The Evolution and Fairness of the U.S. Criminal Justice System
In my Sociology of Criminal Justice class, we are delving into the social transformations in the United States that have significantly influenced the shift in criminal justice policies, particularly towards a more punitive approach. This shift has led to harsher punishments aimed at incapacitating and deterring individuals from committing offenses. The class also investigates the various facets of this punitive policy and the resulting consequences over the past few decades. One topic that has particularly resonated with me is the concept of fairness and what it means for individuals who have violated the law.
Throughout this essay, I will explore the notion of fairness alongside other themes from my Sociology of Criminal Justice class, as well as related topics from our Human Dimensions of Organizations course. Over the semester, we have examined the procedures for punishing individuals, the authorities responsible for administering punishment, the effectiveness of these processes, and potential areas for reform.
Contents
Historical Context and Policy Shifts
We learned that Richard Nixon was the first presidential candidate to leverage the fear of crime as a central theme in his campaign, advocating for a significant shift in criminal justice policy (Kelly, 2016). The period from 1960 to 1968 witnessed an 88% increase in crime rates, partly due to political instability following the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Kelly, 2016). Although this policy shift seemed logical at the time, current evidence suggests it has not effectively deterred crime. Many individuals cycle through the criminal justice system, with 85% of released inmates being rearrested within nine years, and 55% reincarcerated within five years (Kelly, 2016). This punitive approach has also imposed trillions of dollars in costs on the United States over the past forty years (Kelly, 2016). These findings prompt a critical examination of the fairness and efficacy of the American Criminal Justice System.
Understanding Fairness in the Justice System
In the Human Dimensions course, we discussed the importance of fairness to individuals. People desire to feel that they have received what they deserve, without being shortchanged, and that the process was conducted correctly. The American Criminal Justice System prides itself on delivering justice to those who deserve it while protecting procedural rights through due process. However, the system often treats individuals as if they all had the same opportunities and challenges, which is not the case. People are born into diverse communities with varying struggles and circumstances.
Statistics reveal that substance abuse prevalence rates among those in the justice system are six to eight times higher than in the general population (Kelly, 2016). Approximately 80% of criminal offenders in the justice system abuse drugs and/or alcohol (Kelly, 2016). Substance abuse affects brain function, altering the brain's reward system and impairing cognitive abilities such as working memory, planning, and behavioral inhibition (Kelly, 2016).
Mental illness is another significant issue within the U.S. criminal justice system. Statistics indicate that 25% of the U.S. population has a diagnosable mental disorder, with 6% suffering from serious mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression (Kelly, 2016). In state prisons, 73% of women and 55% of men have at least one mental health problem (Kelly, 2016). Research shows that mental illness often predates incarceration and can be exacerbated by it, with mild symptoms worsening in the prison environment.
Addressing Underlying Causes and Fairness
Numerous factors, such as poverty, trauma, intellectual deficits, limited educational opportunities, and homelessness, can drive individuals to commit crimes (Kelly, 2016). While these factors do not excuse criminal behavior, they highlight the need for a more nuanced approach. Treating one person like another without considering their unique circumstances is counterproductive. The system's purpose is to prevent recidivism, but it has largely failed. Those who reoffend are likely to continue reoffending without meaningful intervention. Nixon's "tough on crime" policy was rooted in the belief that harsh punishment was fair for offenders. However, this class argues that taking into account circumstances like mental illness and substance abuse is crucial for reducing recidivism and breaking the cycle (Kelly, 2016). Distributive justice should prioritize outcomes based on individual needs.
Procedural Fairness and Sentencing Practices
Throughout the semester, I have learned that the procedures designed to protect individuals from excessive punishment or wrongful conviction are often inadequately implemented. The American Justice System transitioned from indeterminate to determinate sentencing (Nicole Hendrix, 2013). While indeterminate sentencing allowed more flexibility, determinate sentencing limits judicial discretion, imposing fixed sentences for specific crimes and repeat offenders (Nicole Hendrix, 2013). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines further restrict judges' power, setting standardized sentences and eliminating parole (Kelly, 2016). These guidelines overlook factors such as age, race, mental health, intellectual capacity, and substance abuse that could influence sentencing outcomes. Prosecutors negotiate plea deals behind closed doors, often pressuring defendants with the threat of harsher punishment (Kelly, 2016).
The Need for Reform and a Fairer System
Once again, the fairness of the American Criminal Justice System comes into question. How can defendants trust a system seemingly designed against them? The procedural elements of the system often fail to deliver just outcomes. Even after serving their sentences, former inmates face significant challenges in securing employment, housing, and stability (Kelly, 2016). Their punishment extends beyond incarceration, leading to further involvement with the justice system. If they had substance abuse issues or mental illnesses, these conditions persist after release due to a lack of treatment (Kelly, 2016).
During our class discussions, we explored potential reforms to address the issues causing individuals to cycle in and out of the system without addressing root problems. The current prison system has become a de facto treatment facility for mental health and substance abuse issues, despite lacking the resources and expertise to fulfill this role effectively. Drawing from our Human Dimensions of Organization course, conflicts of interest and cognitive conflicts emerge as relevant concepts.
Cognitive conflicts arise when disputing the truth of a matter. Dr. William Kelly suggests establishing a panel of experts to assess defendants, accounting for mitigating circumstances when determining sentences (Kelly, 2016). Additionally, the current system's focus on punishment rather than reducing recidivism represents a conflict of interest. Implementing policies to address these issues may require more effort than some are willing to invest, but achieving a fair and equitable system that benefits all is undeniably just.
The Evolution and Fairness of the U.S. Criminal Justice System. (2020, Apr 24). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/dispute-resolution-in-criminal-justice/
