Problem-solving Criminal Justice Initiative We can all agree that an important goal of the American criminal justice system is rehabilitation. It expects that most, if not all, offenders to learn from his or her wrongdoing and become productive members of society (Ballenstedt, 2008). It is this thinking at the heart of a community-based initiative that is designed to bring law enforcement officials together to form a single concerted effort to identify and address patterns of crime, mitigate the underlying conditions that fuel crime, and engage the community as an active partner (Wolf, Prinicples of Problem-Solving Justice, 2007). It was this effort that identified the problem as failures of the judicial process. These failures included sluggish courts, increased levels of recidivism, and a significant loss of public trust (Ballenstedt, 2008). To solve the problem, the program takes a multifaceted approach to punishment in non-violent cases. Through the program, justices have more options available to them when sentencing such offenses as drug possession, prostitution, or even shoplifting. The concept combines social services with punishment in order to reduce reliance on expensive and ineffective short-term jail sentences for non-violent offenders and boost the community’s confidence in the system (Ballenstedt, 2008). This concept, however, is not new. Problem-solving justice programs can trace their roots to several innovations in policing including community and problem-oriented policing. This was the basis for replacing law enforcement’s traditional role of responding, identifying patterns of crime, mitigating the underlying conditions, and engaging the community (Wolf, Prinicples of Problem-Solving Justice, 2007). New p... ... middle of paper ... ... 2008).” Today, states are at various stages of attempting to coordinate problem-solving courts. These courts are often complex, involve new partnerships, new roles, and of course new players both in and outside the courthouse. It is important to understand that each problem-solving court will be shaped by local circumstances. As such, problem-solving justice remains as much an uncharted territory today as when it was first introduced. Works Cited Ballenstedt, B. (2008, May 1). :FEATURES: :Imperfect Justice (5/1/08) -- GovExec.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Government Executive.com: http://www.govexec.com/features/0508-01/0508-01s3.htm Wolf, R. (2009). A New Way of Doing Business. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Court Innovation. Wolf, R. (2007). Prinicples of Problem-Solving Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Court Innovation.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
Oliver, N. E. (2006). Influences on Judicial Decision Making. In N. E. Oliver, The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 371-374). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Crime & justice in America: An introduction to criminal justice (2nd ed.). Waltham, MA, USA: Anderson Publishing (Elsevier).
Problem-oriented policing presents an alternative approach to policing that has gained attention in recent years among many police agencies. Problem-oriented policing grew out of twenty years of research into police practices, and differs from traditional policing strategies in four significant ways.
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Juvenile crime in the United States is ballooning out of control along with adult crimes, and politicians and law enforcement officials don’t seem to be able to do anything about it. Despite tougher sentencing laws, longer probation terms, and all other efforts of lawmakers, the crime and recidivism rates in our country can’t be reduced. The failure of these recent measures along with new research and studies by county juvenile delinquency programs point to the only real cure to the U.S.’s crime problem: prevention programs. The rising crime rates in the United States are of much worry to most of the U.S.’s citizens, and seems to be gaining a sense of urgency. Crime ranks highest in nationwide polls as Americans’ biggest concern (Daltry 22). For good reason- twice as many people have been victims of crimes in the 1990s as in the 1970s (Betts 36). Four times as many people under the age of eighteen were arrested for homicide with a handgun in 1993 than in 1983 (Schiraldi 11A). These problems don’t have a quick fix solution, or even an answer that everyone can agree on. A study by the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy has found no deterrent effects of the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law recently put into effect by politicians (Feinsilber 1A). It has been agreed however that there is not much hope of rehabilitating criminals once started on a life of crime. Criminologist David Kuzmeski sums up this feeling by saying, “If society wants to protect itself from violent criminals, the best way it can do it is lock them up until they are over thirty years of age.... I am not aware of any treatment that has been particularly successful.” The problem with his plan is that our country simply doesn’t have the jail space, or money to ...
The next component of the criminal justice system is the court. These courts are ran by judges that make sure the law is followed and oversees what happens in the courtroom. The courts are put in place so that the judges can decide whether to release offenders before the trial, except or reject plea agreements, or sentence convicted offenders (Hoffmann, 2011). The courts provide a set of guidelines that are used to resolve disputes and to test and enforce laws in a fair and rational
Community oriented policing has been around for over 30 years, and promotes and supports organizational strategies to address the causes, and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem solving tactics. The way community policing works is it requires the police and citizens to work together to increase safety for the public. Each community policing program is different depending on the needs of the community. There have been five consistent key elements of an effective community oriented policing program: Adopting community service as the overarching philosophy of the organization, making an institutional commitment to community policing that is internalized throughout the command structure, emphasizing geographically decentralized models of policing that stress services tailored to the needs of individual communities rather than a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire jurisdiction, empowering citizens to act in partnership with the police on issues of crime and more broadly defined social problems, for example, quality-of-life issues, and using problem-oriented or problem-solving approaches involving police personnel working with community members. Community oriented policing has improved the public’s perception of the police in a huge way. Community policing builds more relationships with the
Over the past 30 years, the criminal justice systems sentencing and corrections practices have changed immensely. Going from a rehabilitative approach in the early twentieth century, to the current uniform approach of the justice model in the 1970s (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2001). These changes have had an immense impact on probationary practices and terms. Under the rehabilitative models, probations goal was to focus on individualize treatment that would work to better the offender, help make him/her a productive individual and community member. A focus was placed on the criminal, rather than the crime. However, with the increase in crime rates during the 1960s, the rehabilitative approach to crime quickly ...
Approaches to crime prevention have emerged over time and are demonstrated in different solutions, practices, and policies executed by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community. Some of the dominant approaches to crime prevention currently used by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community are: situational crime prevention, crime prevention through social development, crime prevention through environmental design, community crime prevention, reduction of recidivism, and policing. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the dominant approaches used for crime prevention and analyze which approaches are most effective. I will identify and apply at least four approaches used in law enforcement, legislation, courts, corrections, family, and community within the crime prevention programs.