More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal justice system needs reform essay
The criminal justice system reform essay
The criminal justice system reform essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) is a relatively recent law to be enacted, and increasing controversy was quick to follow. The American Civil Liberties Union describes CFA as a set of laws that “allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime.” In present-day America, police now have the authoritative power to take one’s possessions if they deem it necessary. This gives rise to questions that place CAF under scrutiny. What is the extent to which one’s possession(s) can be taken? What are the factors that give justification to CAF? Does that kind of power go awry in the hands of the wrong cop? All of these questions are important to consider. People conventionally expect a jail or prison sentence …show more content…
More specifically, one’s constitutional right to a fair trial is simply unavailable to certain individuals. “The adversarial system doesn’t work as it should when disadvantaged and unsophisticated individuals are forced to stand alone in defending their property against superior governmental resources.” You cannot do anything in that situation, except shake your head and go to prison. In our present-day America there is going to be somebody higher up, that is profiting from the incarceration of inmates. It seems oddly coincidental that it would be made as unfair as possible for drug offenders, when the final verdict is …show more content…
The history of the Drug War has a clear and distinctive impact on how such forfeiture laws came into play. It also serves as further evidence to say that the war on drugs is not about drugs. Individuals have no choice to oblige officers if they are told that their property must be forfeited, on top of the fact that they must face whatever convictions await them in court. Lower class individuals are not being given state-appointed lawyers when they cannot afford their own. This makes it improbable for them to adequately defend themselves in a court of law, given the chance. Through this, connections can be made between high incarceration rates, and the profit generated to high status individuals through prisoner incarceration. Reform for CAF is slow, but nevertheless steady in its quest for fairness, given to individuals of all class backgrounds. The supreme court is aware of the wrongdoings present in CAF, yet they are reluctant to invoke change themselves. Inevitably, the larger issue of the drug war must be tackled in order to abolish CAF. Only then can we progress as a country, one which bases itself upon objective
“The nation 's first drug court was established in Florida in 1989, and there are now more than 2,500 operating nationwide” (Rankinf and Teegardin). From that moment in 1989, America’s judicial system decided to re-evaluate how the courts had been approaching drug addiction and crime. Instead
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
Mass Incarceration: The New Jim Crow is the direct consequence of the War on Drugs. That aims to reduce, prevent and eradicate drug use in America through punitive means. The effect of the war on drug policies returned de jure discrimination, denied African Americans justice and undermined the rule of law by altering the criminal justice system in ways that deprive African Americans civil rights and citizenship. In the “New Jim Crow” Alexandra argues that the effects of the drug war policies are not unattended consequences but coordinated by designed to deny African Americans opportunity to gain wealth, be excluded from gaining employment and exercise civil rights through mass incarceration and felony conviction. The war on drugs not only changes the structure of the criminal justice system, it also changes the ways that police officers, prosecutors and judges do their jobs.
Mass incarceration has put a large eye-sore of a target on the United States’ back. It is hurting our economy and putting us into more debt. It has considerable social consequences on children and ex-felons. Many of these incarcerations can be due to the “War on Drugs”. We should contract the use of incarceration.
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
The Judiciary Branch of the United States government is responsible for interpreting the law. Those involved with this branch determine the meaning of the laws and decide what to do with those who break them. Because of a drug movement that took place through the 1980s, the courts have severely punished those who break laws associated to drugs; Congress is now trying to step in to change the way the Judiciary Branch is forced to punish such criminals. Congress has been busy the past couple of years evaluating the proper sentencing of those convicted of drug crimes. Many men and women of Congress are joining forces in an attempt to come up with a solution to propose as an amendment. Our elected leaders believe the need for the reform of drug crimes is due because of the number of cases and number of years those convicted are spending in prisons. Because of the drug wars that took place in the United States, the minimum sentence has been set so high today. Drug reform is needed in the United States, and those convicted of drug crimes with improper sentences need to have their sentence reduced. 1
According to the Oxford Index, “whether called mass incarceration, mass imprisonment, the prison boom, or hyper incarceration, this phenomenon refers to the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment and by the concentration of imprisonment among young, African American men living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.” It should be noted that there is much ambiguity in the scholarly definition of the newly controversial social welfare issue as well as a specific determination in regards to the causes and consequences to American society. While some pro arguments cry act as a crime prevention technique, especially in the scope of the “war on drugs’.
Living in the twenty first century Americans would like to believe that they are living in the land of the free, where anyone and everyone can live an ordinary life without worrying that they will be arrested on the spot for doing absolutely nothing. The sad truth, with the evidence to prove it, is that this American Dream is not all that it appears to be. It has been corrupted and continues to be everyday by the racism that is in the criminal justice system of America. Racism has perpetuated the corruption of the criminal justice system from aspect of the initial stop, the sentencing in court, all the way to the life of an inmate in the prison. There seems to be nothing stopping it as it continues to grow
In the media the “war on drugs” is depicted as extremely dangerous and full of foreign cartels. But, this isn’t necessarily the case. Almost half of U.S. prisoners are convicted for nonviolent drug-related offenses. These crimes come with the longest sentences for nonviolent offenses. Instead of persecuting large cartels or dangerous drug rings, the police are arresting petty drug dealers, who are usually men of color. Latino and African-American men are These long sentences are uncalled for, while also being a detriment to the incarceration system. The longer the nonviolent offenders are there and the more the police continue their “war on drugs”, the more overcrowded the prisons
Time may pass and personal morals may change, but one of the strengths of the United States of America is its unwavering dedication to justice. Throughout time, this country’s methods and laws have grown and adapted, but the basis of the law enforcement’s work has remained the same: the safety and interest of the people.
Ethics play a huge role in a police officers line of work. Since police are given such a high degree of trust and authority, it can unfortunately be very easy for an officer to fall into some unethical behavior. This can range from just minor acts that are frowned upon, to actual downright illegal activity. Even though there are a countless number of acts and behaviors that can be considered unethical, in the following paper I will focus primarily on those incidents involving police officers who steal for their own personal gain, and discuss my position on the issue.
Police officers have enough power as it is and with civil asset forfeiture, they are given even more power. They are allowed to take our homes, our money, and our prized possessions if they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s involved in a crime. Civil asset forfeitures also vary by state. Most people don’t even go after the police in court for the stuff that they seize from them due to the process they have to go through. This cases tend to appear as United States of America v. 120,000 dollars in currency. Civil asset forfeiture is something that needs to be put to a stop because of the little limit to what can be done with the money and some of the people not being directly affected by it.
Not only has the drug war failed to reduce violent and property crime, but, by shifting criminal justice resources (the police, courts, prisons, probation officers, etc.) away from directly fighting such crime, the drug war has put citizens’ lives and property at greater risk, Benson and Rasmussen contend. “Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might have to be sacrificed.” To support this conclusion, Benson and Rasmussen compare data on drug law enforcement and crime trends between states, and debunk numerous misconceptions about drug use and criminality.
I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those. I actually believe in our legal system, and I believe in justice. I believe in justice as an ideal that we strive for, and that is what it means to me. The legal system, when looked at closer, is not justice but instead judgment. You can be punished when found guilty, in a number of ways, but who knows if they’re “fair” punishments, it’s all a matter of opinion.