Introduction: General Evolution of Criminal Justice Policy over the Last 50 Years
Dwelling upon the changes which occurred over the last 50 years in the policy development of the USA, it should be stated that the role of the federal government has incredibly increased. If at the moment of writing the Constitution of the USA most criminal justice responsibilities and rights were given to states and local government with the idea that they can cope with criminal behavior of its citizens, so about 50 years ago the system began to change and the intrusion of the federal government became inevitable. Bidinotto (1996) states that “justice has added over 800 agents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 700 Drug Enforcement Administration agents, and over 1,200 federal prosecutors in just the last seven years” (n.p.). Isn’t it the main confirmation that the impact of federal criminal justice system over the state one increases? Additionally, if in 1787 federal courts considered three crimes, now this number has increased up to 3,000. Criminal justice system has considerably changed over the last 50 years that affected the policy development in such components of the system as police, courts and corrections.
Historical Development of Police Policies
Police policies were changing for many times and with various durations. To apply the most effective practices in the work of police much work has been done. Police have always been using its power, however, some specific situations in 1970s made the policy makers reconsider police forces and create guidelines aimed at helping those structure the work and make it safer (Marion, & Oliver, 2006).
Dwelling upon the changes in the police policing from historical perspective, it should be stated that in eighteenth century people were obliged to protect themselves and their families. The most significant change occurred in nineteenth century when police became a guarantee of order in American society. However, police are not the only guarantee of the modern order on the streets of the USA. Many private protection associations have been created with the purpose to maintain order. The existence of these agencies cannot put police in the dominant position or order implementation. This is one of the specific changes which occurred in the police policing for the last five decades (Zedner, 2006).
Dwelling upon police policy changes, we cannot but mention Miranda v. Arizona, case (1966) where police were obliged to announce the rights to the suspected person. Police should make sure that a person is aware of his/her rights before making him/her confess or reject the committed actions. Nowadays, much attention is paid to research and reports as the source of policymaking. Therefore, the police investigation results may be used for policy development (Petrosino, & Lavenberg, 2007). Therefore, it may be concluded that the changes like the crimes for the last 50 years affected policy development in general.
Historical development of Court Policies
Dwelling upon the change of the policies in the relation to court agencies, it should be stated that the creation of the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation was one of the most important steps in the criminal justice policing. Juvenile criminals are not sent to jails, but specific actions are implemented with the purpose to impose other, more humanist and appropriate actions.
According to Frase (2011) “by far the most important sentencing policy change in the past fifty years was the decision to replace the former indeterminate sentencing system with sentencing guidelines” (n.p.). Considering this change, it may be concluded that nowadays courts are guided by specific norms, policies and regulations which prescribe the court procedure, evidence implementation and sentencing. Having become legal actions, courts have appeared to be the guarantees of the order and just imposition of sentencing. It should be mentioned that the guidelines were initiated in 1980’ in Minnesota and in a couple of years were spread all over the USA. Many states adopted similar practices as the implementation of this policy in the society is a big step further in independent jurisdiction.
Many reasons have been offered for creating sentencing guidelines, the most specific among them are as follows, prevention of the prisons’ overcrowding, elimination of the discrimination, and making sentencing political independent (Frase, 2011). Even though many positive effects from sentencing guidelines are noticed, society has sharpened in perceiving the courts system change. On the one hand, discrimination is reduced. However, on the other hand, biased attitude to recidivists remains vital and prisons are mostly fulfilled with violent and repeat offenders (Frase, 2011).
Therefore, it may be concluded that many changes in the court policies have been implemented. The adoption of the sentencing guidelines is one of the most specific and necessary changes. Such regulation helps implement sentencing according to legal acts, without prejudiced attitude and discrimination.
Historical Development of Corrections Policies
The last 50 years were significant for corrections and their role in policy development. There are several documents which affected the corrections agencies greatly. California Three Strikes Law Statute (1994) and Consent Decree (2009) are some of these documents. The document of 1994 increased the number of inmates in prison due to the longer time of criminals staying in jails. However, due to the changes in the society and its opinion, overcrowded prisons violated Fourteens Amendment of the constitution and prevented imprisoned people get appropriate life conditions, medical treatment etc. Due to this state of affairs, the document of 2004 imposes to reduce the number of criminals in prison by means of rehabilitating those who are convinced for minor drugs disobedience.
The Federal Prison Industries Competition Contracting Act of 2001 is aimed at making prisons not just the punishment institution, but also the rehabilitation one where people are directed at a new life, free from crimes and recidivism (Marion, & Oliver, 2006). The shift from punishment to rehabilitation is one of the central changes for corrections agencies which occurred during the last 50 years. Considering prisons as the places where people get help in correcting behavior is a significant step forward.
One more point should be mentioned. Many sources refer to the differentiation between drugs possession and drugs distribution. The very raising of the problem makes people hope for further changes. Thus, some institutions are interested in reducing the number of incarcerated for drugs possession for personal consumption. This does not go along with drugs distribution which must be punished for sure. Possession of drugs for personal abuse cannot be compared with distribution and similar punishment is unfair. It should be mentioned that local jails and prisons are used for controlling drugs crimes in the US society and may be considered as one more specific idea for the changes in the corrections agencies’ policies occurred for the last decades (Caulkins, & Sevigny, 2005).
Conclusion: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Changes in Criminal Justice Policy over the Last 50 Years
In conclusion, it should be stated that the number of federal agencies has increased not by chance. The crimes boom has led to the federal government activity in the relation to the agencies aimed at “the filing of lawsuits for regulation” (Anderson, 2006, p. 75). Therefore, the satisfaction of the demand on governmental intrusion has been satisfied at the federal agencies have increased dramatically. This impacted the policy development system as most of the legislative acts were adopted on the federal level being either initiated by a specific state or advised for adoption. Federal intrusion into criminal justice policing may be considered both effective as the resources federal government possesses cannot be compared to state ones and ineffective as the political bureaucrats began to use policy development in their personal needs (Anderson, & Jackson, 2004).
It is extremely hard to follow the effectiveness of the changes which occurred in the policies of three components of criminal justice system such as police, courts and corrections as even though much attention is paid to the issues, crimes continue to be committed and people continue be arrested. However, it may be predicted that the absence of the changes considered in the paper would result in more crimes.
Reference List
Anderson, W. (2006). Criminalization as policy: Using federal criminal law as a regulatory device. Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, 31(1), 75-105.
Anderson, W., & Jackson, C. (2004). Law as a weapon. Independent Review, 9(1), 85-97.
Bidinotto, R. J. (1996). Policy forum: Civil liberties and criminal justice. Cato Policy Report. Web.
California Three Strikes Law Statute. (1994). Attorney Search Network. Web.
Caulkins, J. P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2005). How many people does the U.S. imprison for drug use, and who are they? Contemporary Drug Problems, 32(3), 405-428.
Consent Decree: United States of America vs. City of Los Angeles, California, Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Department. (2009). CIVIL NO. 00-11769 GAF.
Frase, R. (2011). Sentencing Policy and Criminal Justice in Minnesota: Past, Present, and Future. Council on Crime and Justice. Web.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2006). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Petrosino, A., & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Best evidence on “what works” for criminal justice decision makers. Western Criminology Review, 8(1), 1-15.
Zedner, L. (2006). Policing before and after the police. British Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 78-96.