Category: Criminal Justice

In the given reality, strong police-community connections are essential for efficiently functioning law enforcement. Despite the fact that the topic of misunderstanding and discrimination of minority communities by the police, only a fraction of attention is given to the discrimination and misunderstanding of the Islamic culture. It is crucial since anti-Islamic sentiment has been increasing in northern America since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and ongoing Middle Eastern crises have resulted in an influx of Muslim migrants in the United States. Consequently, it has led to an immensely diverse community, which makes it especially vital to explore further the communication between the Muslim community and justice system professionals.

When it comes to the misunderstanding Islamic community, numerous cultural markers are influenced by preconceptions presented in movies, television, music, and other forms of social media. These prejudices generate misleading narratives, which are frequently utilized against specific demographics in order to further an agenda (Robles, 2017). For example, the Muslim community has been at the forefront of anti-terrorism discourse since the criminals of numerous terrorist incidents were identified as Muslim (Robles, 2017). Muslims are portrayed as conservative people, and the Islamic faith is connected with religious fanaticism (Robles, 2017). When representatives of this culture are featured in major criminal television series, they are generally associated with terrorist acts. The negative perceptions related to the Muslim community foster mistrust of the Islamic faith and its adherents, which is mostly known as islamophobia.

As for the evident examples of misunderstanding on both sides, it is noteworthy that criminal profiling plays a vital role. Criminal profiling is a kind of discrimination that may involve variables such as nationality, cultural belonging, and appearance (Robles, 2017). After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the criminal justice system examined possible terrorist activity at the national, regional, and municipal levels (Robles, 2017). In order to improve security, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began changing its profiling procedures and began questioning Arab and Muslim-looking people at airport terminals (Robles, 2017). Thus, due to religion and beliefs, as well as language, there was an increase in misunderstandings between criminal justice professionals and people of the Islamic community, which had an impact on interactions between the groups later.

Consequently, communication between criminal justice representatives and Muslim Americans throughout this decade has left an indelible mark on understanding between both parties. According to the Vera Institute of Justices 2006 assessment of the connections between Arab Americans and criminal justice professionals following 9/11, most Muslim people are concerned about not so evident issues. For instance, the community is afraid of racial profiling, border security, and anti-terrorism tactics more than violent racist acts in their community (Robles, 2017). Although some Muslim Americans got increasingly involved in advocacy organizations following 9/11, a 2006 study revealed that alienation and departure from the Islamic community rose.

Thus, there is a need to incorporate specific practices that can help eliminate the barrier between the two parties. For example, the first practice is understanding the public, which implies comprehending the current conditions of the community and its constituents.

• By acknowledging the issues and putting the communitys interests first, the law enforcement officers will allow the citizens to feel safer and nurture trust between both parties.

Diversity training implies instilling diversity awareness among the justice system employees, which later has an immense effect not only in this field but on the public.

• The practice assists public and justice system professionals in critically examining preconceptions and cultural stereotypes frequently accepted by the public and criminal justice professionals.

Procedural justice implies the way the justice system professionals interact with the community and how these interactions influence the relationships between two parties.

• Since procedural justice refers to fairness in actions, instituting it will make it possible to eliminate unjust arrests and racial profiling. This way, the representatives of minority cultures will feel safer.

Police legitimacy implies the extent to which the justice system professionals can utilize their power and authority.

• The benefit of incorporating such practice will include further training that might help the officers comprehend the influence of possible hostility on community relations. The efforts of justice system professionals to instill social order might result in better mutual understanding.

Diverse hiring practices are one of the most critical steps to ensuring that the criminal justice system is entirely qualified to serve the public. It implies expanding departments and hiring individuals from various cultural, racial, or other backgrounds. There are several benefits of instituting the given practice:

• Diverse hiring practices can facilitate trust in the justice system professionals from minority communities.
• Moreover, diverse hiring practices can lower the discriminatory and misunderstanding tendencies of law enforcement professionals.

Hence, the issue of misunderstanding between the Islamic community and justice system professionals has been acute since the 9/11 attack. Such events led not only the public but law enforcement agencies to create certain biases toward this culture. For example, racial profiling still plays a vital role in the misunderstanding between both parties. Consequently, a series of practices need to be established in order to restore trust and a sense of safety.

Reference

Robles, J. (2017). Islam is the new black: Muslim perceptions of law enforcement. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 13(1), 82-92.

Public administration plays a pivotal role in serving all the citizens in an equitable and honest manner, specifically the criminal justice workers, such as law enforcement officers, correction officers, and judges. They are highly responsible for facilitating efficient crime control measures, implementing innovative advanced policies, and encouraging a relationship of mutual trust amongst the community and public administration personnel (Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J., & Blanc, 2013). The public administration of criminal justice in the United States is implemented through coercive state action. In general, government provision of criminal justice services includes the regulation over the individual civil liberties. Therefore, every action carried out by police, courts, and corrections officials has significant implications for society as a whole (Brunet, 2015, p. 166). The main argument implies that the criminal justice function is managed lawfully and equitably; however, such biased state action poses a critical issue regarding the public administration and its impact on the civilized population.

Question of the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System

The contrasting perception of the criminal justice system refers to the prejudiced actions and disparate influences promoted by the state. From the micro-level perspective, individuals can be wrongfully accused of crimes, exposed to excessive use of force, or even unjustly rejected immediate release from prison (Brunet, 2015). Nevertheless, individuals are not the sole victims of the existing public administration system. The criminal justice function is also destructive at the macro-level basis, given that the subgroups of the particular population can be subjected to dissimilar and discriminatory treatment. For instance, the minority class members, including racial, ethnic, or economic class, are denied due procedural protections that are usually accessible to the majority (Brunet, 2015, p. 170). Hence, such a public legislative structure undermines the core principle of the American jurisprudential system: a belief in justice for all. It also raises the question of legitimacy regarding the criminal justice system or the state itself.

Purpose: Establishing Social Equity

In order to address the key societal issues regarding public administration within the criminal justice field, it is crucial to understand the importance of fair exercising of the authority by all the justice system parties. Criminal justice administrators are accountable for creating the organizational process and desired outcomes, and, therefore, they must recognize and examine the social equity issues encountering their agencies. The modern criminal justice system reveals the unfair treatment and unequal consequences at different points of its function and encompasses various issues, including racial profiling and drug sentencing (Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J., & Blanc, 2013). The primary task for the administrators is to explore data about the nature and extent of inequities. With that said, the main purpose of this research is based on determining the critical measures that can be applied to monitor progress in attaining social equity in the existing criminal justice system.

In recent years, public administration significantly contributed to developing a more equitable, fairer country and justice. As such, social equity became a central focus within public administration performance with an attendant set of concepts and an abundance of shared values. According to Brunet (2015), the initial components of social equity are based on the view that justice, fairness, and equality are inherent to the work of public administration. Public administrators are first and foremost responsible for the implementation of established laws. With that said, administrators are perceived as law in action and are required to interpret the particular law and discretion in its application. The public institutions in the United States serve as the settings wherein elected leaders work in the system of democratic self-government and deal with issues of fairness, justice, and equality (Brunet, 2015). However, since public administration carries out the laws and policies, it is also accountable for addressing the issues of fairness, justice, and equality.

It should be noted that the development of social equity in public administration in the early stages was the sole approach to comprehending this concept and obtaining improved outcomes. The other fields, disciplines, and bodies of professional practice entered the examination and implementation of social equity only recently. In more general terms, the concept of social equity in public administration is based on race and gender issues in terms of employment, democratic participation, and service delivery (Frederickson, 2015). Social equity turned into an added ethic in public administration and eventually became the third pillar of this system. The ethical and equitable treatment of the general public by administrators should be on the frontline of major problems in public agencies. This involves a critical reinforcement by changing public attitudes, recreating government movement and civil rights laws, forming new public administration aligned with social equity standards.

Fundamental Problems within Public Administration

With the rapid growth of modern societies and a dramatic increase in the global population, the public administration system faces developing issues and challenges. Such concerns promote the critical discussion that explores whether public administration explicitly addresses all the significant problems. In terms of the growing demand and scarce resources in the modern world, government policys performance poses a major concern for the governments to deal with in the forthcoming decades (Frederickson, 2015). The urgent solutions should derive from unconventional sources and base on divergent thinking. Vaz (2016) analyzed the underlying problems within public administration that affect the public policy arena, as well as continually increasing and changing populations. The key issues include government corruption, the rise of new technologies, citizen participation, and racial discrimination. The last two points are inherently connected to the social challenges within public administration.

Citizen Participation

Participation in a democracy is a complex issue, considering the rise of empathy toward elections that seem falsified. Citizen involvement, in particular, is responsible for achieving more diversity in government and foster social equity in decision-making. Furthermore, Vaz (2016) suggests that it is far more crucial to listen to the public rather than talking down to citizens. It is important to note that public administrators play a significant role in drawing attention to the complex concerns of the public. They manage to implement this with the help of public meetings that facilitate discussions. In addition, public administrators can delegate research and policy recommendations to a local body closely related to the specific issue and then meet to find solutions and decisions based upon the recommendations of that body. Hence, citizen involvement greatly contributes to the public managers work regarding their effective decision-making strategies in the best interest of their constituents.

Racial Discrimination

The issues of racial and class inequality and injustice are highly evident and serve as the subject of open anger, indignation, outrage, and passion. It is a persistent problem within the ever-growing population in modern societies. Governments, in turn, must improve and optimize their policies to prevent prejudice and subtle discrimination. Major conflicts in nations are commonly based on increased demand for democratic representation or a more refined understanding of the democratic process in culturally and ethnically divided states. Therefore, public administration should deal with such critical issues through the conception of democracy regarded as a spectrum (Vaz, 2016). Public administrators are committed to protecting minorities from abuse by others, which represents law enforcement.

Considering this, agencies should incorporate the appropriate training methods and eliminate the techniques that promote harmful implicit bias toward minorities. Public administration is also responsible for addressing unequal wealth distribution in the United States, concerning that some legislators prefer economic policies that benefit the wealthy part of society. For example, the United States tax policies imply that the most affluent American residents pay the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes. Thus, public administrators can engage the government and advocate for minority groups by dealing with these issues with agency leaders. By examining the potential problems in public administration, it is possible to improve the efficacy of public administrators in delivering innovative approaches to significant issues in the public policy arena.

Politics and Administration Distinction

One of the main issues regarding existing public administration functions within the criminal justice field is that it is crucial to differentiate between politics (policy) and administration. To be more specific, administration questions and challenges are not political issues. As described by Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J. & Blanc (2013), this led to establishing the governmental forms, such as the council-manager plan for local government that implied the separation of policy and administration. However, these two concepts are also considered as closely intertwined. Professional sectors within the public field usually address and share the broad regulation of improving the quality of life for residents of a particular community. From this perspective, public administration and politics are perceived as complementary areas.

Restorative Justice

One of the crucial societal issues implies that many American citizens lost their confidence and trust in public administrators, namely the law enforcement officers. This can be explained by the enormous increase in corruption and inequality that directly disturbs the system. As a result, many people choose not to report the crime because they mistrust law enforcement officers responsible for dealing with community issues. Moreover, some also believe that law enforcement ignores this responsibility of serving and protecting society owing to the high levels of crime in many low-income communities. As described by Wilson-Davis (n. d.), such public perspective and the current news and media exposure of law enforcements abuse and corruption significantly jeopardized the community-focused procedure of crime control. However, the group effort is key to successful crime control and, therefore, requires the coherent ongoing teamwork and a collaborative process including the community members and law enforcement personnel.

Neubauer determines the central concept known as restorative justice, which is grounded in three critical components. The first component regards crime as a conflict between individuals resulting in injuries to victims, the community, and the offender. The second component represents the main objective of the criminal justice system, which is restoring these injuries. With that said, advocating for peace and reconciling parties is far more critical than the punishment of those responsible. Finally, the third key component of restorative justice is based on the shared involvement of victims, offenders, and the community (Wilson-Davis, n. d, para. 5). Such a strategy incorporates an open-door policy within the current criminal justice order and enables healthier and safer communities.

Methods

Addressing the crime situation in the United States goes beyond the criminal justice system and law enforcement. This subject is closely related to the community and its response to the current position within the criminal justice functioning. This involves business leaders, community activists, and even the citizens. The researchers propose using the specific programs, including citizen patrols and community-oriented policing/prosecution methods that are efficient in solving social issues in the neighborhood and curbing crime (Wilson-Davis, n. d, para. 4). Furthermore, the fundamental strategy for emphasizing the role of public administration and solving the social equity within the criminal justice field implies coordinated community involvement with law enforcement and other public administrators (commissioners and mayors). This strategy helps considerably promoting efficient crime control actions, reinforcing new policies, and maintaining a more trusting relationship between two sides, including civil citizens and public administration.

Impediments to Social Equity Measurement in the Criminal Justice

The crucial barriers to establishing social equity within the current social justice system are based on several important factors. In general, this includes the fragmented nature of the American criminal justice system, insufficient data, and limitations in statistical analysis. In addition, organizational dynamics also play a leading role in impeding efforts in measuring social equity. The definitional and operational ambiguity and lack of benchmarks for comparison affect the slow implementation of social equity metrics as well. The establishment of responsibility for social equity measurement is complicated by the presence of a significant number of different actors involved in the criminal justice system.

There is also a lack of data on the socioeconomic status of victims and criminal defendants. Brunet (2015) states that there is a higher level of criminal incidents among certain demographic groups, which highlights the issue of disparity provoked by legitimate factors. Also, a vast amount of such disparities is reported within racial bias, prior criminal history, policing practices, and sentencing legislation (Brunet, 2015, p. 176). This, most probably, forms the most complex barrier that needs to be overcome. Apart from this, it is crucial to establish intensive organizational development work to pursue social equity, including a strong mission statement to comprehend the importance of such measures. More specifically, one can achieve an efficient measuring and reporting of the desired progress concerning social equity only after encompassing this concepts idea.

Conclusion

Considering that politics refers to the majority rule, the main task of public administration should be oriented at the interests of minorities and the poor. The current reforms and innovative strategies must meet the issue of social inequity in the criminal justice system and need to defend this proposition. The pattern of social equity, as well as inequality, plays a fundamental role in different fields of public policy, including criminal justice. Such an issue evolved from a single argument concerning fair administration problems and justice to the more complex consideration of the relevance and involvement of the subject. However, it is still a new concept that needs to be defined and supported by the appropriate guidance on its measuring. Understanding the role of social equity expands to the economic and political fields. To conclude, there is an urgent need to focus on social equity issues in public administration so that the general public can be better aware of the consequences of discrimination and poverty on Americans lives.

References

Brunet, J. R. (2015). Social equity in criminal justice. In N. J. Johnson & J. H. Svara (Eds.), Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration: Promoting social equity in public administration (7^th ed., pp. 165186). Routledge.

Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Blanc, T. A. (2013). Public administration: An action orientation. Cengage Learning.

Frederickson, H. G. (2015). Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments, and applications. Routledge.

Vaz, A. R. (2016). Significant issues within public administration. PATimes. Web.

Wilson-Davis, T. (n. d.). Expanding the role of public administration: The open-door policy in criminal justice. PATimes. Web.

The criminal justice process is a complicated and delicate procedure, where the need for criminal justice practitioners cannot be underestimated. Practitioners have a specific role in the justice system; they function within federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Their responsibilities differ depending on the subsystem assignment, and they can function along with other specialties to solve and prevent horrid crimes. There are several key social issues, which contribute to the need for criminal justice practitioners, which include substance abuse, violence against women, and cybercrimes.

The first critical social issue is the substance abuse and crime cycle, a direct product of substance abuse. In some cases, arrested people tend to showcase immediate signs of substance abuse. However, around 60 percent of detained people test positively for drugs. In 2016, nearly 45% of the prison population was there for substance-related offenses, and 65% of the prison population had an active substance use disorder (Asquith et al., 2016). The situation did not change much for almost four years, and substance abuse is still a dynamic problem worldwide. Drug crimes are the majority of work for criminal justice practitioners because drugs and other substances are responsible for a plurality of other offenses. Many criminal justice professionals have dedicated their lives to fight substance abuse and drug dealing by using more effective laws and policies.

The second issue is violence against women, which is a very sharp social issue in the modern world. According to the official statistics, about 1.3 million women suffer from intimate partner violence each year, and one out of three women have experienced this type of abuse (Korkodeilou, 2016). Globally, a third of women murders are committed by their intimate partner (Korkodeilou, 2016). Criminal justice practitioners can prevent such fate because they offer mental and financial support to intimate partner violence victims. Moreover, there is some evidence that home visitation is reducing this kind of abuse significantly.

Stalking is another major problem related to violence against women, a form of harassment when women receive unwanted attention from another person. According to statistics, 8% of women have experienced stalking at some point in their lives (Korkodeilou, 2016). Stalking is an example of dangerous social behavior that directly threatens ones life because most of the stalking results in physical or sexual violence. Criminal justice practitioners usually help the victims of stalking mentally and conduct further investigation into the case. The United States is ranked as the worst country with human trafficking that originated from stalking, and that is why women should be protected better by law.

Another critical issue, which criminal justice practitioners help to fight is cybercrime. It includes data breaches, cyberbullying (which is a form of ongoing harassment), identity theft, extortion (Jones & Bonner, 2016). Cybercrime became extremely dangerous when the internet appeared, which is why the criminal justice system tries to focus on it more as of recent years. Criminal justice practitioners help gather crucial information and evidence concerning cybercriminal, and they bring those dangerous people to justice.

To conclude, the criminal justice process can be a delicate procedure, so the need for criminal justice practitioners cannot be undermined. Practitioners have a rather specific role in the justice system because they function within three subsystems. There are several key issues that they have to address first. One is substance abuse, which is the root cause of the majority of other crimes. The second problem is violence against women, whether it is intimate partner violence or stalking. The third fundamental problem is cybercrime, where practitioners tend to gather crucial information and bring cybercriminals to justice.

References

Asquith, N. L., Bartkowiak-Theron, I., & Roberts, K. (2016). Vulnerability and the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 2(3), 161-163. Web.

Jones, M. & Bonner, H.S. (2016) What Should Criminal Justice Interns Know? Comparing the Opinions of Student Interns and Criminal Justice Practitioners. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(3), 381-409, Web.

Korkodeilou, J. (2016). Stalking victims, victims of sexual violence and criminal justice system responses: is there a difference or just Business as usual? The British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 256273. Web.

The topic selected is impact of sentencing guidelines on the criminal justice system. Several reforms have been introduced into the criminal justice system to make it better. It is always essential to analyze them so as determine whether they have been effective in reducing crime or in handling any of the other functions of the criminal justice system.

Sentencing guidelines have been introduced in various federal states for several reasons. Some stem from growing concerns by the public that crime is getting out of control. Legislators, therefore, impose mandatory sentencing in the hope of reducing these tendencies. On the other hand, criminal courts have been criticized for differential sentencing so policymakers have responded to these complaints by passing sentencing guidelines to curb those disparities (Candace, 2010). It is also possible that any sentencing guideline may create both foreseen and unforeseen effects. For example, some may lead to more effective policing, less disparate sentences, and more effective correctional functions. These guidelines may also have indirect effects such as a declining or increasing prison population, fewer racial biases, and the like. Researches need to look at these effects to place the matter in context. It should be noted that sentencing guidelines can either be implemented through a sentencing commission (which gives highly prescriptive guides) or through judges who give the presumptive and highly descriptive guidelines. However, these latter guidelines are rarely implemented as they are only voluntary. Most guidelines are also affected by the laws in operation within a certain federal state. About this topic, it may become necessary to think about the prison facilities and their capacity too.

This topic is particularly relevant to the criminal justice system because not only does it determine whether a certain policy is effective in achieving deterrence, it also looks at its effect on several arms of the criminal justice system. Deterrence has always been a major aim of the system. Sentencing is directly related to deterrence because if a sentence incarcerates an individual effectively then that person may be persuaded to keep away from crime. However, if the sentence is too lenient or is given wrongfully, then offenders are likely to go back to criminal activities. The effectiveness of sentencing guidelines should therefore be studied to improve the criminal justice system. This topic can also provide a lens against which to judge how policies in criminal justice are translated.

The police as part of the criminal justice systems core competencies are affected adversely by sentencing guidelines because they are the ones who capture and charge criminals. They have the prerogative of determining the seriousness of crimes and their relation to sentencing outcomes. Since the arrested criminals will be charged in a court that utilizes sentencing guidelines then the police have had to be neutral in their arrests. Cases of racism have declined in states that have implemented these minimum sentences among the police (Travis, 1996). Police arrests have also become more uniform. One of the most heavily affected institutions is the court system. Judges usually have a range of alternatives to choose from when deciding how to punish criminals and this leads to a lack of uniformity in sentencing decisions with some of them being more lenient than others. Sentencing guidelines, therefore, tend to curb these discrepancies and eventually lead to predictable decision-making in the courts. Also, appellate cases have increased as criminals decide to use plea bargaining. In terms of the correctional agencies, sentencing guidelines have affected prison populations because most of them are passed to limit prison populations (Marvell, 1995). Prison capacities are often considered before the passage of sentencing guidelines in a federal state.

References

Marvell, T. (1995). Sentencing guidelines and prison population growth. Criminal law and criminology journal, 85(3), 25.

Candace, M. (2010). Sentencing: mandatory and mandatory minimum sentences. Web.

Travis, J. (1996). Impact of sentencing guidelines. Washington DC: NIJ report, NCJ 161840.

Cuddy, A. (2020). George Floyd: Five pieces of context to understand the protests. BBC News, Web.

The article reproduces a brief description of the George Floyd case and elements in the context of understanding the protests that followed it. George Floyd, 46, was arrested May 25 in Minneapolis on charges of using counterfeit money to buy a pack of cigarettes. He died after being strangled by a white police officer for nearly 9 minutes, while Floyd was pleading that he could not breathe. The policeman, 44-year-old Derek Choven, was charged with murder and fired from the police station. Cuddy (2020) identifies the problem of police violence and an unfair justice system among the elements in the context of understanding the followed protests. The author leads many high-profile cases in which African Americans were killed by US law enforcement officials who were not found guilty of a felony.

This piece is useful as one of the sources for understanding and further investigating the problem of the inequity of the criminal justice system. The author gives statistics to support that white Americans experience is different from African Americans practice when it comes to order and law. The article quotes former US President Barack Obama that the protests over Floyds death represent a legitimate and genuine disappointment over years of failure to reform the criminal justice system and police practice.

George Floyd: 10 things that have changed since his death (2020). BBC News, Web.

This article describes who and how the George Floyd case affected. In particular, it has had an effect on almost all the inhabitants of the world. In addition to the fact that demonstrations of the Black Lives Matter movement took place in all states of the United States, they also passed in cities of 50 countries. It even led to riots and the fact that people demolished statues and monuments to people in any way associated with slavery in the UK and the United States. The article reveals that many of the worlds largest brands have announced their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. At the same time, other companies and people have faced criticism. The case also affected the police department, which banned chokeholds and neck braces, and police raids known as restraining orders. Apart from it, the authors describe other influences on modern society.

This article will help in exploring who affects the George Floyd case. It describes in detail all the changes that have occurred in the world since his assassination. An increased number of people are talking about discrimination and everyday racism they face. The article reveals that an entire society is becoming racially sensitive: inappropriate characters are removed from films and TV shows, and streets are renamed in honor of the Black Lives Matter movement. At the same time, those who make a mistake in the slightest way in this matter are criticized.

Kwan, J. (2020). Killed by the police: The illegitimacy of the United States and the legitimacy of protests. Santa Clara University, Web.

The article describes Kwans view that the deaths of George Floyd, Tony McDade, and Breonna Taylor are the latest examples of state-sanctioned police brutality against African Americans. Kwan (2020) also considers this issue in the ethical context of the difference between the values of legality and fairness. The author gives an example of what would happen if the tax system were moderately fair and concludes that the former makes special and weaker requirements than the latter. However, he proposes the thesis that the protection of human rights, such as the right to life, is the minimum necessary for both legality and justice. The author speaks of the structural, institutionalized racism ingrained in the United States police force and, more broadly, in its criminal justice system.

This article is useful for exploring the inequity of the criminal justice system problem by addressing issues of equality of law and justice. It helps to understand ethical considerations to support the decision that George Floyds killer was punished. Kwan (2020) describes the severe and underestimated consequences of the United States illegality, among which he distinguishes protests, riots, and looting. This article characterizes a significant part of the ethical force behind the George Floyd protests, which consist of a rethinking society without injustice that has been taken for too long.

Madubuko, O. P., Allison, B. E., & Sneed, I. L. (2020). New York State police and criminal justice reforms enacted following George Floyds death. The National Law Review, X(176), 1-5. Web.

Madubuko et al. (2020) present the impact of George Floyds death in legislative reform around issues of criminal justice, police brutality, race relations, and social equity in the United States. In particular, the authors provide a brief overview of 12 bills, 10 of which were passed by two houses and were signed by Governor Cuomo. In addition, they describe an Executive Order that was consistent with the police reform package, and a separate order that recognized June 19 as a public holiday. Their provisions include the repeal of the section of the Civil Rights Law, according to which police officers personal records are unverified and confidential. Moreover, it changes the qualification of aggravated strangulation as a class C felony. It provides civil penalties when any person who intentionally calls the police for no reason due to perceptions or beliefs regarding race, origin, gender, religious practice. In addition, the Office of Special Investigations must issue a public report on each incident. The piece includes apart from it, the other statutory provisions.

This article serves as a splendid guide for researchers of the criminal justice system problem and how it affects police officers and citizens. The authors provide a concise and straightforward overview of New York State decrees and laws regarding legislative reform on criminal justice, police brutality, race, and social justice. This piece gives essential information for those interested in the George Floyd cases outcome in terms of the legislative changes that followed it.

Tyler, R., & Luban, S. A., Q&A with Driscoll, S. (2020). Police use of force, training, and a way forward after the death of George Floyd. Stanford Law School, Web.

In this article, Tyler and Luban (2020) discuss in detail the Floyd case, in particular, the indictment of Derek Chauvin, and the ways it relates to training police officers. In addition, the authors propose solutions for further development. They highlight a severe flaw in officers training, expressed in philosophy, according to which the necessary degree of use of force is the amount of effort to force the subject to obey. They also describe another important risk that the police have the right to use power to punish a person for resistance. Tyler and Luben (2020) propose, as a further solution, the elimination of biased officials. The article provides statistics confirming police actions excessive speed against African Americans and the racially imbalanced police force.

This article provides the ways in which the Floyd case concerns police officers. The authors propose to change the philosophy of the necessary degree of use of force. In addition, they support the need to increase police departments transparency, and unions and transfer control to an independent civilian object for better governance. Police authorities and local district attorneys have conflicts of interest that prevent them from conducting fair inquiries and punishing their employees.

References

Cuddy, A. (2020). George Floyd: Five pieces of context to understand the protests. BBC News, Web.

George Floyd: 10 things that have changed since his death (2020). BBC News, Web.

Kwan, J. (2020). Killed by the police: The illegitimacy of the United States and the legitimacy of protests. Santa Clara University, Web.

Madubuko, O. P., Allison, B. E., & Sneed, I. L. (2020). New York State police and criminal justice reforms enacted following George Floyds death. The National Law Review, X(176), 1-5. Web.

Tyler, R., & Luban, S. A., Q&A with Driscoll, S. (2020). Police use of force, training, and a way forward after the death of George Floyd. Stanford Law School, Web.

Introduction

The American Constitution outlines the rights of all citizens. Some unique rights are also available to those in criminal justice systems. However, sometimes violations of such liberties occur. Lies in criminal cases can affect the outcome of cases. Law enforcers need to protect and promote peoples rights. This paper seeks to examine these issues in detail.

The Constitution outlines various rights and freedoms that are available to all citizens. The criminal justice system goes further to present unique liberties that legal experts and law enforcement officers should be aware of. This knowledge will discourage them from providing false information throughout the process while upholding the rights of convicted persons. Failure to do so means that some of the individuals will encounter various challenges or be unable to get justice. This paper analyzes and discusses these issues and why they matter for any countrys criminal justice system.

Constitutional Rights

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution outlines the rights of convicts. They are entitled to a speedy and fair trial. The jury involved in every case should be impartial. Citizens should be aware of the pronounced evidence and charges. The repaper of an attorney is necessary. Convicts are allowed to have an attorney and call witnesses.

The American Constitution provides many rights that are available to all people going through the criminal justice process. Such individuals should get a fair and speedy trial from a competent jury. Every convicted person needs to be aware of the charges pronounced against him or her and the evidence gathered (Mayeux, 2018). The right to an attorney is liberty that experts should not ignore. Such people will be allowed to call in witnesses to strengthen their defense.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

Sometimes peoples Constitutional rights are violated throughout the criminal process. The affected individual will need to file a claim. The state judge will be required to hear the case (Mayeux, 2018). Valid claims can result in the termination of the pronounced charge. Individuals are empowered under the Constitution to sue public officials or agencies. Monetary damages and compensations can be awarded.

The Constitution is designed in such a way that convicts who believe that their rights have been violated will have to file their claims. The judge in charge will have to hear the case and make the relevant determinations. When such claims are found to be valid, the expert might decide to terminate the case (Copp & Bales, 2018). Victims can go further to sue the offender and seek the relevant monetary compensation.

Role of Law Enforcement

Law enforcement officers and agencies need to protect citizens liberties. In the criminal justice system, violation of personal rights can result in more problems. Officers need to consult their job descriptions and follow the Constitution. Such professionals should pursue the implemented codes of conduct (Mayeux, 2018). Continuous training and refresher courses will discourage various malpractices. The move to support convicts throughout the justice process can reduce such violations.

Sometimes law enforcement agencies and officials might engage in activities that result in the violation of convicts Constitutional rights. This occurrence might trigger additional challenges for both the professionals and the targeted citizens. Officers and their leaders need to describe the major obligations under the Constitution. A renewed focus on the established code of conduct will deliver timely results (Mayeux, 2018). The concepts of continuous training and citizen empowerment will reduce the chances of violations and take more people closer to their goals.

When Police Officers and Investigators Lie

Cases of deceit and perjury are common in courts. Some officers might decide to lie in court (Copp & Bales, 2018). They might engage in such malpractice to safeguard their interests. Some might be acting out of stereotypes. The occurrence of such malpractices can affect the entire process. Proper mechanisms are missing to detect lies.

In most cases, investigators and police officers present accurate information in courts to streamline the criminal justice process. Unfortunately, some experts might choose to lie based on several factors, such as prejudice, stereotypes, and hatred. Such malpractices usually have the potential to disorient the entire process (Copp & Bales, 2018). The country has also failed to implement powerful mechanisms that can ensure that the system can detect any lie throughout the criminal justice process.

Effect on Cases

Lies can have disastrous implications on criminal cases. Judges will rely on the presented information. The final determination might affect victims experiences. Some people might be imprisoned unfairly. Others might be forced to serve longer jail sentences. Such issues will affect the integrity of the process and the lives of the affected individuals.

This paper has revealed that some professionals in the criminal justice system might lie in courts. Since judges and juries rely on the presented information, the chances of making wrong convictions increase significantly. The possible outcome is that the convicted person might not get a befitting judgment. The situation worsens when the individual is unable to present a strong or convincing defense. In conclusion, these challenges explain why officers and experts in criminal justice systems should embrace the notions of integrity and professionalism to ensure that all people receive fair judgments.

References

Copp, J. E., & Bales, W. D. (2018). Jails and local justice system reform: Overview and recommendations. The Future of Children, 28(1), 103-124. Web.

Mayeux, S. (2018). The idea of the criminal justice system. American Journal of Criminal Law, 45(1), 55-93. Web.

Terrorism is a significant security and safety threat in the United States and across the globe. The United States has experienced both domestic and international terrorist attacks in the recent past. In America, left-wing, militia groups, and right-wing extremists promote domestic terrorism (Hess et al., 2017). Other examples of domestic terrorists are black and white supremacists, pro-life, and environmental extremists. International terrorists such as HAMAS, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah also threaten American security. According to Lansford (2018), religious, social system, policy, and political dissatisfaction inspire terrorist groups to engage in their operations. The most memorable international terrorist act within the American borders was the September 11, 2001 attack. Domestic terrorism is worse than international extremism because, in the case of the former, the enemies are within America and enjoy the same constitutional rights as other citizens.

Domestic terrorism is a constantly evolving and severe threat due to various motivations. Violent extremists disguised as promoters of rights of various ethnic or marginalized groups create networks that can inspire the spread of vehement actions (Hess et al., 2017). They can easily recruit naive people to join their course of action in pursuit of their selfish interests. Domestic extremists sometimes concentrate on violent activities toward a specific population segment, such as people of color, women, Muslims, or immigrants. As a result, this insistence on violence can be more or less explicit, embedded in philosophies that create a superior perception of the white race. Unlike international terrorists, who may be easy to trace and monitor, domestic extremists may be challenging to arrest due to their association with certain ethnicities that can spread violence based on dishonest racial reasons.

Additionally, anti-government extremists pose a significant threat to American society and its leadership. According to Lansford (2018), self-proclaimed militia groups take bold steps to resist government authority or policies, thus worsening the fight against domestic terrorists. For instance, some violent revolutionary extremists oppose nearly every form of corporate globalization, governing institution, and capitalism because they perceive them as detrimental to society. Such notions may be easily spread across regions and ethnic groups, escalating violent actions. The American Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms to every dissatisfied citizen to express his or her grievance peacefully. However, violent domestic terrorists capitalize on these situations to cause and spread chaos. It is often challenging to identify these terrorists, thus delaying their arrests and trials.

Domestic terrorists utilize various methods to pursue their self-centered goals. Firstly, they pretend to be patriotic people campaigning and fighting for the rights of the oppressed. Taylor (2019) argues that left-wing extremists often oppose capitalism policies to win the public appeal to perpetuate their hidden mission. Secondly, they create chaos and lawlessness and, most importantly, invite media personalities to record and report the incidences to use empathy to intimidate or coerce the government. Other domestic terrorists use violent attacks on innocent citizens, mainly using firearms, to justify their rebellion. According to Lansford (2018), right-wing extremists conducted most of the terrorist attacks in the United States, killing more persons than the Islamic terrorists since 2011. Therefore, the greatest threat of terrorism across America comes from within its borders.

Security agencies and the federal government can use various tactics and laws to combat domestic terrorism. For example, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and police should formulate an organizational structure that helps them work together. A partnership of these agencies will assist share information about domestic terrorists and develop appropriate techniques to arrest them (Taylor, 2019). They can also collaborate with the residents to enable them to report any suspicious persons or activities. In this regard, the USA Patriot Act represents the most practical policy to lessen domestic extremists. The federal government and security agencies need to organize community meetings regularly to educate citizens on their safety and various sections relating to terrorism laws. This increased engagement will nurture an exceptional working rapport between the residents and security agencies, thus inspiring the former to share any information relating to terrorism with the latter.

Moral and legal considerations act as vital obstacles despite the tremendous efforts to eliminate domestic terrorism. Legislators often make hurriedly crafted laws, which create loopholes in addressing local extremists. For instance, the USA Patriotic Act criminalizes sharing material support with any international terrorist group (Hess et al., 2017). While the prosecutors believe the Act also prohibits fundraising, propaganda, and forming extremist groups, these activities may raise legal battles under the first amendment in the domestic setting (Lansford, 2018). Further, Americans have civil and personal liberties to engage in peaceful picketing. It raises moral concerns when law enforcement officers arrest some domestic extremists disguised as peaceful protestors. It is often challenging to convince angry crowds, especially if they perceive such local terrorists as their chief campaigners for their rights.

Domestic extremists pose the most serious threat compared to international terrorists. Right-wing extremists, among other groups, live within the American borders and pretend to fight for the rights and liberties of their compatriots. In this way, they create empathy that they capitalize on to pursue their selfish political or economic motives, including causing lawlessness and chaos. There is a dire need to restructure the security agencies combating terrorism to ensure they can work as a team. Importantly, they should collaborate with residents in line with USA Patriot Act to get prompt and verifiable reports on any suspicious events or individuals. Indeed, regular engagements with the communities can help win their trust and loyalty, thus bridging the legal and moral gaps used by domestic terrorists to perpetuate their terrorist activities.

References

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2017). Criminal investigation (11^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Lansford, T. (2018). All for one: Terrorism, NATO and the United States. Routledge.

Taylor, H. (2019). Domestic terrorism and hate crimes: Legal definitions and media framing of mass shootings in the United States. Journal of Policing, Intelligence, and Counter Terrorism, 14(3), 227-244. Web.

Introduction

In this paper, I will summarize the documentary “The Kalief Browder Story,” which judges the community justice aspects within New York City. Kalief Browder was a 16-year-old who was accused of stealing a backpack. This high school student was imprisoned for three years, two of them in solitary confinement on Rikers Island, without being convicted of a crime. Kalief, throughout the process, refused to take a plea deal because he wanted to go to trial to prove his innocence. When you plead guilty, you lose the civil and constitutional rights that you had as a non-convicted felon, and you never get it back.

The Unjust Imprisonment of Kalief Browder

Kalief Browder was a 16-year-old boy who was wrongfully convicted in the city of New York in 2010. The officer who arrested Kalief was following up on a robbery that was reported over the weekend. The suspect was described as an African-American man. Kalief, however, was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Kalief was then sent to Riker’s island correctional facility, where he would await his conviction. Rikers Island, as many know, has a reputation for violence, abuse, and neglect of all inmates.

Kalief Browder, who was asked to plead guilty numerous times by his public defendant, refused to do so because he was an innocent man, and he believed the system would defend him. These young spend three years in the system, two out of the three years in solitary confinement. He was jumped by city gangs and mistreated, beaten, and starved by the facility’s correctional officers. Months after months, his trial was pushed back because the court was not ready.

The police didn’t do the proper investigation of this case from the moment he got arrested. This story classified all the issues of racism, corruption, and a criminal justice system that is simply not working. Browder was punished for implementing his constitutional right to a trial; he also was denied the right to a speedy trial because prosecutors repeatedly asked for postponements due to not having proper documentation or a witness. Yet no one advocated for his release during years of delay. His bail was set at $3,000, higher than his mother, or almost any family in the South Bronx, could afford.

I felt that there was so much that could’ve been done to prevent this young man from spending three years of his life in prison. “African Americans are only 13% of the American population, but a majority of innocent defendants are wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated” (Gross, 2017). Knowing that the officer that night didn’t care what they had to say makes me worry about our society. Being that I myself am from the Bronx, breaks my heart to see what the NYPD is doing, and it brings fear for my family that still lives there. We are a community and should look after each other, not hurt one another.

Conclusion

Kalief Browder wanted to make sure that his story was heard and hoped that he was going to make a difference in the criminal justice system. His suicide brought changes to Riker’s island and helped lead to a “$3 million settlement” (Weiser, 2019). His tragic death will always be a reminder that mental health should be taken more seriously and it should be provided to anyone. Although he wasn’t able to enjoy his settlement, he at least was able to help his brother and sister.

References

1. Gross, S. R. (2017). Race and wrongful convictions in the United States. In Routledge Handbook of Criminal Justice Ethics (pp. 225-237). Routledge.
2. Weiser, B. (2019). $3 million settlement in Kalief Browder lawsuit is approved. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/nyregion/kalief-browder-settlement.html

Introduction

Incorporating Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development in the Criminal Justice System Assonia Sims Professor Earl Pinkney November 18, 2018, This paper will identify and discuss three levels of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development and how to incorporate them into the criminal justice system. Next, it will discuss how police officers can use Kohlberg’s stages to evaluate three types of criminals at different stages of moral development. Then, it will illustrate several ways in which to address self-interest and the pursuit of pleasure to prevent police corruption. Finally, this paper will identify and discuss three PrimaFacie duties that all law enforcement should fulfill. In order to be able to incorporate Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development into the criminal justice system, one should be able to identify and understand what each stage is.

Understanding Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Moral development is defined in three levels, with specific stages attached to each level, according to Kohlberg. They are levels 1) Preconventional Morality, 2) Conventional Morality, and 3) Postconventional Morality (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). The first level is conventional morality. Obedience and punishment are considered. This level deals with children aged ten or younger. They are taught rules, values, and societal norms early in life by their parents, and they learn what behaviors their parents will allow and which actions have consequences attached. Kohlberg attributes this conventional way of thinking to children drawing near to a “self-interest” of values driven by external forces or outside influences and consequences. (Williams & Arrigo 2012).

For example, an adult with knowledge of the laws and good morals and values would think twice about the consequences of committing a crime. A child, on the other hand, with no real knowledge of the law may commit a crime because they understand their parent’s punishment and who have not yet developed morals and values based on societal views will think more about what they can get out of committing a crime as opposed to the consequences. Their behavior is purely based on punishment vs. reward (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). To address this level, officers should ensure that whether the behavior is good or bad, everyone is treated fairly according to the appropriate level of punishment or reward based on the laws and ethical and moral judgment.

The second level is conventional morality. Interpersonal and/or social relationships are formed. This is manifested in children who have reached their teen years and have developed an understanding of social norms, laws, morals, and values. They have simply learned right from wrong and think more selflessly as opposed to children in level one. At the conventional level, people have a strong belief that they should follow the rules set by their family, law, and society and make decisions that demonstrate they think about others. Kohlberg attributes this way of thinking to a desire to be accepted by others (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). For example, a person with good morals and values will avoid unethical behaviors that violate family rules, laws, and social norms because this is what is accepted. A criminal may see themselves as deprived in some way and justify their behavior by thinking that laws and social norms are wrong as it relates to their unethical behavior.

Utilizing Kohlberg’s Stages in Criminal Evaluation

The criminal seeks to please others rather than be accepted by them. In the third and final level, known as post-conventional morality, youth have now reached adulthood. Viewpoints about life and the world around them have changed, and care for self and others is important. More consideration is placed on the values that should be upheld in society instead of their personal values. More self-reflection has occurred at this level; societal norms are incorporated within as opposed to external factors or how others view morality. For example, an adult at this level will not commit crimes because they value laws and the right to live.

The criminal mind, on the other side, does not care about the consequences and will commit the crime (W. et al., 1985). 1. Since there are different levels of crime and different types of criminals, officers could address each type by asking the series of questions that Kohlberg asked in the “Heinz dilemma”: Should the person have committed said crime? 2. Would it change anything if said crime was not committed? 3. Would it make a difference if said crime was committed against someone known or a stranger? 4. Should the criminal be arrested for said crime? In asking this series of questions, officers will be able to identify how moral reasoning morphs over time, and this should help them to be able to make the most ethical and fair decision at any level.

Now, that is not to say that civilians are the only criminals out there. This is a moral issue that exists within the criminal justice system as well. It is called “corruption,” which can be defined as an abuse of authority. Indeed, the very people that are sworn to uphold the law also break the law. Why? Because they are human first and law enforcement second, this type of behavior will never stop. It can, however, be curtailed. The steps necessary to reduce this corrupt way of thinking are to first revise and implement a more stringent code of conduct that heightens the focus on ethics and integrity within law enforcement. Second, officer training. The training received while at the academy is not as realistic as the on-the-job training one can receive.

Based on what division an officer works in, textbook learning will not be enough to prepare them for the “real” dangers they will face. If they are narcotics, they need to be trained for that. If they are homicide, they need that training. The third step should address raises or other incentives. Officers do a tough and dangerous job every day and should be compensated for that. This will greatly reduce the desire to act in self-interest or the pursuit of pleasure (White, 1999). According to W.D. Ross, the duties officers are sworn to uphold are defined as prima facia duties or conditional duties, which are binding unless overridden or trumped by another duty or duties (Williams & Arrigo). These duties include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, non-maleficence, beneficence, self-improvement, and justice. The three most important that all law enforcement should fulfill are 1) duties of fidelity.

Conclusion

This includes keeping promises, agreements, and contracts, which will allow others to be able to trust you. 2) duties of non-maleficence. This duty involves not harming and preventing harm to others in reference to health and safety, to name a few. 3) duties of self-improvement. This is done by continuing to improve knowledge in order to be effective and efficient in specific duties and maintaining good health (Garrett, 2004). Is understanding all of what has been discussed the end all, be all? Absolutely not. Will crime still exist? Absolutely. Having knowledge of why people choose to commit a crime can ultimately have a great impact on patterns of thinking, and this has the potential to address moral reasoning and decrease criminal activity.

References

1. https://www.cs.umb.edu/~hdeblois/285L/Kohlberg’ sMoralStages.htm http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm
2. https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
3. https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/hwhite.html Williams, C. R. & Arrigo, B. A. (2012). Ethics,
4. Crime, and Criminal Justice (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall / Pearson.

Introduction

Sociology is beneficial to society because it offers both micro and macro-level theories that explain societal problems. These theories are valuable because they explain why social problems exist and how they can be alleviated. One problem that has been prevalent throughout history is crime. The purpose of this essay is to examine how lack of personal accountability contributes to crime, along with how social factors described in the Conflict Theory help perpetuate this problem.

Body

Understanding the Societal Framework

For societies to function properly, laws exist to give citizens rules by which to live their lives. These laws exist to protect both the state and the individual. Laws that prevent rape, assault, and murder safeguard individuals. Laws that govern selective service, taxes, and eminent domain protect the state. When laws are broken, crimes are committed. Society punishes lawbreakers to provide restitution, deter future crimes, rehabilitate offenders, and remove violent individuals from society for safety reasons.

According to free will, individuals are sovereign over their actions. Although personal accountability must be taken into consideration when examining crime, it is shortsighted to think that societal forces aren’t a contributing factor. These forces combine with individual action and free will to create most of the crimes that are committed. The Conflict Theory, which is a macro-level theory, explains how disadvantaged populations are affected by crime. Norms and laws are created for those in power and don’t have any standard of right and wrong. People from poor and lower-income backgrounds are more likely to be labeled as a criminal than those of middle and upper-income backgrounds. (Kendall, 2017)

Lack of Personal Accountability and Crime

According to the Conflict Theory, there is a power divide in all societies, and individuals and groups within these societies are in constant conflict to gain power and resources (Hagan & Shedd). Groups use their power to receive certain advantages in society. One of these is improved treatment within the criminal justice system. If someone is from a powerful group, they can commit crimes and be convicted at a reduced rate due to their resources. Conversely, if someone is a member of a minority group, institutional racism will make them more likely to be convicted and receive a harsher sentence.

Anomie happens when social control discontinues due to the loss of shared values and the sense of purpose in society. (Kendall, 2017) Robert Merton’s theories of anomie explain why individuals and groups engage in deviance. Association and social realities cause people to deviate from societal norms in response to the inequalities of the capitalist system. The criminal justice system is narrowing in on and becoming less lenient on deviant and criminal behavior committed by people of specific categories. “For example, research shows that young, single, urban males are more likely to be perceived as criminals and receive stricter sentences in courts (Rehavi & Starr, 2012).” (Kendall, 2017)

An example of this is affluence, which has a definite effect on how those individuals are treated in the criminal justice system in the United States. The United States criminal justice system is undoubtedly advantageous to those with affluence. When wealthy individuals are charged with a crime, they have the resources to hire talented legal teams that routinely eclipse the talent of the prosecution. This increases the likelihood that wealthy individuals will be exonerated even when they are, in fact, guilty. For example, look at the O.J. Simpson trial. The list of incriminating evidence against O.J. is astronomical: hair evidence, fiber evidence, shoe evidence, blood, and glove evidence. However, O.J. Simpson had the advantage because his lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, made the trial about race, not about double murder. O.J. Simpson had money and a lawyer to use his race in Simpson’s favor. O.J. Simpson would not have gotten away with this double murder had he been the average lower-income background African-American male.

Conflict Theory and the Dynamics of Crime

On the contrary, when low-income individuals are criminally charged, it’s common for them to be unable to afford bail or private counsel. This causes them to await their trials in jail, away from their families and places of employment. When cases finally begin, these individuals are often represented by public defenders who lack the investment, talent, and time to take their cases seriously. This leads to an increase in guilty verdicts.

Race also affects crime in the United States. The United States has a history of using its criminal justice system to suppress minorities. African Americans, for example, endured hundreds of years of slavery only to be victimized by Jim Crow Laws shortly after they were emancipated in the South. These laws, which made segregation legal, made it a crime for blacks to occupy restaurants, use public restrooms, or sit outside of their assigned seating in public buses (Iowa Department of Human Rights). When blacks violated these discriminatory laws, they were considered to be committing crimes and were identified as criminals.

Decriminalization and Societal Change

Although the Jim Crow Laws have been abolished, there are more recent examples of how race has affected crime in the United States. An example is the discrepancies between cocaine and crack-related convictions. Although these substances are chemically identical, sentences have been historically one hundred times harsher for crack-related offenses (Walsh & Walsh, 2017). African Americans are statistically poorer than whites, so they are, therefore, more likely to use crack versus cocaine due to its cheaper price. This resulted in blacks being more likely to be convicted for crack-related offenses, which carried a much harsher sentence. This was disastrous for the black community.

Rather than providing community outreach, prevention, or substance abuse treatment, African Americans were routinely sentenced to lengthy prison sentences. This separated families and increased the prevalence of single-mother households in black neighborhoods, which created a snowball effect for many of these already struggling families. In addition to this, it also created criminal records for offenders, which made difficult sentences to access higher education, employment, and housing. An example of institutional racism within the criminal justice system is the fact that prisons are made up of 37% African Americans, despite their population being only 13% of the general population (Walsh & Walsh, 2017).

Personally, I believe the change needs to start with the criminal justice system. If we are choosing to imprison people as punishment, we need to establish a form of rehabilitation for those who wish to conform to society’s norms. Rehabilitation is necessary for progress. The definition of insanity becomes more prevalent to me daily. How can we keep putting people behind bars without any rehabilitation? How can we expect different results from doing the same actions repeatedly? Those who are incarcerated will do the exact same acts of deviance and crime that got them arrested in the first place. As well, I feel society needs to be a little more understanding that not everyone is raised in the same background. Many people are taught from a young age what others are taught is wrong. In that aspect, everyone is raised differently, so the result is always going to be different. Decriminalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution and recreational drug use would be extremely positive for our society. Fewer people going to jail for crimes that aren’t physically endangering will save taxpayers money, save people from suffering in an endless cycle, and cause crime rates to lower.

Conclusion

To recap, there are obvious prejudices within the U.S. criminal justice system. This system treats people preferably when they’re wealthy and members of non-minority groups. The Conflict Theory theorizes this is a result of people in positions of power creating an unfair system to protect their resources. Individuals with affluence can use their resources to gain an advantage in this system to maintain their wealth and freedom. On the contrary, individuals who are poor or who are members of historically persecuted groups, such as African Americans, are treated harsher by this system. Although individual action and personal accountability must be taken into account when evaluating crime and how it impacts different populations, the larger picture must also be taken into account, which the Conflict Theory helps accomplish.

References

1. Kendall, D. E. (2017). Sociology in our times: The essentials. Cengage Learning.
2. Hagan, F. E., & Shedd, C. (n.d.). Power Conflict Theory. In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer.
3. Rehavi, M. M., & Starr, S. B. (2012). Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences. The Journal of Political Economy, 122(6), 1320-1354. doi:10.1086/668812
4. Walsh, J. M., & Walsh, C. A. (2017). Crack cocaine sentencing disparities in the United States: A reflection of a systemic bias against impoverished communities. Race and Social Problems, 9(3), 187-201. doi:10.1007/s12552-017-9217-5
5. Iowa Department of Human Rights. (n.d.). Jim Crow Laws. https://humanrights.iowa.gov/cas/jim-crow-laws