of the Department of Justice (DOJ), purposely the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in addressing homeland security as well as anti-terrorism difficulties arising from the September 11, 2001 assaults. This comprise swelled federal law enforcement authority in such areas as wiretapping and associated investigative apparatus to assist law enforcement officers in the war on terror campaign, like in the USA Patriot Act, P. L. 107-56. Amid the police efforts to battle terrorism, Congress persists to address the matter of the operating influence of the Department of Justice in its law enforcement responsibilities. Legislation concerning the basic power of DOJ passed in the House as well as Senate during the first sitting of the 107th Congress. The bill is presently under contemplation by conferees. In the past twenty years, Congress has been enlarging federal authority over crime control to regions once believed to be within the state and local jurisdiction (for instance., juvenile justice, in addition to gun control), and expanding federal assistance of state and local endeavors to fight crime (Reid, 2011). It enacted three omnibus crime control bills from 1984. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P. L. 98-473) refurbished the federal sentencing scheme and modified bail and penalty procedures, in addition to other federal practices. The Crime Control Act of 1990 (P. L. 101-647) codified a Crime Victims Bill of Rights in the federal justice system and directed the U. S. Sentencing Commission to adjust certain sentencing principles. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P. L. 103-322) authorized funding for law enforcement along with crime avoidance measures including escalating the number of crimes carrying a punishment of death and creating a three-strikes stipulation for cruel offenders. Since the ratification of the last main crime control bill, several bills have developed to further tackle crime and criminal fairness issues. Renewed debate and deliberation on the unenacted suggestions related to police efforts is expected to happen in the second sitting of the 107th Congress (Lab, 2010). The House settled on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, H. R. 5005, ahead of the summer break on July 26, 2002. The Senate is at this time considering the measure. Congress recommenced the progression of making a plan to reauthorize the subdivision of Justice in February 2002 and freshly on May 1, 2002. Conferees are at present working to determine distinctions on H. R. 2215. The Senate enacted, with modifications, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act in 2001. The House had enacted its adaptation on July 23, 2001 (H. R. 2215) (Mcleod, 2008). Both bills would authorize FY2002 appropriations for DOJ, reauthorize the divisions authority to perform its mission, and necessitate new reporting obligations for the Department. The House considered and enacted the Two Strikes and Youre Out Child Protection Act in 2002. The bill would create room for obligatory life imprisonment of an individual condemned in which a minor was the casualty, unless capital punishment is imposed. In reaction to the September 11 bombing attacks, Congress enacted applicable anti-terrorist and homeland security law in the opening session of the 107th Congress, which granted the FBI suppleness to investigate supposed terrorists via the USA Patriot Act (P. L. 107-56; October 26, 2001) (Ismail, 2010). Before the terrorist assaults, DOJ, together with the FBI, was in the course of developing a scheme for reorganizing; the bombing attacks brought a sense of importance to DOJ along with the FBI to restructure in order for organizations to be more effectual with fighting terrorism. Policy Transfer presents a new and fundamental addition to the increasing body of work on the disciplinary turn in criminal justice policy in the progressed industrialized societies and, in specific, the United States. Up till now, much of this work has either concentrated on the United States alone or looked at the matter as one of international neo-liberalism, of which the United States is simply the most tremendous example (Jones & Newburn, 2007). Jones and Newburn center on two countries that share idiom and history, along with proximity in their clinch of neo-liberal governmental approach: the United States and the United Kingdom. Therefore, they follow the lead of David Garlands (2001) study of what he referred to as the culture of control. But, unlike Garland, who affixed his explanation of punitiveness in a universal cultural familiarity of high crime societies, Jones and Newburn center on the function of actors, organizations and agency commonly in the stream of crime-control policies from America to the UK. They do not rebuff the hypothesis that there may be a universal cultural experience following these tendencies, but they endeavor to statistically test how much of nearness in US and UK policies can be elucidated by intentional attempts to broaden or follow the US model. Hence, they are relatively reliable with Garlands latest argument that discrepancies between Europe and America may replicate agency and organizations more than profound cultural differences (Garland, 2001). The most significant contribution of Policy Transfer is to bring a rigorous model of policy transfer from the political science literature to bear on the issue of crime control policy. Conclusion In conclusion, the American criminal justice system along with its relevant crime control policies is undertaken at the federal, state and local levels. In essence, the judicial system represents the epitome of the entire crime control mechanisms through the role of government and congress is noteworthy. Binding policies of crime management in the United States must be enacted by the congress. In America’s history, the congress has taken responsibility in enacting required crime management and reaction laws when required. Terrorism has been a major crime challenge to the United States that necessitated the cooperation of government, congress and criminal justice system. The paper has underscored the role of the criminal justice system in crime control and the broader parameters affecting the development and implantation of crime control polices in the United States. The report exposed the fact that the American criminal justice system is comprehensive and involves several institutions, practices and mechanism through which crime management is achieved. Significantly, the paper exemplified the defining role of security departments in the US government, states and local entities. References Blomberg, T. (2010). Crime Control Policy: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide. Washington: Oxford University Press. Braswell et al. (2011). Justice, Crime, and Ethics. New York: Elsevier. Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Washington: Oxford University Press. Greenwood, P. & Zimring, F. (2007). Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ismail, K. (2010). The American System of Criminal Justice. Washington: Cengage Learning. Ismail, k. (2010). U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader. Washington: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Jones, T. & Newburn, T. (2007). Policy Transfer and Criminal Justice: Exploring US Influence over British Crime Control Policy. Washington: Maidenhead Open University Press. Lab, S. (2010). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices and Evaluations. New York: Elsevier. Mcleod, A. (2008). Exporting U.S. Criminal Justice: Crime, Development, and Empire after the Cold War. London: ProQuest. Reid, S. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. Washington: John Wiley & Sons. Tonry, M. (2006). Thinking about Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture. London: Oxford University Press. Woods, A. (2008). Crime Prevention. New York: BiblioBazaar. Read More